Homo Consumericus

How Much Should One Spend on An Engagement Ring?

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:47:19 +0000

A common norm regarding how much a man should spend on an engagement ring is three months of his annual salary. One reason for placing such a heavy financial burden on this particular courtship ritual is that it serves as an honest signal of a man's commitment to his prospective wife. In other words, pretenders need not apply.

Clearly though, in the same way that people do not always leave 15% of their bill as a tip (even though this is the norm) but rather adjust it up or down as a function of other factors (e.g., service quality), one would expect that the price paid for an engagement ring might too be linked to several extraneous variables.

Lee Cronk and Bria Dunham published a paper recently in Human Nature wherein they sought to explore this exact issue. They sent out a short survey to 1,000 married couples and asked several questions including the income and age of each member of the couple, as well as how much was spent on the engagement ring. Of the 1,000 surveys sent out, 114 were ones wherein the man had offered a ring as part of a surprise marriage proposal. As such, the final usable data did not include couples who purchased the ring jointly.

I begin by listing some of the key descriptive statistics of the sample as found by Cronk and Dunham. The minimal and maximal values for each of the variables are shown in parentheses.

Average Amount Spent on Ring: $3,531.72 ($0-20,000)
Men's Average Incomes: $41,858.20 ($0-500,000)
Women's Average Yearly Incomes: $28,667.48 ($0-80,000)
Men's Average Ages: 29.4 (18-90)
Women's Average 27.0 (16-82)

Note that based on the sample, a man spent 8.44% of his yearly salary on the engagement ring, a figure quite removed from the "expected" 25%!

Cronk and Dunham found that both men's and women's incomes were positively correlated to the amount spent on an engagement ring. These two findings are indicative of marriage customs found in other cultures such as bridewealth and dowries. Furthermore, the authors uncovered a negative correlation between the amount spent on a ring and the bride's age. In other words, the younger the bride, the larger the expenditure. Cronk and Dunham argue that their findings suggest that the amount spent on an engagement ring is linked to the mating "quality" of each of the two partners (as gauged in this case by the respective incomes of both sexes, as well as the age of the brides-to-be).

Irrespective of how much is spent on an engagement ring, the ultimate winner of this whole courtship ritual is none other than De Beers. Diamonds are indeed forever!

Source for Image:
http://www.diamondsnews.com/images/engagement%20rings.jpg

When God Is Watching, People Are More Generous.

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:42:05 +0000

One argument in support of religiosity is that it makes people more moral. I am not particularly moved by this premise, as I find it a lot more impressive to be ethical, moral, kind, honest, and decent for reasons other than the fact that a "celestial dictator" (to borrow Christopher Hitchens' brilliant term) is watching over me. Moral and immoral acts are committed both by atheists and believers so neither group holds a monopoly over either form of behaviors.

That said I recently came across a paper by Azim F. Shariff and Ara Norenzayan published in Psychological Science that suggests that when individuals are primed about God, they behave more generously in the dictator game. For those of you who might be unfamiliar with this economic game, it works as follows: Individual A is given a fixed amount of money (say $20) and is asked to split the money with individual B, who has no veto power over the offer. In other words, if individual A decides to keep $18 and only offer $2 to individual B, this is the manner in which the money will be split. From a classical economic perspective, one should not offer anything to individual B although perhaps not surprisingly for all people other than economists, people do offer some amount greater than zero (e.g., because of reputational concerns).

Returning to the work by Shariff and Norenzayan, in the first study, they either primed participants with God concepts or did not prime them at all. Subsequently, they had them play an anonymous dictator game (i.e., they could not see individual B) with $10 (in one-dollar coins). People who were primed with God concepts offered $4.22 versus $1.84 in the no-prime condition. In the second study, the researchers had three priming conditions: God-prime, neutral-prime, and secular-prime (i.e., priming words such as "civic", "duty", and "police"). The offers were as follows: $4.60 in the God-prime, $4.40 in the secular-prime, and $2.60 in the neutral-prime condition. Hence, whereas the God and secular primes yielded roughly equal offers, both were higher than the neutral prime.

Interestingly, whereas the religiosity of the participants (i.e., whether they were atheists or theists) did not moderate the findings in study 1, in study 2 theists were more affected by the God-prime than were the atheists (in reality, the God-prime was ineffective on atheists).

Shariff and Norenzayan propose several competing explanations for these findings albeit the most compelling one might be the fact that the God prime cues individuals to the fact that an omnipotent force is watching your every move. In so doing, this augments people's likelihood of engaging in prosocial behavior. You see, I don't only report anti-religion findings!

