| The Role of Psychological Factors in the Evaluation of Audio Products by Laurence A. Borden & Chris White July 15, 2004 |
Audiophiles tend to spend a lot of time evaluating audio equipment. We
evaluate equipment because we are trying to decide what gear to buy. Other
times, it’s because we are reviewing equipment for a publication (paper or
electronic). Most of the time, it’s simply because it’s fun and informative
comparing and contrasting gear. Such evaluations often consist of what can
arbitrarily be separated into two aspects that can occur in either order (or
even simultaneously).
The first is something of a blow-by-blow assessment of the product’s sonic
attributes: Is the midrange natural? Is it forward or recessed? Are the high
frequencies rolled off or shrill? Is the bass tight and deep? And so forth. The
second aspect is more of a thumbs up/thumbs down value judgment, in which
it is decided whether the sound is pleasing, and how the gear performs
relative to its cost.
Implicit in either case is the notion that one can shed all preconceived notions,
rid oneself of any emotional baggage, shut out extraneous cues, and thereby
evaluate audio components/systems from a completely unbiased
perspective. While it is theoretically possible to achieve this lofty goal, the
reality is that human beings are not machines. We are influenced by a wide
variety of factors, often in complex ways.
Following up on the previous discussion of the Economics of Audio, in which
mention was made of the influence psychological factors have on the
monetary valuation of audio gear, in this article we explore in somewhat
greater depth the nature of psychological influences on audio evaluations. We
do so by drawing on well-established, experimentally verifiable principles of
cognitive psychology.
Psychologists posit that evaluation is a comparison process in which
consumers:
Translating this into English, and relating it to audiophilia, this means that
when listeners audition a piece of gear, they: compare the sound to what they
expected, decide whether the gear fails to meet, meets, or exceeds those
expectations, and then arrive at conclusions about the gear.
Let’s take a closer look at each part of this process.
PRE-CONSUMPTION EXPECTATIONS
When we evaluate something, we compare the performance to what we
expect. According to psychologists, when we make this comparison, our
expectations act as anchors for future evaluations, meaning evaluations are
not absolute, but are made relative to all expectations. How are these
expectations formed?
Psychologists distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Examples of
intrinsic factors include experience, knowledge, need for social validation, and
the like. In contrast, extrinsic factors include parameters such as price,
reputation of the manufacturer, competitive efforts (i.e., how much we know
about competitors’ offerings), advertising, and word-of-mouth.
It’s often said that we are what we eat. In the case of audio evaluations, this
might be modified to “we are what we’ve heard.” Because we have all had
different experiences, it stands to reason that we will each have different
responses to a particular piece (or system) of audio gear. Moreover,
because we frequently experience new gear, our attitudes change with time.
Accordingly, our evaluations of audio gear are profoundly influenced by what
came before.
The product attributes desired by the consumer also play an important role in
forming expectations (and thus on listener evaluation). For example, when
listeners place a very high value on clout, they are less likely to be pleased
with, and to fairly judge, lower price items, regardless of their sonic
performance. Conversely, if listeners place great value on bang-for-the-buck,
then they are less likely to fairly evaluate more expensive items. Sonic
preferences are usually an important influence on a listener’s expectations.
For example, if you favor very dynamic speakers and audition a speaker that
is only average in this attribute, you are more likely to take a negative view of
the product and fail to appreciate its other sonic virtues.
COMPARING PERFORMANCE TO EXPECTATIONS
When we compare the performance of equipment to our expectations, we are
predisposed to maintain cognitive and attitudinal consistency. To reduce
dissonance or maintain balance in mental representations of ideas, we
selectively process information that maintains consistency. To put this in
simpler terms, if you’ve always enjoyed the sound of CD player A, you are
subconsciously motivated to do so on subsequent listening sessions. If the
performance of a particular CD player A is less than what you’ve come to
expect, you’ll tend to attribute any shortcomings to other elements of the
system.
Further, it is likely that this desire to maintain consistency extends not only to
the same equipment, but also to equipment from the same manufacturer, or
even to similar designs (say, single ended triode amps).
CONFIRMATION/DISCONFIRMATION PERCEPTIONS
As we noted earlier, a key factor in evaluation is the degree to which
perceived performance confirms or disconfirms performance expectations.
