Nudge Wiki

Person

Philip Graves

Guest; consumer psychologist, founder of Shift Consultancy; author, Consumerology

Consumer psychologist and founder of Shift Consultancy, author of Consumerology. Central thesis: market research built on asking people what they think, want, or prefer is fundamentally unreliable, not merely imperfect — because the conscious mind has no genuine access to the unconscious causes of most everyday decisions, and will confidently confabulate plausible-sounding but false explanations when asked. Argues researchers should observe real behavior rather than ask questions wherever possible ("behavior is truth").

Uses the New Coke debacle as his central case study: Coca-Cola's own blind taste tests showed a reformulated recipe beating Pepsi, yet the launch was a historic failure — evidence, per Graves, not merely that Coke's specific research was flawed, but that this entire category of research (sip tests, unbranded blind comparisons) cannot reliably predict real purchase behavior, because it engages a completely different cognitive process than an unconscious, habitual purchase decision does (see Brand Identity Framing Studies). Frames this through misattribution: because the conscious mind can process only a tiny fraction of incoming sensory information, feelings caused by unrelated environmental factors get mistakenly assigned to whatever is in conscious focus at the time (see Misattribution of Unconscious Causes). Cites his own field observations — shoppers drawn to an iPod speaker system by its sound, and lottery scratch-card purchases driven by whether the display happened to be in a shopper's eyeline — as everyday illustrations of the same mechanism (see Graves iPod-Speaker and Lottery-Card Observations).

Returns for a second appearance in Episode 253, directly responding to Phill Agnew's Episode 245 priming-debunking episode. Argues Agnew's five failed replications targeted weak, contextually-irrelevant studies, and defends other priming/anchoring findings as reliable: wine price and cork-opening affecting perceived taste, Kahneman and Tversky's founding anchoring demonstrations, Asch's and Shotton's word-order impression studies, an art-cutlery luxury-perception study, the Nike shoe scent study, and his own consulting work reordering a smoothie's ingredient list. Proposes that a prime's reliability depends on its contextual relevance to the judgment being made, not the size of the stimulus — a framework Agnew explicitly adopts, revising his own Episode 245 conclusion (see Priming).

Returns for a third and final appearance in Episode 256, on herd mentality and social proof: the Latané-Darley smoke-filled-room study, Cialdini's litter-proportion and food-court poster studies, a street-musician tipping study, FBI copycat-crime data, a subliminal cracker-mirroring study, the Apple white-headphones case, the goalkeeper penalty-dive study, real-world descriptive-norm-backfire cases (a university binge-drinking campaign, ING, Skin+Me), and a 2011 study finding a manipulated live "worm" graphic swung viewers' judgment of a UK televised election debate (see Social Proof, Dynamic Social Proof).

Discussed in

  • Episode 252 — 252-new-coke-and-the-marketing-blunder-of-the-century
  • Episode 253 — 253-did-i-get-it-wrong-revisiting-priming (rebuttal to Episode 245; contextual-relevance framework)
  • Episode 256 — 256-this-small-change-can-make-a-politician-electable (herd mentality and social proof)

Related