How the Experience of Happiness Shifts Across the Life Course

Mogilner, Cassie, Sep Kamvar and Jennifer Aaker (2010) | Stanford GSB working paper.

An examination of emotions reported on 12 million personal blogs along with a series of surveys and laboratory experiments show that the meaning of happiness is not fixed; instead, it systematically shifts over the course of one’s lifetime. Whereas younger people are more likely to associate happiness with excitement, as they get older, they become more likely to associate happiness with peacefulness. This change appears to be driven by a redirection of attention from the future to the present as people age. The dynamics of what happiness means has broad implications, from purchasing behavior to appropriate ways to increase one’s happiness.

■ For more details on our happiness data, see http://www.wefeelfine.org/.

If Money Doesn’t Make You Happy, Consider Time

Aaker, Jennifer and Melanie Rudd (2011) | Journal of Consumer Psychology

Although a substantial amount of research has examined the link between money and happiness, far less has examined the link between time and happiness. This paper argues, however, that time plays a critical role in understanding happiness. To complement the principles about how to spend money (to “achieve” happiness), we offer five principles on how to spend time: 1) spend time with the right people; 2) spend time on the right activities; 3) enjoy the experience without spending the time; 4) expand your time; and 5) be aware that the meaning of happiness changes over time.

Non-Profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits
as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter

Aaker, Jennifer, Kathleen Vohs and Cassie Mogilner (2010) | Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2) (August), 277-291

Consumers use warmth and competence, two fundamental dimensions that govern social judgments of people, to form perceptions of firms. Three experiments showed that consumers perceive non-profits as being warmer than for-profits, but as less competent. Further, consumers are less willing to buy a product made by a non-profit than a for-profit because of their perceptions of the firm’s lack of competence. Consequently, when perceived competence of a non-profit is boosted through subtle cues that connote credibility, discrepancies in willingness to buy disappear. In fact, when consumers perceive high levels of competence and warmth, they feel admiration for the firm – which translates to consumers’ increased desire to buy. This work highlights the importance of consumer stereotypes about non-profits and for-profits that, at baseline, come with opposing advantages and disadvantages, but which can be altered.

■ For a short summary of the work, click here or read Frog Design article.

The Time versus Money Effect: Shifting Product Attitudes and Decisions through Personal Connection

Mogilner, Cassie and Jennifer Aaker (2009) | Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (August), 277-291

The results of five field and laboratory experiments reveal a “time vs. money effect” whereby activating time (vs. money) leads to a favorable shift in product attitudes and decisions. Because time increases focus on product experience, activating time (vs. money) augments one’s personal connection with the product, thereby boosting attitudes and decisions. However, because money increases focus on product possession, the reverse effect can occur in cases where merely owning the product reflects the self (i.e., for prestige possessions and among high materialists). The “time vs. money effect” proves robust across implicit and explicit methods of construct activation. Implications for research on the psychology of time and money are discussed.

Why Do People Give? The Role of Identity in Giving

Aaker, Jennifer and Toshi Akutsu (2009) | Journal of Consumer Psychology, (19), 267-270.

Why do people give to others? One principal driver involves one’s identity: who one is and how they view themselves. The degree to which identities are malleable, involve a readiness to act, and help make sense of the world have significant implications determining whether and how much people give. Drawing on the Identity-Based Motivation model (IBM; Oyserman, 2009), we provide a tripartite framework to help advance the research on the psychology of giving.

Recalling Mixed Emotions

Aaker, Jennifer, Aimee Drolet, and Dale Griffin (2008) | Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 268-278.

A set of longitudinal experiments, conducted both in the field and lab, we investigate the recollection of mixed emotions. Results demonstrated that the intensity of mixed emotions are generally underestimated at the time of recall—an effect which appears to increase over time and does not occur to the same degree with unipolar emotions. Of note (or interestingly), the decline in memory of mixed emotions is distinct from the pattern found for the memory of negative emotions, implying that the recall bias is diagnostic of the complexity of mixed emotions rather than of any association with negative affect. Finally, the memory decay effect was driven by felt conflict which arises when experiencing mixed (vs. unipolar) emotions. Implications for consumer memory and behavior are discussed.

■ http://danariely.com/2010/11/04/i-pick-the-seven-most-powerful-new-economists/

The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect

Research indicates that there’s a better, counterintuitive way to get people to contribute to your effort. Most organizations seeking your financial support seem to spend the majority of their communication effort single-mindedly trying to get your money. Many times it’s the opening sentence of their first communication. The problem is that we are extremely accustomed to people asking us for money and have built up effective, nearly automatic coping mechanisms to deal with money asks. You might think of it as a thick castle wall, effortlessly repelling most appeals. When someone asks for a donation of time rather than money, our research shows that people go through a different process. The idea seems to skirt the metaphorical wall and receive active consideration. What’s more, when these people who were asked to spend time are asked later for money, they contribute twice as much regardless of whether they contributed any time.

■ For deeper insight, check out the research summary prepared by the Stanford GSB Center for Social Innovation.