Image by www.queenfishandchips.com“Anyone’s NOT ordering fish and chips?”“Anyone?”“No…?”“Okay…” It was a typical Friday afternoon when I heard this call from the lady behind the counter as I queued for a plate of fish and chips myself.While I always knew that fish and chips is a popular dish in the menu, what are odds that given there are ten people in a line but no one is intending to order anything besides fish and chips?“Word of mouth,” the lady further whispered to herself as she turned the other way.Bedazzled by her utterance, it was then and there that I thought to myself I must investigate this awesome demand for fish and chips further. From a layperson standpoint, I totally agreed with her. Word of mouth as an advertising tool made sense. It should explain a great deal of the picture. At least that was how I got into this fish and chips situation. A senior of mine told me about it once and I was hooked ever since.However, it would be more amazing if psychology could provide me with better insights. So, I dove deeper. Well, perhaps too deep that I found my answer handsomely intersected in fields such as behavioural economics, behaviourism, psychobiology, social psychology, and statistics.Behavioural EconomicsFirstly, I have uncovered that scarcity plays a huge role in increasing the sales of the fish and chips. Research has shown that packaging a product as ‘limited edition’, or in this case the fish and chips being a ‘Friday-only deal’, it aids the fish and chips to be more desirable (Lynn, 1991). From a customer standpoint, no fish and chips for oneself this week means that one has to wait for the following week.BehaviourismI have also realized that a very powerful learned association has been established in my mind between the concept of “Friday” as unconditioned stimulus and “fish and chips” as conditioned stimulus (Kimmel, 1966).From a customer’s perspective, this could translate to an irritating, rather unwelcome voice at the back of our mind every Friday which whispers, “Friday is fish and chips day, go spend that £5.25 (conditioned response),” over and over again, which makes rational decision making almost impossible. So please stop, my dear brain. I want my free will back!PsychobiologyNot only that, just like it has happened to me, I believe that the fish and chips has also invaded the reward system of other people. Yes, even our biology has been invaded by fish and chips disguised as this mischievous idea of, “it is the end of the week. I deserve to be pampered with a nice meal for having such a productive week! Well, what should I have today?” Being a strong extrinsic motivator, the picture of deliciously prepared fish and chips flashes in our mind, rather unwelcomely. Social PsychologyNext, since eating fish and chips has become a social norm in the particular setting, it might influence one’s decision on what is the ’right’ thing to eat. By ‘right’, I mean socially acceptable. Asch (1951) has found that social conformity (i.e, the tendency of an individual to conform to the norm of the majority) does exist. In this particular case, it’s really hard NOT to choose something besides fish and chips considering everybody is having it.StatisticsTo test further whether such norm exists, let us do a simple statistical investigation.Method: Observational studyTime and date: 2.35pm, November 18, 2016.Results: Out of 28 people who were having something at that time, 20 of them were having fish and chips and the other 8 people were having meals such as salad, sandwich, chips, and jacket potato.To explore this fish and chips demand phenomenon further, a chi-squared goodness of fit test might also help.Null Hypothesis: There is no preference for any particular mealExpected frequency: 14 for both ‘fish and chips’ and ‘non-fish and chips’Calculated chi-squared value = 5.14Critical value: 1 df at alpha = .05 is 3.84Results: Null hypothesis is rejected. There IS preference for a particular meal.Discussion: Apart from the small sample size, it is safe to conclude that the fish and chips norm does exists. Take home messageTo conclude, the fish and chips being scarce, perceived as an extrinsic motivator, and a norm in the particular context is enough of an influence to prove that rational decision making is a mere hoax. So, taking this idea to a broader concept, the next time people tell you, “I don’t want anyone to influence me, I want to DECIDE it for MYSELF,” just smile to them and hope that others will not prey on their naivety.ReferencesAsch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236.Kimmel, H. D. (1966). Inhibition of the unconditioned response in classical conditioning. Psychological Review, 73(3), 232.Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43-57.