Unrelated announcement: In two weeks, I will be celebrating one year since I first became a blogger for Psychology Today. The current post is my 51st post so I am roughly averaging one post per week. My first 50 posts have garnered 156,878 total views thus far (as of writing these words). I am very thankful to all the readers who have taken the time to visit my blog and in some instances have contributed to the subsequent debates. I hope to be as active in the forthcoming year. Many thanks for all of your support.

Source for Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/GOD.JPG/428px...

Who’s Your Daddy? Global Nonpaternity Rates.

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:16:17 +0000

The threat of being cuckolded is one of the most evolutionarily important threats faced by men especially in light of the fact that humans are a bi-parental species (i.e., children require great parental care from both parents). Numerous sex differences in sexual behavior have been linked to paternity uncertainty, as such it is perhaps appropriate to ask what the prevalence of cuckoldry actually is. Given the recent advances in DNA testing, we can now establish the paternity of an offspring, and accordingly determine some factors that might affect cuckoldry rates in different contexts. Incidentally, DNA testing has led scientists to revise their existing knowledge of the sexual mores of many species, some of which had been thought of as perfect models of monogamy!

Kermyt G. Anderson published a paper in Current Anthropology wherein he looked at the link between nonpaternity rates and paternal confidence. In other words, are fathers who are less certain of their paternity more likely to have been cuckolded? For example, men who commission a DNA paternity test are typically displaying greater paternal uncertainty (as compared to say men who participate in scientific studies wherein nonpaternity rates are calculated for a given sample). The standard nonpaternity rate that is most commonly mentioned across cultural settings is 10%. This is quite extraordinary in that it is difficult to imagine that 1 out of every 10 children is sired by someone other than the man who is recognized as the father.

Dr. Anderson gathered nonpaternity rates from 67 published sources, with a broad spectrum of countries covered. Prior to reading on, any guesses as to the nonpaternity rates of men who had high paternity confidence versus their low confidence counterparts? Here are the nonpaternity rates for the two groups:

US & Canada Europe Elsewhere

High paternity confidence 1.9 1.6 2.9

Low paternity confidence 29.4 29.8 30.5

There you have it. Note that for each of the two groups of men, the rates are roughly the same around the various global regions. The bottom line is as follows: If you commission a DNA paternity test, you have roughly a one-third chance of the child not being yours. On the other hand, if you are confident that your wife has not had any extramarital dalliances then the probability of your having been cuckolded is very low (but still far from negligible).

Source for Image:

http://www.dnatesting.com/presskit/Identigene_Box_L.jpg

Receptivity to Men’s Courtship Advances and the Menstrual Cycle

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:24:09 +0000

A common occurrence in bars and nightclubs around the world is the infamous chat-up line. Men approach women and seek to engage them with an opening line that is hopefully engaging, witty, and memorable. Oftentimes the objective of such approaches is to obtain the woman's phone number. Unfortunately, most men are quite abysmal in this subtle skill, and as such more often than not, they are summarily brushed off. There are several reasons that might moderate the success rate of such approaches, one of the most intriguing of which is where a woman is in her menstrual cycle.

Evolutionary psychologists have spent considerable time studying the effects of the menstrual cycle on a wide range of behaviors, preferences, and cognitions. In my own lab, I am working on a project with one of my doctoral students (Eric Stenstrom) on the effects of the menstrual cycle on a wide range of consumption phenomena (a topic that I will address in a future post). For example, food consumption and beautification-related behaviors are both highly linked to a woman's menstrual cycle.

Returning to the chat-up lines, Nicolas Gueguen recently published a paper in Biological Psychology wherein he sought to determine whether the likelihood of a woman giving out her phone number was linked to her menstrual cycle. As is often the case in this type of work, the cycle was divided into three phases namely the menstrual, follicular, and luteal phases. Given that a woman is maximally fertile during the follicular phase, it was hypothesized that male advances would be most successful during this short "window of opportunity." Furthermore, Dr. Gueguen hypothesized that this effect would only be operative for women who were not taken contraceptive pills.

Here are the findings for women who were not on the pill:
7.8% agreed to give their numbers in the menstrual phase (4 out of 51)

21.7% agreed to give their numbers in the follicular phase (13 out of 60)

7.9% agreed to give their numbers in the luteal phase (7 out of 89)

The percentage in the fertile phase (21.7%) was statistically higher than the two non-fertile phases. A man is close to three times more likely to obtain a woman's phone number during the fertile phase! This effect was not operative for women who were on the pill (although directionally speaking, those in the fertile phase did agree to give their phone numbers more often).