What’s interesting is that we tend to be more satisfied when low expectations
are significantly exceeded than when high expectations are met. In other
words, we tend to be more satisfied when a $100 CD player sounds much
better than we expected than when a $1000 CD player sounds as good as we
expected.
What’s also interesting is that this satisfaction often extends beyond the
simple pleasure of having saved some money, but will likely influence how
“good” the product sounds. In other words, because exceeding expectations
generates more satisfaction than meeting expectations, we may very well
decide the $100 CD player sounds better than the $1000 CD player. It’s easy
to see how exceeding low expectations can explain the oft-heard phrase, “this
player outperformed players costing ten times as much!” Interesting food for
thought.
Another interesting tendency associated with confirmation/disconfirmation is
that the disconfirmation of “disbenefits” is often more powerful than
confirmation of benefits.
Disbenefits refers to expected shortcomings of a product. Consider for
example, inexpensive monitor speakers. Such speakers are generally
presumed to have “thin” bass. Confirmation of this particular disbenefit - in
other words, listening to an inexpensive bookshelf with thin bass - will have
minimal impact on an evaluation, because such a speaker was not expected
to behave differently. On the other hand, disconfirmation of the disbenefit -an
inexpensive bookshelf with tight and deep bass - is highly salient and will likely
lead to an unjustified evaluation, whereby the speaker will be perceived to be
better than it really is.
CONCLUSIONS
We have thus seen that audio evaluations are affected by several very
powerful psychological influences. When we evaluate audio equipment, we
are influenced by what we expect to hear, what we want (and don’t want) to
hear, and whether our judgment of what we hear is worse than, the same as,
or better than what we expected and wanted to hear. Whew! So, what are the
implications of all this? In considering this, it must be kept in mind that the
factors discussed above operate at the subconscious level. This has two
important implications.
First, it means that the biases occur without intent, and second, that they are
not readily controlled. How then can we benefit from our knowledge of these
biases? While the following is most relevant to reviewers, it can also be
applied to audiophiles who evaluate equipment for themselves.
Think about your expectations (reviewers should spell these out). Specifically,
what do you expect to hear from the equipment you’re considering? This
should include expectations of (a) the type of sound, and (b) how well you
expect it to perform (on, for example, a one-to-ten scale).
Second, the vaster your base of knowledge and experience, the better
equipped you are for making comparisons. For example, if the most
expensive preamplifier you've previously heard retails for $500, it will be
difficult at best for you to accurately judge a $5000 preamp. At the very least,
we believe reviewers should acknowledge when the price of equipment under
review is substantially different from the prices of equipment with which they
are most familiar (or most comfortable).
Third, recognize that your evaluation may be influenced by whether you've
listened to a particular piece of equipment before. In our effort to be
consistent, we expect a piece of equipment to sound like its predecessor. Try
to always evaluate equipment in a stable environment since (in an effort to be
consistent) we tend to attribute disconfirmation to “other” factors. Reviewers
should always state whether they've heard a particular piece of equipment
before, and should list the complementary equipment they are using for the
review.
And fourth, remember that your evaluations are influenced by your sonic
preferences -- something reviewers should reveal. If they like ribbons and
hate horns, they should state so. If they are enamored of 300Bs but are much
less fond of 845s, the reader should be made aware of this fact. If they like
tubes more than solid-state gear, they should make this clear. If they like
everything they’ve ever heard from the manufacturer of the piece they’re
currently evaluating, we should be told. Any audiophile evaluating equipment
will similarly benefit from keeping in mind these points.
In conclusion, we have attempted to describe, in simple terms, some of the
psychological factors that influence audio evaluations, and offered some
suggestions that we feel may improve the process. We feel that these
suggestions, which apply to both reviews and the evaluation of equipment for
one’s own benefit, will allow one to obtain a higher degree of “objectivity” (or
more accurately, less subjectivity, since no listening-based review is ever
objective in the strict sense of the word). By sharing their likes, dislikes,
experience and biases, reviewers will better enable their readers to decide
how much credence the review should be afforded. Taken together, this
should make the review/evaluation process more informative for both reviewer
and reader, and hopefully more fun as well.
evaluate equipment because we are trying to decide what gear to buy. Other
times, it’s because we are reviewing equipment for a publication (paper or
electronic). Most of the time, it’s simply because it’s fun and informative
comparing and contrasting gear. Such evaluations often consist of what can
arbitrarily be separated into two aspects that can occur in either order (or
even simultaneously).
