Marketers VS the false consensus effect

Context

Sometimes, marketers fail to respond to consumer needs in a satisfactory manner. It may come from difficulties to step into the consumers’ shoes, for instance when Pepsi mistranslated its popular slogan “Come alive with the Pepsi generation” in Chinese, which came out as “Pepsi will bring your ancestors back from the dead”, thereby failing to communicate with their Chinese audience. Indeed, marketers are human beings, with their own culture, background, tastes and preferences, and though they try to relate to consumers, they sometimes misinterpret their behavior or make mistakes when trying to reach them. The false consensus effect is one of the many biases that can dramatically affect the marketers’ perceptions and treatment of their audience. It is a tendency to project personal preferences onto target consumers. In an article published in 2021 in the Journal of Marketing Research, Herzog, Hattula and Dahl explain how marketers can overcome this effect.

Research questions

Marketers are already known to be susceptible to different types of biases, such as the confirmation bias or framing effects. Therefore, they could also be susceptible to the false consensus effect. Previous research has already proven that this effect can be caused by many factors (such as the desire for social support or the person’s perceived influence on others) and that it often results in prediction errors. There are 6 known ways to avoid the false consensus effect:

1) ignoring personal preferences
2) relying on market research
3) consulting with other managers
4) considering the opposite
5) considering that the target’s preferences are opposite to personal preferences
6) considering personal preferences after other information has been explored

Herzog, Hattula and Dahl’s research centers on the first means to reduce the false consensus effect: ignoring personal preferences. The authors’ intuition lies in Wegner’s model. Wegner’s model aims at explaining how individuals suppress factors that induces biases (in general). In the case of the false consensus effect, Wegner’s model suggests that marketers undergo a monitoring process, in which they compare their inferences about the target’s preferences with their personal preferences. Adjustments are made accordingly. Susceptibility to the false consensus effect is congruent with the incapacity to carry out the monitoring process, which can be affected by an unclear definition of the marketer’s preferences. Indeed, it seems quite logical that comparing target inferences with personal preferences may be useless or counterproductive when personal preferences are not well-defined. This is what Wegner calls ironic process theory.

Therefore, the authors ask the following research questions:

Method

To answer these research questions, the authors first conducted 2 pilot studies (with respectively 100 and 64 marketing executives) to assess the marketers’ knowledge of the false consensus effect and to learn more about their reactions and behaviors vis-à-vis this effect.

After these preliminary studies, the authors conducted 4 experiments:

– In study 1 and 2, they investigated the relationship between preference certainty and the false consensus effect. In study 1, 86 marketing managers were asked to partake in a new product development (virtuality headset). The participants’ personal preferences about the product were measured. Then, they were asked to assume the role of the company’s segment manager responsible for a target group, to predict the target group’s preferences, and to indicate if they tried to suppress their preferences in the process. Study 2 (conducted on 133 marketing managers) had a remarkably similar experimental design with one exception: preference suppression was manipulated.

– Study 3 aimed at analyzing the causes of a potential false consensus effect. It was carried out on 266 marketing managers, who were asked to infer consumer preferences concerning artificial intelligence products. As in previous studies, personal opinions about the products were measured and preference certainty was manipulated by warning managers about the false consensus effect.

– Study 4 focused on ways to diminish a potential false consensus effect. 125 marketing managers were asked to infer consumer reactions concerning the partnership between a fitness company and Big Bang Theory (TV show) stars. Participants were randomly assigned scenarios in which they were informed about the false consensus effect and the ironic monitoring process.

Why is this article relevant for researchers?

This article constitutes a breakthrough in the literature about the false consensus effect. First, it shows that this topic had been neglected for too long, and that it should be thoroughly investigated because of its dramatic managerial implications: marketers not only know about this effect, but they also dread it and think that the capacity to avoid it is an important skill for their profession. Second, this research questions prior findings, notably those that postulate that the false consensus effect remains unchanged even though decision makers are educated about the bias, provided with feedback on the accuracy of their predictions or provided with statistical information about the target.

This paper analyzes how ignoring one’s preferences can backfire and increase the false consensus effect. It shows that a clear definition of individual preferences is important for managers to adopt the most efficient behavior. Therefore, future research could investigate ways to help marketers assess their preference certainty or learn to define their own preferences more clearly. Moreover, the efficiency and implications of other strategies to diminish the false consensus effect could be studied, such as relying on market research, consulting with other managers, considering the opposite intuition, considering that the target’s preferences are opposite to personal preferences or considering personal preferences after other information has been explored.

Why is this article relevant for professionals?

This article shows that taking preference certainty into account is important notably because marketers often predict consumer reactions to stimuli that are not available on the market yet (which makes low preference certainty a common situation for marketers) and because weak preferences are affected by situational factors and can change quickly (which makes it unwise to project them on consumers). It is highly counterintuitive that ignoring one’s preferences, which should result in unbiased target inferences, could backfire and increase the false consensus effect.

Concretely, companies may wish to train their marketers. Trainings should raise awareness of the false consensus effect and the ironic monitoring process. They should teach marketers about assessing their own levels of preference certainty so that they can behave in the most efficient manner. Other ways to avoid the false consensus effects could be addressed in such trainings, such as relying on market research or consulting with other managers.

Source: Herzog, W., Hattula, J. D., & Dahl, D. W. (2021). Marketers Project Their Personal Preferences onto Consumers: Overcoming the Threat of Egocentric Decision Making. Journal of Marketing Research, 0022243721998378.