There you have it! This study is a good demonstration of the power of evolutionary theory in generating interesting and innovative hypotheses. Contrary to the ignorant rants made by many individuals who have an ideological aversion toward evolutionary psychology, this research clearly shows that evolutionary hypotheses are falsifiable. That evolutionary-informed hypotheses are oftentimes not falsified is a testament to the explanatory power of the framework, which continues to amass empirical evidence in support of its central tenets at a bewildering pace.

Source for Image:
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02/coupledance2_450x300.jpg

Obama Should Win All Six Nobel Prizes.

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:29:54 +0000

I should start today's post with a few disclaimers. I am Canadian and hence I have no personal bones to pick with regards to American domestic politics. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican in my political leanings, as I take positions on issues rather than blindly affiliating with the red or blue team. Rest assured to all Obama lovers, there are many things that I detested about Bush, none more so than his anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-religion bent. Furthermore, Obama did mention non-believers in his inauguration speech, so as an evolutionist and atheist I was pleased with his courage.

With that in mind, I hope that you'll read my opinion piece with some open-mindedness and accordingly will refrain from posting insulting comments. Recall that I am an Arab-Jew, and hence as a semite, I am technically speaking a man of "color." As such, I will accuse you of either being a xenophobe, an anti-semite, and/or a racist should you post nasty and rude comments. ☺ Such are the games played by those who subscribe to identity politics. See my earlier post on this topic here.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize nine-month into his presidential term. In accepting his award, he admitted that he had achieved nothing but that he considered this a "call for action." Incidentally, for those of you who are unaware, the nominations had to be posted by February 1, 2009 namely less than ten days after he had been inaugurated. Wow! Apparently, he won the Prize for his dignified tone, his hopeful messages, and his future promise. Nice!

Let me ask you a question. Suppose that we were to identify an extraordinarily brilliant young economist, physicist, or chemist who was nine-month into his/her assistant professorship, and who had otherwise not published a single paper in his/her short academic career. Could we be logically justified in granting him/her the Nobel Prize in one of the latter fields? What if we were to identify a promising novelist who had yet to write a single novel; could we award him/her the Nobel Prize in Literature?

Here is another question for you to ponder: What if I had an extraordinarily bright student in my class who did not submit a single assignment, did not write a single exam, did not participate in any evaluative exercises. However, I was aware that this student was brilliant, and that he displayed great hope and promise. I knew for a fact that he scored in the top 0.01% in IQ. Could I grant him an A on promise? On hope? On charisma? If I did, the administration (and the other students) would have reason to file a grievance against me. Hence, you will probably agree that a student who has done nothing in a class could not conceivably receive an A in the course. Yet a politician could win the Nobel Prize for doing nothing.

If we are going to have a Messianic love affair with Obama then I suggest that we grant him all of the Nobel Prizes:

(1) The Nobel Prize in Literature for his having written two books about himself.

(2) The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for proving that middle-aged men can look gorgeous in a bathing suit. Surely, you must have seen his stunning abs in that infamous vacation photo no?

(3) The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for having organized the Beer Summit earlier this summer. In so doing, he has reaffirmed the importance of the biochemical reactions inherent to alcohol, these serving as social lubricants (i.e., people are less uptight when slightly drunk).

(4) The Nobel Prize in Physics for having hired Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate in Physics, to be Secretary of Energy.

(5) The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for having passed the stimulus package.

Here is an idea: Next year, I would like to nominate Arab-speaking Jews or Israeli Arabs for the Nobel Peace Prize for being able to exist within their "fractured" selves. In so doing we have done a lot more for peace in the Middle East than has Obama.

One final thought experiment: Let us suppose that we could recreate every single speech, interview, and/or public appearance that Obama has given/made. Now through the magic of science fiction, let us assume that we could replace the tall, dashing, and regal Obama with the short, nerdy, and buffoonish Ross Perot. Do you think that Perot would have been granted the Nobel Peace Prize? As a consumer scholar, I am only too aware of the importance of packaging. Take the exact same product, put it in two different packages (cheap or fancy), and ask people to evaluate it. They arrive at completely different evaluations!