The first is something of a blow-by-blow assessment of the product’s sonic
attributes: Is the midrange natural? Is it forward or recessed? Are the high
frequencies rolled off or shrill? Is the bass tight and deep? And so forth. The
second aspect is more of a thumbs up/thumbs down value judgment, in which
it is decided whether the sound is pleasing, and how the gear performs
relative to its cost.
Implicit in either case is the notion that one can shed all preconceived notions,
rid oneself of any emotional baggage, shut out extraneous cues, and thereby
evaluate audio components/systems from a completely unbiased
perspective. While it is theoretically possible to achieve this lofty goal, the
reality is that human beings are not machines. We are influenced by a wide
variety of factors, often in complex ways.
Following up on the previous discussion of the Economics of Audio, in which
mention was made of the influence psychological factors have on the
monetary valuation of audio gear, in this article we explore in somewhat
greater depth the nature of psychological influences on audio evaluations. We
do so by drawing on well-established, experimentally verifiable principles of
cognitive psychology.
Psychologists posit that evaluation is a comparison process in which
consumers:
Translating this into English, and relating it to audiophilia, this means that
when listeners audition a piece of gear, they: compare the sound to what they
expected, decide whether the gear fails to meet, meets, or exceeds those
expectations, and then arrive at conclusions about the gear.
Let’s take a closer look at each part of this process.
PRE-CONSUMPTION EXPECTATIONS
When we evaluate something, we compare the performance to what we
expect. According to psychologists, when we make this comparison, our
expectations act as anchors for future evaluations, meaning evaluations are
not absolute, but are made relative to all expectations. How are these
expectations formed?
Psychologists distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Examples of
intrinsic factors include experience, knowledge, need for social validation, and
the like. In contrast, extrinsic factors include parameters such as price,
reputation of the manufacturer, competitive efforts (i.e., how much we know
about competitors’ offerings), advertising, and word-of-mouth.
It’s often said that we are what we eat. In the case of audio evaluations, this
might be modified to “we are what we’ve heard.” Because we have all had
different experiences, it stands to reason that we will each have different
responses to a particular piece (or system) of audio gear. Moreover,
because we frequently experience new gear, our attitudes change with time.
Accordingly, our evaluations of audio gear are profoundly influenced by what
came before.
The product attributes desired by the consumer also play an important role in
forming expectations (and thus on listener evaluation). For example, when
listeners place a very high value on clout, they are less likely to be pleased
with, and to fairly judge, lower price items, regardless of their sonic
performance. Conversely, if listeners place great value on bang-for-the-buck,
then they are less likely to fairly evaluate more expensive items. Sonic
preferences are usually an important influence on a listener’s expectations.
For example, if you favor very dynamic speakers and audition a speaker that
is only average in this attribute, you are more likely to take a negative view of
the product and fail to appreciate its other sonic virtues.
COMPARING PERFORMANCE TO EXPECTATIONS
When we compare the performance of equipment to our expectations, we are
predisposed to maintain cognitive and attitudinal consistency. To reduce
dissonance or maintain balance in mental representations of ideas, we
selectively process information that maintains consistency. To put this in
simpler terms, if you’ve always enjoyed the sound of CD player A, you are
subconsciously motivated to do so on subsequent listening sessions. If the
performance of a particular CD player A is less than what you’ve come to
expect, you’ll tend to attribute any shortcomings to other elements of the
system.
Further, it is likely that this desire to maintain consistency extends not only to
the same equipment, but also to equipment from the same manufacturer, or
even to similar designs (say, single ended triode amps).
CONFIRMATION/DISCONFIRMATION PERCEPTIONS
As we noted earlier, a key factor in evaluation is the degree to which
perceived performance confirms or disconfirms performance expectations.
What’s interesting is that we tend to be more satisfied when low expectations
are significantly exceeded than when high expectations are met. In other
words, we tend to be more satisfied when a $100 CD player sounds much
better than we expected than when a $1000 CD player sounds as good as we
expected.
What’s also interesting is that this satisfaction often extends beyond the
simple pleasure of having saved some money, but will likely influence how
“good” the product sounds. In other words, because exceeding expectations
generates more satisfaction than meeting expectations, we may very well
decide the $100 CD player sounds better than the $1000 CD player. It’s easy
to see how exceeding low expectations can explain the oft-heard phrase, “this
player outperformed players costing ten times as much!” Interesting food for
thought.
