Orient Causation Consistently

Suppose you operate a store which offers two nutritional supplements to shoppers, with each supplement claiming on the label to amp up a sense of calmness. The Emonox label explains that it accomplishes this by blocking reabsorption of a hormone in the nervous system. The Tymonox label explains that this supplement amps up a sense of calmness by boosting levels of a hormone in the nervous system. Which of the two supplements are your shoppers likely to consider to be more effective?
     Please stop reading for a minute now to consider not only your answer, but also why you’ve concluded that’s the right answer.
     The University of Chicago researchers whose study design I used to develop that scenario introduced their report by noting how marketers sometimes explain to consumers a products’ effectiveness with a description of decreases and increases. An example they provide is a Thesis ad stating that the supplement blocks adenosine receptors, which causes more norepinephrine release, which increases alertness.
     The researchers hypothesized that such inconsistency in an explanation between downs and ups disrupts perceptions of effectiveness. Consistency from a marketer is more compelling than is inconsistency. The study results supported their hypothesis and so indicate that in the scenario, shoppers would consider Tymonox to be more effective in amping up calmness: This is because Tymonox boosts, but Emonox blocks. And in the study, when a product claimed to “tone down panic attacks” rather than “amp up a sense of calmness,” Emonox was judged to be more effective than Tymonox. Down matches better with blocking.
     The researchers found the impact of this causation consistency with effectiveness explanations for a range of products and claims. A face cream to prevent acne got better ratings when paired with an explanation that it counteracts blocked pores rather than an explanation that it boosts turnover of skin cells. A serum to increase hair growth was rated better when the effectiveness explanation was that it adds blood supply to the scalp compared to an explanation that it suppresses the shrinking of hair follicles. The impact was also seen with claims for energy drinks, sound systems, and more.
     The care with which the researchers explored combinations of claims and explanations strengthens the case that even if this inconsistency penalty turns out to be small, it is widespread. In your marketing, match the directional orientation of the claimed effect with the direction of causation.

Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.

Click for more…

Cause Trust with First-Things-First Effects 

Scotch Faux Explanations to Explanation Foes 

Construct Shopper Certainty Using Consistency

Image at top of post based on photo by Gratisography from Pexels