Although the hype and disbelief surrounding the US presidential election appears to be dying down; there is still one question that I am deeply interested in…. How did Donald Trump actually win the elections? I am not going to pretend to be in any way an expert in politics especially American politics because I’m not. In my last blog post, I discussed how often people tend to rely on the peripheral route when choosing who to vote for and big influence is a good personal TV image, as people use heuristics to make value judgements based on appearance. Generally when you see Trump on TV it’s because he’s said or done something ridiculous; prime examples are depicted above which for me show quite the opposite of competence and good leadership. However, despite consistent the bad media coverage, Trump won the election so he must have done something right. Clearly there is no way I could comment on all the factors or persuasive techniques that lead to Trump winning the election so I will focus on one: Trumps use of the availability heuristic.Trump’s TV image prior to the Elections Since 2003 Trump has been the host of the US version of ‘The Apprentice’. For over 10 years on this TV show Trump is portrayed as successful businessman, able to make successful decisions and being able to fire and hire people which all give the impression of a good leader. This has worked well for Trump as it taps into the availability heuristic as described by Tversky and Kahneman (1973); there are lots of instances of where Trump appears to be a good leader and therefore the more people are likely to infer/judge him as one. ‘Make America Great Again’ For his campaign, Trump copied Ronald Reagan’s promise to ‘make America great again’ and repeated this simple message constantly. In comparison to this, Hillary Clinton’s campaign used a number of slogans (‘Stronger Together’, ‘I’m with Her’ and ‘Fighting for Us’ to name a few). This links very well to ideas from Adolf Hitler who famously said: “the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly. It must confine itself to a few points, and repeat them over and over.” Although there is no evidence that America needs to be great again (click here), this slogan appeals to the emotions of voters and leads to associations between what they think America has lost and that Trump is the leader to get it back for them. Coupled with insulting nearly every minority in America, Trump makes this a very powerful use of the availability heuristic. The more Trump highlights minorities as problems (regardless of whether true or not), the more people are actually going to start thinking they are because it becomes more available to them. In the same way, the more Trump repeats his simple and effective slogan, the more he is going to be associated with being the leader who can solve the problems.  Fear I think something that Trump understands very well is the use of fear to persuade. It is well documented that increasing fear is associated with increased persuasion (Petty, DeSteno, & Rucker, 2001; Brader, 2005). The media also has a big part to play in this, a quick search in google and you can find a host of normal things (i.e. vehicular crashes, heart attacks, cancer and so on) and even some strange things like being crushed by furniture are more likely to kill you than terrorist attacks. However this things are very rarely reported as big news, terrorist attacks are. Because of the availability heuristic, terrorist attacks are seen as more threatening and worrying because they are a regular occurrence in the media but in actual fact we should be more worried about every time we drive to university or to work. This unfortunately may be one of the contributing factors in the rise of Islamophobia. I think Trump has used this to his advantage effectively, Petty, DeSteno, & Rucker, (2001) point out that fear itself is most effective for persuasion when it highlights severe and likely consequences if a recommended actions is not taken. In this case Trump has highlighted the consequence: terrorism (because of the availability heuristic) and has suggested simply to vote for him because he can tackle this problem (ban on Muslims entering the US – totally not ridiculous). To summarise, although it very easy to find many faults with Donald Trump, he knows how to persuade and has done so very well throughout the election campaign. Particularly Trump appears to understand heuristic processing (specifically the availability heuristic) and has used this to his advantage to beat Clinton in the elections and debates. Clearly, Trump used a number of persuasive techniques and mechanisms, and these should not be discounted when it came to winning the election. However, these persuasive techniques will not make him a good president, and hopefully we will not see same Donald Trump we saw during the election but a better, less racist, less misogynistic, less narcissistic and generally a less hate inciting Donald Trump as president. But I’m not going to hold my breath. ReferencesBrader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 38Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. MacmillanPetty, R. E., DeSteno, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2001). The role of affect in attitude change. Handbook of affect and social cognition, 212-233.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/285222https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysishttp://thepoliticalinformer.com/trump-persuasion-tactics/

Can you tell without the brand name?Some brands are known worldwide to be “it” labels. Brands like Hermès, Céline and Givenchy are regularly sought after by both fashion icons and more regular people, like you and me. The question is: why do these names so intensely affect how these products are viewed? Truly enough, many designer label products are well made and durable. This doesn’t answer the question, however, of why such highly priced and sometimes frankly gaudy merchandise is continuously bought off the shelves.While designer brands continue to do runway shows directed towards a certain clientele, much information and “hype” is now also being translated through other forms such as social media and brand ambassadors. One of Robert Cialdini’s Six Principles of Persuasion outlines why this type of marketing works. The Principle of Consensus suggests that, as social creatures, we tend to want to do what other people are doing. People want to do what the group is doing. Another way of looking at this is that people want to do what influential and desirable people are doing. This might be why designer brands work. People see celebrities and important people carrying a particular handbag from a designer brand and want that handbag too. On a wider scale, people want to embody the persona of the rich and famous. Radha and Jija (2013) found that people were more likely to remember a brand when a celebrity has endorsed it. While not being able to speak for everyone, at least a good number of people desire to be rich and live a lavish lifestyle like the celebrities that they admire. Cialdini (2005) suggested that people are more likely to adhere to a request when social proofing is in action. He conducted an experiment within a hotel room setting, which showed that people are more likely to reuse their towels when the environmental information card compared their use to that of other guests. People were more likely to reuse their towels when the card said that 75% of other guests did, rather than when a request only was made. Though this seems far removed from the realm of designer handbags and clothing, it runs on the same principle. People want to be as good as or better than the people before them. Lastly, designer brand products are scarce and scarcity makes people want that item more. Parker (2011) found that people are more likely to select an item in a store that is shown to be scarce. The logic behind this is that regardless of what the item is, if there isn’t much of it, it’s because everyone else has already bought it. This means that item is worth buying, according to the rest of the shoppers. Further to this, designer brands are made of expensive materials and aimed at a small group of people, making them a limited-quantity and limited-edition product. Limited-edition products create a sense of exclusivity, with consumers finding them to be more ‘special, unique and valuable’  (Aggarwal, Jun & Huh, 2011; Cialdini, 2008). Jan, Ko, Morris and Chang (2015) investigated limited edition products created by luxury brands and found that a limited-quantity message regarding the luxury product is most effective in increasing response. The less there is known to be, the more people want it.In the end, people want to be like or be better than the rest, and they might actually believe that having something with a fancy name makes them this way. Aggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., & Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages. Journal of Advertising, 40, 19-30.Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Don’t throw in the towel: Use social influence research. American Psychological Society Observer, 18, 33-34.Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N., & Martin, S. J. (2008). Yes: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive.Jang, W. E., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D., & Chang, Y. (2015). Scarcity Message Effects on Consumption Behavior: Limited Edition Product Considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 989-1001.Parker, J. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87, 142-155. Radha, G. & Jija, P. (2013). Influence of celebrity endorsement on the consumer’s purchase decision. International journal of scientific and research publications, 3, 1-28.