Bottom line: There are countless individuals who dedicate their lives to fighting hunger, rescuing child soldiers, freeing women from sexual slavery, hunting down genocidal dictators, and endless other acts of extraordinary selflessness. Think of Nelson Mandela and the number of years he spent in horrific conditions in prison. He brought down the apartheid system. This award to Obama is an insult to the true heroes (of all political bents) who put their lives on the line everyday in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and equality around the world.

Update (October 11):

My former doctoral student Tripat Gill just wrote me to let me know of a post put up by a Harvard economist (Greg Mankiw) on this issue. I am attaching Dr. Mankiw's post herewith:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-year-grad-student-wi...

Source for Image:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/inde...

Do Similar Spouses Yield Happier Marriages?

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:26:03 +0000

Two common adages when it comes to human mating are "Birds of a Feather Flock Together" and "Opposites Attract." Which is operative and which one yields a higher level of marital satisfaction? Anecdotally, one can find endless examples of successful couples that belong to each of the two camps. However, the accumulated scientific evidence seems to support the similarity hypothesis, at least when it comes to relationship satisfaction. In general, couples who share similar beliefs, personality types, and values, and who otherwise possess similar mating values are much more likely to be successful in their romantic unions. Both Luo and Klohnen (2005) and Gaunt (2006) found that similarity along personality traits was a predictor of marital quality/satisfaction. There is one dimension along which couples choose others who are maximally dissimilar to them. Specifically, scientists have found that humans tend to prefer the smells of prospective suitors who are maximally dissimilar to them along the Major Histocompatibility Complex, a set of genes that marks an individual's immunogenetic profile (see the recent review by Havlicek and Robert, 2009). Hence, whereas on many traits we prefer to engage in positive assortative mating (i.e., choosing similar mates), there are some instances when negative assortative mating (i.e., choosing dissimilar mates) is operative.

E-Harmony has taken this understanding of human mating and monetized it. One of their key selling points is to match people along 29 dimensions of compatibility. In other words, they are explicitly recognizing that similar people are more likely to be happy together, especially when one is looking for a long-term relationship. All bets are off when searching for a quick fling behind the bushes. Incidentally, as I discuss in chapter 4 of my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption), at least one online dating service specializes in providing opportunities to married individuals who wish to engage in short-term mating! For those of you who might be interested in such dalliances, the name of the company is Ashley Madison, and they've come up with some telling slogans including: (1) Life is Short. Have an Affair and (2) When Monogamy Becomes Monotony. Wow!

Source for Image:
http://www.geardiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/eharmony.png

Is This Woman a Sexual Predator?

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:00:16 +0000

Several years ago, the media reported on a new "epidemic" that parents had to worry about. Apparently, a growing number of young and attractive female teachers were seducing their male students into having sexual liaisons. Hence, our schools were facing yet another scourge. At the time I had noticed a fascinating trend in the ways that the media was covering the story. Experts and commentators alike would repeatedly manifest "outrage" and "indignation" at the possibility that such "dangerous sexual predators and pedophiles" might receive lighter treatment from the legal system as compared to male predatory pedophiles. The general argument was that the law is blind to a perpetrator's sex hence Debbie Lafave (shown in the image here) is indeed a sexual predator that society needs to be protected from. Incidentally, some of you might remember that whilst on probation, Debbie Lafave was briefly arrested when she engaged in small talk (e.g., discussions about family and relationship problems) with a female 17-year old fellow employee. The idea is that Debbie Lafave is such a dangerous predator that she was forbidden to have any contact with "children" such as her 17-year old female coworker.

This ridiculous position is rooted in an erroneous understanding of human nature coupled with a desperate need to conform to the politically correct mantra that suggests that men and women are indistinguishable beings. This is one instance where radical ideologies (e.g., radical feminism) coupled with the blank slate view of the human mind yield outlandish outcomes that are truly detrimental to society. In this case, it diverts resources away from true predators (an innumerable number of male offenders) to cases such as those of Debbie Lafave.

Dangerous sexual predators and serial pedophiles are almost always male. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single instance where a woman was arrested for being a serial predatory pedophile. As a man, I could insist that such a fact is "sexist" and "insulting" to men. However, most sane people are well aware that society needs to be protected from male sexual predators, and accordingly are fully aware that Debbie Lafave does not pose much of a danger to anyone. In other words, our Darwinian instincts lead us to recognize the true sources of danger, yet they are stifled in this case by idiotic concerns for political correctness coupled with incorrect views of human nature.

