Featured Post from University of Florida

Smartphones push consumers to prefer a customizable purchasing experience

Jul 5, 2023

2 min

Aner Sela

In a world where purchasing is only a click away, studies have shown that smartphones complicate the most preferred items.


Aner Sela, a professor in UF’s Warrington College of Business conducted a new study that discovered consumers who are captivated by their phones gravitate towards specialized, custom products.


Compared to large computers or borrowing someone’s phone, an individual’s phone sparks privatized feelings that allow stronger self-expression and strengthens our unconscious preference for a customized consumer journey.


Working alongside Camilla Song, an assistant professor at City University of Hong Kong, Sela published their findings in the Journal of Marketing Research in early August.


“When you use your phone, your authentic self is being expressed to a greater extent. That affects the options you seek and the attitudes you express,” said Sela, one of the authors of the study.


The researchers suspected that smartphones encourage people to reflect on their inner identity, calling on the psychological state of private self-focus that affects all kinds of behaviors.


“People with high levels of private self-focus tend to be more independent in the attitudes that they express. They conform less,” the UF professor said. “When they make choices, they tend to choose based on privately or deeply held beliefs, preferences or tastes, and they’re less influenced by social contexts.”


Sela and Song chose to test if smartphones have the capability to promote enough private self-focus that it changes behavioral patterns, so they performed five experiments with undergraduates and online respondents.


The study found that smartphone users were more likely to choose unique, tailored products rather than large ones than if the user hopped on a large computer.


These results vanished if the user was given another phone from the same brand, suggesting that companies should alter their consumer suggestions based on the device they are using.


The professor and her former doctoral student found the self-expression mindset likely to cause behavioral changes can be activated by the use of a smartphone.


“With a borrowed phone, it doesn’t feel like you’re in your own little bubble. What we find is the use of smartphones and its activation of private self-focus is really unique to a personal device,” Sela said.


By Halle Burton 


Connect with:
Aner Sela

Aner Sela

Professor

Aner Sela is an expert on how people make choices and form preferences.

Value PerceptionTechnology and Consumer ChoiceChoice DifficultyInferences and AttributionsDecision Making
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Florida

3 min

Psychologists introduce third path to a ‘good life’ — one full of curiosity and challenge

For centuries, scholars and scientists have defined the “good life” in one of two ways: a life that is rooted in happiness, characterized by positive emotions, or one that is centered on meaning, guided by purpose and personal fulfillment. But what if there is another, equally valuable path — one that prioritizes challenge, change and curiosity? “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” — Erin Westgate, Ph.D., assistant professor psychology, director of the Florida Social Cognition and Emotion Lab This third dimension, which may result in a more psychologically rich life for some, is being explored in a new study — led by University of Florida psychologist Erin Westgate, Ph.D., in collaboration with Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago. According to their research, some people prioritize variety, novelty and intellectually stimulating experiences, even when those experiences are difficult, unpleasant or lack clear meaning. “This idea came from the question: Why do some people feel unfulfilled even when they have happy and meaningful lives?” Westgate said. “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” Westgate and Oishi’s research shows that a psychologically rich life is distinct from lives defined by happiness or meaning. While happiness focuses on feeling good, and meaning is about doing good, richness is about thinking deeply and seeing the world differently. And for a significant minority of people around the world, that third path is the one they would choose — even if it means giving up happiness or meaning. A new way to think about the ‘good life’ According to Westgate and Oishi, psychological richness is defined as a life filled with diverse, perspective-changing experiences — whether these are external, such as traveling or undertaking new challenges, or internal, like absorbing powerful books or pieces of music. “A psychologically rich life can come from something as simple as reading a great novel or hearing a haunting song,” Westgate said. “It doesn’t have to be about dramatic events, but it can shift the way you see the world.” Unlike happy or meaningful experiences, rich experiences are not always pleasant or purposeful. “College is a good example. It’s not always fun, and you might not always feel a deep sense of meaning, but it changes how you think,” Westgate said. “The same goes for experiences like living through a hurricane. You wouldn’t call it happy or even meaningful, but it shakes up your perspective.” Researchers in Westgate’s lab at UF have been studying how people respond to events like hurricanes, tracking students’ emotions and reactions as storms approach. The results show that many people have viewed these challenging experiences as psychologically rich — altering how they saw the world, even if they didn’t enjoy them. The roots of the idea While the study is new, the concept has been years in the making. Westgate and Oishi first introduced the term “psychologically rich life” in 2022, building on earlier research and scale development around 2015. Their latest paper expands the idea, showing that the concept resonates with people across cultures and fills a gap in how people define well-being. “In psychology and philosophy, dating back to Aristotle, there’s been a focus on hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being — happiness versus meaning,” Westgate said. “What we’re doing is saying, there’s another path that’s just as important. And for some people, it’s the one they value most.” While many people ideally want all three — happiness, meaning and richness — there are trade-offs. Rich experiences often come at the cost of comfort or clarity. “Interesting experiences aren’t always pleasant experiences,” Westgate said. “But they’re the ones that help us grow and see the world in new ways.” Westgate hopes the study will broaden how psychologists and the public think about what it means to live well. “We’re not saying happiness and meaning aren’t important,” Westgate said. “They are. But we’re also saying don’t forget about richness. Some of the most important experiences in life are the ones that challenge us, that surprise us and that make us see the world differently.”

