Research

Is shopping good therapy? Depends what you buy

Some people go shopping for a lift when life delivers a blow to the ego, but that purchase may not make them feel better. Marketing researcher Monika Lisjak has found that depending on what people buy, they actually might make themselves feel worse and will perform worse on subsequent tasks.

2015-11-27

Nearly everyone who has experienced a psychological blow to their self-image has tried to compensate by buying something to make himself or herself feel better — the phenomenon popularly known as “retail therapy.” But marketing expert Monika Lisjak has found that depending on what people buy, they actually might make themselves feel worse and will perform worse on subsequent tasks.

The research led by Lisjak, assistant professor of marketing at the W. P. Carey School of Business, shows that people who buy things related to the area in which they failed or felt inadequate were the ones who felt and performed worse after the purchase. People who compensated for their failures by buying things unrelated to the psychological blow, or who were distracted from thinking about it, felt and performed better than the first group of shoppers.

“Sometimes engaging in this compensatory behavior can backfire,” Lisjak said. “The products that were used to fix a problem can actually accentuate a problem by reminding people about the aspect that they were deficient on. It makes them think about their problems and activates a lot of negative affect associated with that episode.”

Prior work on what researchers call “compensatory consumption” confirmed that when people face challenges to their self-image, they shop for things they expect to show accomplishment in that area and to make themselves feel better. A marketer who botched an important presentation, for example, might try to compensate by subscribing to a well-regarded industry magazine or buying the latest stylish suit.

Lisjak wondered, though, if the compensating behavior comes with psychological costs.

When shopping can hurt

Blows to people’s self-image can come in any domain, from feeling inadequate academically or professionally, or in social situations or athletic competitions. Lisjak realized that people use different strategies when compensating for these threats. They might buy products related to the threat — called buying “within domain” — or they might buy products important to them but unrelated to the threat — called buying “across domain.”

Lisjak said her team’s research broke new ground by considering the relationship between the types of psychological threats consumers face and the types of purchases they make, and the consequences of those purchases.

Her team found that when consumers’ self-image in a certain domain was threatened, buying products that signaled accomplishment in that same domain actually made the consumers dwell on their shortcomings. They spent their energy suppressing those negative thoughts instead of exerting self-control or focusing on a task. They were more likely to act on impulse, less likely to complete tasks quickly and accurately.

The marketer whose presentation flopped, for example, could remind himself of that failure whenever he read the magazine or wore the suit. And thinking about that failure might cost him the self-control he needs to perform better the next time.

“Whenever our mind is busy worrying about things, we cannot concentrate on other things,” Lisjak said. "As a result, we may not be as good when we have to write a paper or present a project. We may be more impulsive, so we may eat more unhealthy food than we would otherwise.”

When shopping can help

By contrast, consumers who shop for things unrelated to their problem didn’t dwell on the problem, had more self-control and performed better on tasks, Lisjak’s research also found. She thinks that’s because these consumers find “across-domain” compensation a means of stepping away and getting some relief from their original problem. They can come back to the problem with renewed energy and when they can think more clearly.

“When we don’t feel great in a certain domain,” Lisjak said, “maybe finding relief in other things we’re good at could give us the comfort we need to go back to the problem and try to fix it without relying necessarily on products.”

If shopping for items unrelated to your problem helps you find a way to resolve it, good for you. But you risk losing sight of your original goal, Lisjak warns. It’s one thing to buy concert tickets to get your mind off a bad day at work, but another to book a one-way ticket to Fiji and derail your career altogether.

Lisjak found one more way shopping might help, though it’s less in the consumer’s control. When others complimented people on a purchase, even when the purchase was related to a failure, their self-control and ability to perform tasks returned. Lisjak thinks the social validation gives consumers a sense of having fulfilled their goals and makes up for the loss in self-regulation.

How consumers cope, perform

Lisjak and her fellow researchers sought to test their hypothesis that compensating for a psychological blow within the same domain would increase consumers’ rumination about their failings, which would undermine their ability to self-regulate. Those who experienced a psychological blow in one domain and compensated for it in another, however, wouldn’t suffer the same consequences.

To get to their results, these researchers conducted five experiments between fall 2012 and winter 2013, using more than 600 students at three universities. In each experiment, they had participants recall a psychological threat, offered participants the chance for compensation either within or across domains and observed the effects on participants’ subsequent behavior.

In one experiment, participants wrote about times they had felt like academic or social failures, then about possessions that made them feel like academic or social successes. They then were allowed to eat as much candy as they wanted. The next experiment had participants also write about times they felt like academic or social failures, but some then wrote about playing brainy board games or fun party games, while others were distracted by completing unrelated tasks. All then were told to solve as many math problems as they could.

In both cases, those who failed in one domain and compensated in the same domain did poorly later in controlling their impulses and in concentrating on mental tasks. Those who compensated in a different domain or who were distracted didn’t suffer the same lack of self-control or concentration.

The next set of experiments aimed to find out what caused the drop in self-control and concentration. In one, some participants were asked about an academic failure and offered gifts that signaled competence, while others were offered gifts that signaled success in a different domain (creativity). Those who were offered gifts in the same domain in which they have experienced a failure reported experiencing more unwanted thoughts and feelings of discomfort than those who were offered gifts in a different domain. These unwanted thoughts, in turn, undermined people’s performance on a subsequent math task that required concentration. Those who didn’t ruminate about negative experiences didn’t suffer the same lack of concentration.

The final experiment again had participants write about failures and offered them gifts that signaled competence. Some were told they had chosen wisely, while others received no feedback. Both groups performed a color-matching task that required concentration, and then were surveyed about their feelings toward the gifts.

In that case, those who had been complimented on gifts that normally would remind them of their failures performed better than those who had not been complimented. They also performed the same as those whose gifts were unrelated to the failures they had experienced.

Lisjak wants to continue exploring the differences she found in compensatory consumption. She’s interested in how people choose which domain to shop in and other strategies they use to cope with blows to their self-image.

The bottom line

For consumers: It’s better to focus on solving your problem than to buy products in hopes of boosting your self-image.

• The research tells consumers, “Oftentimes you think that when you don’t feel good, you just go to the store and life would be great. And you know what? It’s not that easy,” Lisjak said. “Sometimes products are not going to do the work for you. You have to improve what you are not good on, and just buying products that signal certain desired traits will not be enough.”
• If you just have to shop, you would be better off shopping in a domain that is important to you but is different from the one you’re feeling bad about. That boost could give you the confidence and energy you need to get back to solving your initial problem. For marketers: Lisjak acknowledges that because consumers buy products for more than function, it is important in marketing to link products to people’s goals and identities.
• But she doesn’t want marketers to use her research to take advantage of consumers’ vulnerabilities. She would rather see them help consumers gain strength by shopping across domains, then going back and solving their problems.
• “Marketers could show or nudge consumers to better cope with a negative episode,” she said.

Consumer Behavior Marketing