Another interesting tendency associated with confirmation/disconfirmation is
that the disconfirmation of “disbenefits” is often more powerful than
confirmation of benefits.
Disbenefits refers to expected shortcomings of a product. Consider for
example, inexpensive monitor speakers. Such speakers are generally
presumed to have “thin” bass. Confirmation of this particular disbenefit - in
other words, listening to an inexpensive bookshelf with thin bass - will have
minimal impact on an evaluation, because such a speaker was not expected
to behave differently. On the other hand, disconfirmation of the disbenefit -an
inexpensive bookshelf with tight and deep bass - is highly salient and will likely
lead to an unjustified evaluation, whereby the speaker will be perceived to be
better than it really is.
CONCLUSIONS
We have thus seen that audio evaluations are affected by several very
powerful psychological influences. When we evaluate audio equipment, we
are influenced by what we expect to hear, what we want (and don’t want) to
hear, and whether our judgment of what we hear is worse than, the same as,
or better than what we expected and wanted to hear. Whew! So, what are the
implications of all this? In considering this, it must be kept in mind that the
factors discussed above operate at the subconscious level. This has two
important implications.
First, it means that the biases occur without intent, and second, that they are
not readily controlled. How then can we benefit from our knowledge of these
biases? While the following is most relevant to reviewers, it can also be
applied to audiophiles who evaluate equipment for themselves.
Think about your expectations (reviewers should spell these out). Specifically,
what do you expect to hear from the equipment you’re considering? This
should include expectations of (a) the type of sound, and (b) how well you
expect it to perform (on, for example, a one-to-ten scale).
Second, the vaster your base of knowledge and experience, the better
equipped you are for making comparisons. For example, if the most
expensive preamplifier you've previously heard retails for $500, it will be
difficult at best for you to accurately judge a $5000 preamp. At the very least,
we believe reviewers should acknowledge when the price of equipment under
review is substantially different from the prices of equipment with which they
are most familiar (or most comfortable).
Third, recognize that your evaluation may be influenced by whether you've
listened to a particular piece of equipment before. In our effort to be
consistent, we expect a piece of equipment to sound like its predecessor. Try
to always evaluate equipment in a stable environment since (in an effort to be
consistent) we tend to attribute disconfirmation to “other” factors. Reviewers
should always state whether they've heard a particular piece of equipment
before, and should list the complementary equipment they are using for the
review.
And fourth, remember that your evaluations are influenced by your sonic
preferences -- something reviewers should reveal. If they like ribbons and
hate horns, they should state so. If they are enamored of 300Bs but are much
less fond of 845s, the reader should be made aware of this fact. If they like
tubes more than solid-state gear, they should make this clear. If they like
everything they’ve ever heard from the manufacturer of the piece they’re
currently evaluating, we should be told. Any audiophile evaluating equipment
will similarly benefit from keeping in mind these points.
In conclusion, we have attempted to describe, in simple terms, some of the
psychological factors that influence audio evaluations, and offered some
suggestions that we feel may improve the process. We feel that these
suggestions, which apply to both reviews and the evaluation of equipment for
one’s own benefit, will allow one to obtain a higher degree of “objectivity” (or
more accurately, less subjectivity, since no listening-based review is ever
objective in the strict sense of the word). By sharing their likes, dislikes,
experience and biases, reviewers will better enable their readers to decide
how much credence the review should be afforded. Taken together, this
should make the review/evaluation process more informative for both reviewer
and reader, and hopefully more fun as well.
| Dr. White has been an Assistant Professor at the Michigan State University since summer, 2003. He was also a former Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida. His primary research interests are in Marketing Strategy and Management: *Strategic Decision-Making *Marketing Strategy Formulation and Implementation *Managerial Information Processing His research has been published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Marketing Education Review, and Marketing Letters. Dr. White holds a Ph.D. in Marketing from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Dr. Borden is a reviewer of DAGOGO. See his profile in the STAFF page. |
1) hold pre-consumption expectations,
2) observe product performance and compare the performance
to their expectations,
3) form confirmation or disconfirmation perceptions (did the
equipment perform as expected?), and then
4) form summary judgments.
2) observe product performance and compare the performance
to their expectations,
3) form confirmation or disconfirmation perceptions (did the
equipment perform as expected?), and then
4) form summary judgments.