Most teenage boys spend much of their waking hours dreaming of meeting "sexual predators" such as Debbie Lafave. Hence, it is somewhat silly to propose that the teenage boy in question has suffered irreversible damage at the "horrifying abuse" that he faced (which if memory serves me right he seemed very keen to partake in). Please understand that I am not in any way condoning Ms. Lafave's actions. As a teacher, she had the moral and ethical obligation to refrain from having any form of intimate relationship with her students (especially so given their age). Hence, she has certainly violated the professional trust that was bestowed upon her, and as such it was perfectly appropriate to fire her and perhaps to charge her criminally. However, to label her, a dangerous "sexual predator" is insulting, as it minimizes and trivializes the millions of children who are victimized by dangerous sexual predators, most if not all of whom are recidivist and incorrigible male pedophiles.

One final thought: my father married my mother when he was 19 and she was about to turn 16. In many American states, this could have landed my father with the lifelong appellation of "dangerous sexual offender." Nice! It is much superior to have legal codes rooted in a proper understanding of our biological-based human nature rather than creating statutes that are founded on false concerns for political correctness. Those of you interested in knowing more about the ways by which law can be tackled from an evolutionary and biological-based perspective, should visit the websites of the Society for Evolutionary Analysis of Law, and of the Gruter Institute.

Source for Image:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/08/images/lafave300.jpg

The Secret to an Effective Apology: It Must Be Costly!

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:13:37 +0000

In a recent Entourage episode, the cutthroat agent Ari Gold played brilliantly by Jeremy Piven apologizes to his wife, for not having divulged information to her about his friend's marital infidelities, by buying her a very expensive Maserati Quattroporte. In the 2006 movie The Last Kiss, a young couple (played by Zach Braff and Jacinda Barrett) is expecting their first child and they are to be married shortly when tragedy befalls their blissful union. Zach's character (Michael) succumbs to the sexual advances of the alluring Rachel Bilson. In seeking to win back his wife-to-be (Jenna) subsequent to having admitted his infidelity, the following conversation transpires between him and Jenna's father (source: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0014726/).

Michael: I'm in love with your daughter Stephen. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you but I'm standing here. You are her father, I am looking you in the eyes and I'm telling you I will do anything in the world to get your daughter back.
Stephen: Really?
Michael: Really.
Stephen: Anything?
Michael: I'll do anything.
Stephen: People say that, they don't mean it.
Michael: But I mean it!
Stephen: Well it's very simple... do whatever it takes.
Michael: It's that simple?
Stephen: Yes... you can't fail if you don't give up.

Michael ends up spending several days and nights camped on the footsteps of their house, suffering through hunger, thirst, physical discomfort, and inclement weather. Hence, he demonstrates his honest apologetic intent by going through very difficult trials and tribulations. This is somewhat more costly than the supposed "apology gift" that French men offer their wives when they've been unfaithful (yellow roses)!

In addition to the financial and/or physical costs of honest apologies, these are typically costly in terms of one's ego. Specifically, a heartfelt apology requires that the apologizer approach the grieved person with humility, contriteness, and deference. In many instances, this costly requirement can be a deal breaker in that few people can bear such an ego-threatening cost.

Yohsuke Ohtsubo and Esuka Watanabe recently published a paper in Evolution and Human Behavior wherein they tested the idea that apologies must be costly in order to be perceived as sincere. You might ask yourself: how can this topic be linked to evolutionary theory? Well, you might recall one of my earlier posts wherein I discussed costly signaling in biology and how it can be used to explain the frequency with which male rappers are shown throwing away wads of money in their videos. The bottom line is that in the same way that a peacock's tail is an honest signal of his phenotypic quality by virtue of the costs associated with carrying such a burdensome tail, costly apologies are perceived as more honest and credible, the greater the cost borne by the apologizer.

Are you listening Chris Brown and Kanye West?

Source for Image:

http://thesuperficial.com/2009/07/29/0729_kanye_west_tux_00.jpg

https://static2.shopify.com/s/files/1/0007/8652/files/Apologize_D...

Conspiracy Theories as a Form of Religious Belief: The 9/11 Case

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:21:41 +0000

Last night, I watched a National Geographic television show titled 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. As I listened to the conspiracists, I was struck by the similarities between their belief systems and associated cognitive processes (or lack thereof) and those inherent to religious narratives. Let me explain.

(1) Both religion and grand conspiracies are immune from reason and both are impervious to evidentiary standards. Irrespective of all of the evidence in support of what actually happened on 9/11, and despite any evidence in support of the endless conspiracy storylines (many of which are contradictory with one another), the conspiracists hold on to their firm beliefs. Even when a given conspiratorial statement (e.g., "jet fuel cannot weaken iron") is refuted via a controlled scientific experiment, the evidence is dismissed as suspect, irrelevant, or better yet, the experimenters are apparently in on the conspiracy!

