Evolutionary roots of conspicuous consumption

It’s sometimes said that people buy products they don’t really need, with money they don’t really have, to impress people they don’t really like. This behavior is known as conspicuous consumption because these consumers want others to see them with the product.

Until now, it has been assumed that conspicuous consumption is irrational and the result of marketing and advertising. New Canadian research challenges these commonly held assumptions.

What the researchers say: “The desire to display or be seen with these products is triggered by an interaction between environmental conditions and one’s evolved biology,” said the study’s principal investigator. “When one is seen owning or using these products a message or signal is sent to onlookers. These messages might signal that one has wealth, physical power, or social status.” Some products could also be used to intimidate others.

This drive to use products as a means of communication is triggered by a gene-environment interaction.

“Genetics is the gun, and the environment is the trigger,” he explained.

In their study, the researchers examined the effect of financial harshness, social harshness, and physically harsh conditions on the desire for signaling products.

They explained that the human brain has evolved to think in a way that favors survival and reproductive success. Through evolution, humans have developed the ability to unconsciously sense subtle changes in environmental conditions that signal the environment is becoming safer or harsher.  

These subtle changes in environmental conditions can unconsciously trigger the desire for products that promote survival, intimidate rivals, and attract a mate.

For example, when the environment is perceived to be harsh and unsafe, the conspicuous display of products that create an image of toughness can provide a protective function by intimidating potential aggressors.

Likewise, beautifying and wealth-signaling products can make one more attractive to potential mates.  They noted, however, that when the environment is perceived to be too harsh, the desire for conspicuous consumption shuts down because people do not want to be noticed.

In their study, the research team examined whether different types of environmental stressors such as social isolation, financial difficulties, and concerns for physical safety, have different effects on the desire for signaling products.

To test how nature-nurture interactions affect product desire, they ran an online experiment that included 315 women and 314 men from across Canada. In a pretest, women were shown images of beautifying and wealth-signaling products and asked to rate how much they desired each item.

The male participants were shown images of wealth-signaling and toughness-signaling products and were then asked to rate how much they desired each item.

Next, the participants were assigned to one of six experimental groups. Once assigned to a group, each participant read a one-page story that evoke feelings of living in one of the following environmental conditions: socially safe, socially harsh, financially secure, financially insecure, physically safe, and physically unsafe.

After reading their assigned story, a product desire post-test was administered. This involved re-rating all the products that were previously shown in the pretest. The results showed that the desire for signalling products varies depending on the type and intensity of the environmental stressor.

The lead author explained that prior studies have correlated mild environmental harshness with increases in desire for signalling products. However, as shown in this study, as financial and physical safety conditions become acute, the desire for signalling products decreases.

What is also interesting, he said, is that there was minimal change in the desire for signalling products when participants were exposed to safe social and harsh social environmental conditions

The researchers said the findings support the perspective that a fundamental shift is needed in how we think about what drives consumer behavior. It should also prompt us to ask if conspicuous consumption is an outcome of a nature-nurture interaction rather than advertising efforts—are marketers wasting money when they try to stimulate product desire through advertising?

Finally, government policymakers should also ask if product desire is an outcome of a nature-nurture interaction. This raises the question of whether advertising bans can be effective at curbing problematic consumer behaviors such as compulsive buying disorders and over consumption.

So, what? The fact that the decision to purchase is a mixture of environment, experience (which the researchers fail to mention) and neurogenetics is fairly obvious to anyone who studies my field of science (behavioral neurogenetics), because it is that combination of factors which is behind all the decisions, conscious and unconscious that we make.

That does not mean, though, that advertising is not one of the environmental—and experiential—factors in play in relation to marketing specific products. It does mean, however, that the social, financial and physical conditions of the buyer need to be taken into account otherwise the promotional money spent may well be wasted.