Game Theory Framework Provides Insight into Consumer Behavior

“A Theory of Intraperson Games” by Min Ding
Journal Of Marketing
April 2007

(To read the original article, please click on http://www.atypon-link.com/AMA/doi/pdf/10.1509/jmkg.71.2.1)

"An angel on one shoulder and a devil on the
other”

Perhaps, there is nothing new un der the sun...

Min Ding argues for a game theoretic framework even when strategies and outcomes are confined to the same individual . In other words, such a game does not involve multiple players, but multiple selves of one player.

The concept advanced is intriguing. Ding proposes a theory of intraperson games (TIG) and draws on psychological, psychiatric, and artificial intelligence domains for supportive rationales. This theory posits two types of intrapersonal game players: the efficiency agent and the equity agent. Ding also provides an empirical application of TIG to variety-seeking behavior. Finally, he offers thought-provoking ideas for additional research.

This article raises interesting questions about consumers’ decision-making behaviors. For example, consider widely accepted notions that (1) personality traits are invariant over time and (2) key individual difference variables capture stable elements of consumer heterogeneity. If a strong personality trait in an individual implies the consistent dominance over time of one self over others, do intraperson games work less well for that individual? Similarly, if different consumers have different (but stable) levels of an important enduring characteristic that defines their self-identities, what are the implications for predicting strategies and outcomes of intrapersonal games within each consumer?

We have all been exposed to metaphors about “talking to yourself:” we argue the many sides of a question internally, with different internal advocates coming up with different positions. And then, somehow, most of us (humans, not avatars) come up with a decision. In the consumer choice domain, most of us resolve these internal conflicts and make a purchase decision. (Although I have certain family members who seem to be in almost endless internal conflict when deciding what to order at a restaurant, but that is a discussion for another time). Most of the theory and modeling surrounding consumer behavior ignores the resolution process of internal conflict…yet all of us seem plagued by “on the one hand…on the other hand”…whether we are considering what to eat for dinner or what house to buy. The big idea in Min Ding’s paper is that he recognizes that consumer choice can be framed as the resolution of internal conflict as opposed to some unconflicted utility maximization process. We all know we have many selves, all demanding attention and primacy, with some winning out sometimes and others winning at other times.

Min describes a more realistic and appealing model of people (consumers or businesspeople) assuming multiple selves when making important decisions. His classification of efficiency agent and equity agent as a framework of human selves seems to fit into many life or research scenarios, because as a social being, a person gains utility not merely from his/her own benefits but from adding to or not deducting social others’ benefits. In family purchase decision making, a husband may have to persuade himself not to be too assertive to appease his wife. Prior research typically relies on spousal demographics to predict spousal decision behavior while lacking a psychological framework to look at spouses’ self-persuasion in family decision conflict. As another application, this framework might be used to shed light on interpersonal trust research. Although trust has been seen as a governance mechanism that works to reduce transaction costs, little has been done to show why and how the trustee (such as a firm’s boundary agent) would refrain from being too opportunistic. Intuitively, based on the singlar assumption, he/she has to behave to maximize his/her firm’s interest according to his/her businessperson role; but why he/she acknowledges the trustor’s goodwill and responds accrodingly to reduce opportunism? Min’s intrapersoanl game theory may provide a new lens for looking into people’s multiple selves to uncover the mechanism.

Nevin Tan
107604076