(2) Both religion and grand conspiracies ascribe great power to "invisible" forces. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracies, these shadowy puppet masters are one of several possible groups including the New World Order, the American government/military complex, the Illuminati, the Jews, the Zionists, George Bush (who is apparently controlled by an evil group of neo-cons), oil companies, and real estate moguls (many of whom are Jewish).

(3) These "invisible" forces appear to be as omnipotent as are Gods in the various religious traditions. For example, it has been estimated that the most basic version of the various strands of 9/11 conspiracies would require a level of unimaginable coordination between at the very least several thousand people. Incredibly, not a single individual within the conspiracy has ever broken silence. Such is the power of the conspirators.

Extreme stupidity is legal however I dare say that in this case it is immoral. As I write these words, close to 3,000 people were about to lose their lives exactly eight years ago. By espousing such virulent nonsense, the conspiracists attack the historical truths behind this horrifying event, and in so doing dishonor the memories of all those who perished on that fateful morning.

Source for Image:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wtc-intro.jpg

Why Is Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsay So Gripping?

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:50:44 +0000

Approximately one year ago I came across Gordon Ramsay's show Kitchen Nightmares. My wife and I have since become frequent viewers of the show notwithstanding Mr. Ramsay's bellicose personal style (or perhaps because of it!). Other than the sheer entertainment value of the show, I believe that there are deeper psychological insights that can be gleaned from viewing the program, the most important of which I tackle in today's post.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the show, the premise is as follows: Mr. Ramsay is called upon to turn around an otherwise failing restaurant. Of course, there are numerous distinct reasons that a restaurant (or any small business) might fail including poor service, poor food, unattractive décor, poor management, etc. However, as a behavioral scientist, what I find most interesting are the personality flaws of the restaurant owners that oftentimes lead to the near sinking of their restaurants. Here are a few inter-related examples:

(1) Build it and they will come. This is one of the classic marketing mistakes that countless small business owners make. Specifically, they are driven by their vision of what their establishment should be, even if there is no market demand for this particular concept. For example, in an episode that I watched this past weekend, a business consultant who otherwise had no restaurant experience decided to live out his dream of owning a Tapas restaurant that also offered live music. He had illusions of grandeur as far as owning an establishment where the next Beatles might be discovered! Unfortunately, the customers detested both the loud live music as well as the reheated tapas ingredients.

(2) Inability to accept feedback. An important element of being an entrepreneur is having sufficient self-confidence to partake in risky endeavors. However, self-confidence can quickly sink into dogmatic and intractable positions that become impervious to disconfirming feedback. Hence, in many instances on the show, individuals doggedly reject Mr. Ramsay's expert and valuable advice by dismissing it as nonsense. Returning to the restaurateur above, despite the clear negative feedback that customers were voicing, he prodded along self-assured in his vision. He was undoubtedly thinking: "the customers are wrong, as my vision is so right!"

(3) Overconfidence in one's abilities. There is no reason to assume that individuals who might have had successful careers in software or in acting would be equally successful as restaurateurs. Yet in numerous instances, people on the show feel that they could easily transfer their success from one domain to another. In my opinion, this is a likely manifestation of the overconfidence bias, an infliction that most healthy individuals suffer from in varying degrees. Incidentally, clinically depressed individuals do not typically suffer from such delusional overconfidence. Researchers have wondered whether this demonstrates that individuals who are innately more realistic about their talents are more prone to clinical depression, or whether being depressed leads to a more accurate self-concept. The old chicken-egg problem rears its ugly head yet again!

(4) Being offended by a direct communication style. As any viewer knows, Chef Ramsay can be outlandishly "frontal" and aggressive when providing feedback, even in instances that otherwise do not warrant or justify such belligerence. This can at times create a barrier in communication, as the offended restaurateur is unable to accept the apparent disrespect that he/she is being shown by Mr. Ramsay. I have experienced similar situations when providing students and/or colleagues with direct and honest negative feedback. They end up becoming defensive about my "directness" whilst momentarily ignoring the contents of my points.

Bottom line: In each of the latter cases, fragile and/or big egos hinder the restaurateur's ultimate objective namely to run a successful establishment. Excessive pride is indeed a deadly sin!

Source for Image:
http://nrscope.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/2501840948_1f508df4c5_...