Consequence-Cause Matching: Looking to the Consequences of Events to Infer Their Causes

Robyn A. LeBoeuf; Michael I. Norton

Article | Journal of Consumer Research | June 2012

Consequence-Cause Matching: Looking to the Consequences of Events to Infer Their Causes

by Robyn A. LeBoeuf and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

We show that people non-normatively infer event causes from event consequences. For example, people inferred that a product failure (computer crash) had a large cause (widespread computer virus) if it had a large consequence (job loss), but that the identical failure was more likely to have a smaller cause (cooling fan malfunction) if the consequence was small-even though the consequences were objectively uninformative about the causes. Across experiments, participants' inferences about event causes were systematically affected by how similar (in both size and valence) those causes were to event consequences. Additional experiments further suggested that this "consequence-cause matching" arises because people are motivated to see the world as predictable, and because matching is an accessible schema that helps them to fulfill this motivation.

Keywords: causal inference; Product; Forecasting and Prediction; Motivation and Incentives; Failure;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

LeBoeuf, Robyn A., and Michael I. Norton. "Consequence-Cause Matching: Looking to the Consequences of Events to Infer Their Causes." Journal of Consumer Research 39, no. 1 (June 2012): 128–141.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act intensified debates over the role of government in the distribution of healthcare. A nationally-representative sample of Americans reported their estimated and ideal distributions of healthcare (unmet need for prescription medications) and death (gains in life expectancy). Respondents across the demographic and political spectrum wanted mortality and healthcare to be distributed more evenly among the rich and poor than they estimated them to be. For example, respondents estimated that Americans in the poorest quintile lived 1.5 months longer over the previous 20 years while those in the richest quintile lived 4.7 months longer, but reported ideal figures of 2.5 and 3.6 months – both were far more equal than the actual figures: -1.8 and 7.2 months. Despite heated debates about healthcare, Americans share a consensus belief that current disparities in death and healthcare are far from their ideals.

How do the very wealthy spend their time, and how does time use relate to well-being? In two studies in the Netherlands, the affluent (N=863, N=690) and the general population (N=1232, N=306) spent time in surprisingly similar ways, such as by spending the same amount of time working. Yet, the nature of their time-use differed in critical ways that are related to life satisfaction. In Study 1, millionaires spent more time engaged in active leisure (e.g., exercising and volunteering) rather than passive leisure (e.g., watching television and relaxing). In Study 2, millionaires spent more time engaged in tasks at work over which they had more control. The affluent sample belongs to the top of the income and wealth distribution, representing a significantly wealthier sample than in previous studies. These results further our understanding of when and how wealth may translate into greater well-being.

Article | Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being

Elizabeth Dunn, A.V. Whillans, Michael I. Norton and Lara B. Aknin

Researchers have long been interested in the relationship between income and happiness, but a newer wave of work suggests that how people use their money also matters. We discuss the three primary areas in which psychologists have explored the relationship between spending decisions and subjective well-being, beginning with a brief review of seminal research on the benefits of buying experiences. We then offer an in-depth review of two other domains in which changes in spending decisions have been shown to increase well-being: using money to benefit others (“prosocial spending”) and giving up money to have more time (“buying time”). We discuss how, when, and why prosocial spending and buying time promote happiness. In doing so, we critically consider the evidentiary value of past findings (particularly our own) and provide links to all of our available data as well as practical recommendations about how to replicate our findings (e.g., which measures and manipulations produce the most consistent results). Taken together, our studies on prosocial spending and buying time underscore the value of conceptualizing money not only as a stable life circumstance but also as a tool that individuals can intentionally utilize to alter their own happiness levels.

Keywords: wellbeing; Money; Spending; Decision Making; Happiness;

Citation:

Dunn, Elizabeth, A.V. Whillans, Michael I. Norton, and Lara B. Aknin. "Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 61 (2020). View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now