2 min

‘Love Island’ isn’t real, but it might reflect the way we date

For millions of viewers, “Love Island” has been a summer obsession – a chance to peek in on a sunny villa full of beautiful singles looking for love. But according to Andrew Selepak, Ph.D., a media professor at the University of Florida, the reality show isn’t really about romance. “The reality of reality TV is that it doesn’t reflect reality,” Selepak said. “These are people who were selected; they were cast just like you would cast a movie or a scripted TV show.” Still, what happens on the island isn’t completely disconnected from real life. The show's format, which is built on snap decisions, physical attraction, and frequent recouplings, mirrors the current dating landscape in unsettling ways. “I think it's reflective of the current culture that young people are experiencing with dating, which is very superficial and doesn't lead to long-term lasting relationships because a long-term lasting relationship can't be based on superficial qualities,” Selepak said. Selepak compares “Love Island” to “TV Tinder.” Much like on dating apps, contestants size each other up based on looks and vibes rather than values or long-term compatibility. And while the show promotes the idea of finding “the one,” the numbers tell a different story. “It’s like less than 12% of the couples actually remain together for any period of time,” Selepak said. “At some point, you would think people would realize it’s fake.” However, viewers continue to watch, and contestants continue to sign up. Why? Because the point isn't necessarily to find love. It's about visibility, likes and followers. “This is where you have the social media aspect playing in, where people are looking to become influencers and to gain fame, notoriety, likes and follows,” Selepak said. “The people who are on the shows, these are people who intentionally have gone out and said, 'I want my dirty laundry to be on TV.’ There's a narcissistic aspect of wanting to be on a show like that. Most people, I think, would be hesitant to tell their deep, dark secrets – or tell the things about themselves that they would normally only share with a select few – to a large audience.” For contestants, this often means performing love rather than experiencing it – a behavior that echoes real-world dating on social media. For audiences, “Love Island” gives them the dissatisfaction of watching beautiful people experience the same dating struggles they do. In the end, “Love Island” may not teach us how to find lasting love, but it might explain why so many people are struggling to.

3 min

Scientist’s cat, again, helps discover new virus

Pepper, the pet cat who made headlines last year for his role in the discovery of the first jeilongvirus found in the U.S., is at it again. This time, his hunting prowess contributed to the identification of a new strain of orthoreovirus. John Lednicky, Ph.D., Pepper’s owner and a University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions virologist, took Pepper’s catch — a dead Everglades short-tailed shrew — into the lab for testing as part of his ongoing work to understand transmission of the mule deerpox virus. Testing revealed the shrew had a previously unidentified strain of orthoreovirus. Viruses in this genus are known to infect humans, white-tailed deer, bats and other mammals. While orthoreoviruses’ effects on humans are not yet well understood, there have been rare reports of the virus being associated with cases of encephalitis, meningitis and gastroenteritis in children. “The bottom line is we need to pay attention to orthoreoviruses, and know how to rapidly detect them,” said Lednicky, a research professor in the PHHP Department of Environmental and Global Health and a member of UF’s Emerging Pathogens Institute. The UF team published the complete genomic coding sequences for the virus they named “Gainesville shrew mammalian orthoreovirus type 3 strain UF-1” in the journal Microbiology Resource Announcements. “There are many different mammalian orthoreoviruses and not enough is known about this recently identified virus to be concerned,” said the paper’s lead author Emily DeRuyter, a UF Ph.D. candidate in One Health. “Mammalian orthoreoviruses were originally considered to be ‘orphan’ viruses, present in mammals including humans, but not associated with diseases. More recently, they have been implicated in respiratory, central nervous system and gastrointestinal diseases.” The Lednicky lab’s jeilongvirus and orthoreovirus discoveries come on the heels of the team publishing their discovery of two other novel viruses found in farmed white-tailed deer. Given the propensity of viruses to constantly evolve, paired with the team’s sophisticated lab techniques, finding new viruses isn’t entirely surprising, Lednicky said. “I’m not the first one to say this, but essentially, if you look, you’ll find, and that’s why we keep finding all these new viruses,” Lednicky said. Like influenza virus, two different types of orthoreovirus can infect a host cell, causing the viruses’ genes to mix and match, in essence, creating a brand new virus, Lednicky said. In 2019, Lednicky and colleagues isolated the first orthoreovirus found in a deer. That strain’s genes were nearly identical to an orthoreovirus found in farmed mink in China and a deathly ill lion in Japan. How in the world, the scientific community wondered, could the same hybrid virus appear in a farmed deer in Florida and two species of carnivores across the globe? Some experts speculated that components of the animals’ feed could have come from the same manufacturer. With so many unanswered questions about orthoreoviruses and their modes of transmission, prevalence in human and animal hosts and just how sick they could make us, more research is needed, DeRuyter and Lednicky said. Next steps would include serology and immunology studies to understand the threat Gainesville shrew mammalian orthoreovirus type 3 strain UF-1 may hold for humans, wildlife and pets. For readers concerned about Pepper’s health, rest assured. He has shown no signs of illness from his outdoor adventures and will likely continue to contribute to scientific discovery through specimen collection.    “This was an opportunistic study,” Lednicky said. “If you come across a dead animal, why not test it instead of just burying it? There is a lot of information that can be gained.”

View all posts
Powered by