Psychology and consumer behaviour

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. Intuitive thinking and its imperfections in consumer-decision making, including the following:
2. thinking fast and thinking slow/system 1 and system 2 (Shleifer, 2012)
3. choice blindness (Hall et al., 2010)
4. advertising and false memory (Braun-LaTour et al., 2004)
5. thinking fast and thinking slow/system 1 and system 2 (Shleifer, 2012): System 1 involves thinking fast; it is emotional, automatic, unconscious, and effortless, leading to quick decision-making for everyday products (e.g., milk and bread). System 2 involves thinking slow; it is calculating, conscious, slow, controlled, and effortful, used for expensive items (e.g., car or house).
6. Choice blindness (Hall et al., 2010): This study in a Swedish supermarket with 180 customers asked participants to taste and rate jam and tea. They were then given the less preferred item, but most did not notice the swap, accepting the alternative as their original preference. This indicates blindness to their initial choice.
7. Advertising and false memory (Braun-LaTour et al., 2004): Study 1 (lab study with 66 undergraduates) assigned participants to either a truthful condition (shaking hands with Mickey Mouse) or a false advertisement condition (shaking hands with Bugs Bunny). Participants rated attitude, affect, and likelihood of visiting Disneyland, and reported past memories of visiting. More participants in the false handshake group remembered the false event as true, showing post-event false information influences memory. Study 2 (100 participants) found pictorial information led to more false memory recall than verbal or combined information.
8. Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table A.
9. Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
10. A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include:
11. Named issue – the experimental method. This could include strengths and weaknesses of the experimental method (e.g. control, ecological validity, reliability, etc.). The Hall et al. study is a field study and therefore has good ecological validity as getting shoppers in a supermarket to do the study and sometimes shoppers will be given free products to taste (and possibly also smell) when they shop. On the other hand, the Braun-LaTour study was conducted in a lab-like environment. Although done in a classroom, the participants were aware they were in a study and therefore would not behave as naturally. The experimenter purposefully tried to implant false memories and this would not happen in everyday life.
12. sampling and generalisations – both studies had large samples that are ethnocentric. Hall et al. to Sweden and Braun LaTour to America.
13. usefulness/practical applications – Could argue these studies and theory do not have a use/practical application.
14. situational/individual explanations – the two studies are situational as it is suggesting it is the advertising message or the change in product that leads to the behaviour. The system 1 and system 2 is more individual as different consumers have different thinking styles (although certain products and certain types of purchases are more situational)
15. ethics - both studies involve some deception that could be distressing once revealed at the end of the study.
16. use of questionnaires/self-reports – Both studies involve the use of questionnaires and also quantitative data – accept evaluation points around bias, validity, difficult to draw in depth conclusions, etc. The Braun La Tour also collects qualitative data so has increased validity with both types of data.
17. Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table B.
18. Other appropriate responses should also be credited.