You Cannot Always Get What You Want | Young Eun Huh | TEDxHongKong
Choosing a dissimilar substitute when a desired item is unavailable satisfies cravings better because the mental comparison between the substitute and the original item is less prominent. The speaker, a self-described researcher on food consumption, demonstrates this using a study where participants preferred granola bars (dissimilar) over store-brand chocolate alternatives (similar) when the desirable Reader's chocolate was unavailable. This suggests that embracing different options, rather than merely similar replacements, leads to greater satisfaction. ## Speakers & Context - Unnamed researcher studying self-control in food consumption. - Personal anecdote: Quit vegetarianism after initial success due to a craving for a "big burger" that could not be satisfied by a veggie alternative. - Context for the talk: Discussing consumer decision-making when the preferred choice is unavailable or unaffordable. ## Theses & Positions - Choosing a similar substitute when the desired product is unavailable is ineffective for satisfying cravings. - The best substitute is often a dissimilar alternative, which satisfies the general consumption goal without triggering negative comparison to the original desire. - Over-reliance on choosing the "second best" option leads to dissatisfaction because the inherent comparison to the ideal product diminishes the satisfaction. ## Concepts & Definitions - **Substitutes:** Products used to replace one another by satisfying the same consumption goal. - **Similar Substitute:** A substitute product that closely resembles the desired product (e.g., a similar sports car). - **Dissimilar Substitute:** A substitute product that serves the same general goal but looks or functions very differently from the desired product (e.g., an SUV for a sports car). - **Sensitization or Wedding Effect:** The phenomenon where consuming a small portion of a food increases the desire to eat more of that specific food. - **Consumption Goal:** The underlying desire or purpose behind the purchasing or eating choice, rather than the specific item itself (e.g., having a snack, having a private car). ## Mechanisms & Processes - **Consumer Choice Process:** When a desired product is unavailable or unaffordable, consumers switch to substitutes. - **Similar Substitute Failure:** Comparing a similar substitute to the desired option prompts a negative contrast, highlighting what is missing. - **Dissimilar Substitute Success:** Because the substitute looks very different, it does not induce the negative comparison, leading to greater satisfaction. - **Behavioral Prediction:** The research suggests that dissimilar substitutes are more satisfying because they bypass the comparative judgment process associated with similarity. ## Numbers & Data - **42%:** Percentage of shopping locations where consumers cannot get their most preferred item due to it being unavailable or too expensive. - **73%:** Percentage of participants who chose a similar substitute in the first study. - **27%:** Percentage of participants who chose a dissimilar substitute in the first study. - **103:** Number of different food items tested in one study. ## Examples & Cases - **The Car Example:** A desire for a Lamborghini leads to considering a similar, affordable sports car or a dissimilar SUV, with both satisfying the general goal of a private car. - **The Vacation Example:** Dreaming of the Maldives might lead to considering a similar beach vacation or a dissimilar activity like skiing. - **The Chocolate Study (Study 1):** Participants choosing between a store-brand chocolate (similar substitute) or granola bars (dissimilar substitute) after eating a small piece of Reader's chocolate, resulting in 73% choosing the similar option. - **The Consumption Test (Study 2):** Participants who consumed a similar substitute subsequently ate *more* of the desirable chocolate compared to those who ate a dissimilar substitute, suggesting failed satisfaction. - **The Inverse Finding:** Participants who consumed the dissimilar substitute subsequently ate *less* of the desirable chocolate than those who consumed the similar substitute, contradicting initial intuition. - **The Vegetarian Analogy:** The speaker's attempt to substitute a "big burger" with a "veggie burger" (similar) felt worse because of the taste comparison to the real burger. ## Tools, Tech & Products - **Reader's brand chocolate:** Specific, delicious, and desirable chocolate used in the study. - **Store-brand chocolate:** Specific, similar substitute used in the study. - **Granola bars:** Specific, dissimilar substitute used in the study. - **Lamborghini:** Example of a desired, unaffordable sports car. ## References Cited - **TNS research group:** Group that published the report regarding consumer inability to get preferred items. - **Jock and Mascara and Carrie Mortgage:** Individuals involved in the study conducted with the speaker. ## Counterarguments & Caveats - The speaker initially anticipated that participants would prefer the similar substitute, based on initial intuition. - The actual results contradicted this expectation, showing the dissimilar substitute led to lower subsequent consumption of the desired item. ## Methodology - **Study Design:** Testing consumer choice when a desired product is not available. - **Method 1 (Preference Testing):** Participants given one tiny piece of desired chocolate, then presented with options (similar vs. dissimilar) and asked to choose, followed by consumption tracking. - **Method 2 (Consumption Testing):** Participants randomly assigned to receive one of three snack groups (Reader's, similar substitute, dissimilar substitute), followed by measurement of consumption of the original desired chocolate. ## Conclusions & Recommendations - If you cannot get exactly what you want (dream job, vacation, food), choosing a dissimilar alternative is better than a similar one. - Dissimilar substitutes satisfy the general goal without triggering the negative contrast that occurs when comparing the substitute to the ideal. ## Implications & Consequences - The principle of avoiding negative mental contrast is key to satisfaction in consumption choices. - The vegetarian experience highlights that *similarity* can actively detract from satisfaction. ## Verbatim Moments - *"it'd be really shameful if I give up so easily."* - *"I went absolutely crazy for the big burger."* - *"if we cannot get our number one choice"* - *"substitutes are products that can be used to replace one another by satisfying the same consumption goal."* - *"it is a low filter sports car"* (referring to the similar substitute). - *"This is one of my dream vacation options"* (referring to the Maldives). - *"This is a very well-known effect called sensitization or wedding effect"* - *"we found that majority of participants about 73% of participants they chose similar substitute"* - *"it was not this what we found we found actually the opposite"* - *"the mental compare between the substitute and the desire option that was not available"* - *"I believe if I have chosen something different such as mushroom pasta then I might have been able to extend my days as a vegetarian a little longer"* - *"our research suggests that second best option is actually a dissimilar alternative"*