A recent study published in Behavioral Sciences has shed light on how consumer desires for products are influenced by environmental conditions. The findings show that perceived environmental harshness generally reduces product desire, though the extent of this effect depends on the type of product and the specific environmental factors involved.
“It is commonly believed that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between marketing and advertising initiatives and consumer behavior (in this case, product desire). However, many consumer behaviors, such as the desire for status-signaling products and the desire for energy-dense foods, existed prior to the invention of advertising,” explained study author Jim Swaffield, an assistant professor at Athabasca University.
“My line of research examines how variations in environmental conditions (safe vs. harsh) can increase, decrease, and mediate product desire. More specifically, my research aims to understand the ‘ultimate’ drivers of consumer behavior rather than ‘proximate’ drivers of behavior. These ‘ultimate’ drivers of consumer behavior are usually adaptive—meaning that the behavior confers a survival advantage (either currently or in the past). In addition, these behaviors are rooted in our evolutionary development.”
The researchers conducted two experiments designed to examine product preferences among adult men and women in response to varying environmental conditions.
In the first study, the researchers investigated how environmental conditions affected women’s desire for two categories of products: beautifying items and wealth-signaling goods. A total of 197 women, aged 30 to 50, participated in the study. The researchers selected this demographic because the products were presumed to appeal to this age group. Participants were recruited through an online survey platform and were paid a nominal fee for their participation.
Each participant was shown ten product images, five of which represented beautifying items (e.g., nail polish, high-heeled shoes, and red nylons) and five that signaled wealth (e.g., luxury handbags, sunglasses, and branded shoes). Participants rated how much they wanted each product on a seven-point scale, ranging from “extremely undesirable” to “extremely desirable.”
Following this initial rating, participants were randomly assigned to one of six environmental conditions. These conditions were described in narrative form and portrayed scenarios varying in safety and harshness across three dimensions: social support, financial stability, and physical safety. After reading these scenarios and imagining themselves in the described situations, participants rated the same products again.
The researchers found that harsh financial conditions reduced women’s desire for both product categories. For example, in the harsh financial scenario, women’s interest in beautifying products dropped significantly, with statistical tests confirming this reduction. Similarly, women exposed to scenarios of physical danger exhibited a marked decline in interest for both beautifying and wealth-signaling products.
However, social support conditions, whether safe or harsh, had little to no impact on product desirability. These findings suggest that perceived financial and physical insecurity can suppress consumer interest in products that enhance appearance or signal status, likely because these items become less relevant under survival-oriented stress.
In the second study, the researchers shifted their focus to men, exploring how environmental conditions influenced their desire for products that signal toughness or wealth. A total of 147 male participants, also aged 30 to 50, were recruited using the same online platform and procedure. The product categories included items such as tattoos, motorcycles, and climbing equipment for toughness signaling, and luxury watches, suits, and leather jackets for wealth signaling. Participants rated their desire for these items using the same seven-point scale.
After the initial product ratings, male participants were similarly assigned to one of six environmental scenarios, representing varying levels of safety and harshness across the same three dimensions: social, financial, and physical conditions. Participants read the scenarios, reflected on their implications, and then re-rated the same products.
The findings for men were consistent in some ways with those for women but also showed key differences. Harsh financial conditions led to a significant reduction in the desire for both toughness-signaling and wealth-signaling products. For instance, men’s interest in luxury watches and suits declined markedly under financial stress.
“Financial stress seems to have a stronger effect on product desire than social stress or stress due to physical safety concerns,” Swaffield told PsyPost. “I would have thought that concerns for physical safety would be paramount. This effect was consistent for both men and women.”
When it came to physical safety, harsh conditions decreased the appeal of wealth-signaling products, but not toughness-signaling ones. Men’s interest in products signaling toughness, such as motorcycles or tattoos, remained stable even in scenarios involving physical danger. This suggests that men may view toughness-signaling products as potentially protective or advantageous in threatening situations, while wealth-signaling products could increase vulnerability in such contexts.
The findings highlight that “different types of stress have different effects on product desire,” Swaffield said.
Swaffield highlighted four key takeaways from the study: “First, this particular study provides evidence that consumer behavior and product desire can be influenced by factors other than marketing initiatives—specifically, environmental conditions. Second, if a particular consumer behavior becomes problematic (e.g., compulsive buying disorders, excessive food consumption, and gambling), it is more meaningful to ask, ‘What environmental conditions may have triggered these behaviors?’ rather than thinking they are a product of marketing initiatives.”
“Third, the direction of desire for particular products (increases vs. decreases in desire) can vary depending on the intensity of the environmental stressor. For example, mild stress tends to increase desire, whereas high-intensity stress tends to decrease desire. Fourth, due to the fact that males and females experience stressful events differently, we see sex differences in product desire.”
“Another thing that I found interesting—which was more of a realization—is that we often think of both positive and negative desire as absolutes (e.g., I want or don’t want a product). However, ‘desire’ is on a continuum ranging from strong positive desire to strong negative desire. Thus, philosophically speaking, a change in a Likert scale score from a score of -5 to -3 (even though both are negative scores) represents an increase in desire. This leads to a philosophical shift in how I think about increases and decreases in desire.”
The study demonstrates the importance of viewing consumer behavior through the lens of biology-environment interactions. But there are some limitations to consider. One challenge was the reliance on self-reported measures of product desire, which may not always align with actual purchasing behavior.
Additionally, “we may see different results if the environmental stressors were less intense,” Swaffield noted. “We see this effect with appetite. Specifically, low chronic stress increases appetite, whereas high-intensity stress decreases appetite.”
Future research could address these gaps by including a wider range of stressors and incorporating behavioral measures, such as tracking real-world purchasing decisions. The study also opens the door to further exploration of how specific environmental stressors interact with biological predispositions.
“In 2025, I will be conducting research that examines the relationship between environmental stressors, intra- and intersexual competition, and product desire,” Swaffield said.
“To develop a deep understanding of consumer psychology, we need to ask, ‘Are the behaviors that we are trying to understand cultural and historical universals?’ Meaning, did these behaviors exist before the invention of marketing, throughout history, and in all cultures? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then it is likely safe to assume that there is an evolutionary foundation to these behaviors.”
“If there is an evolutionary foundation to the behavior, it is likely hardwired into the human mind through an evolutionary process,” Swaffield continued. “Thus, the behavior is not caused by marketing and is not likely influenced by removing marketing initiatives. What’s more, to understand problematic consumer behaviors such as excessive consumption, we would be wise to ask, ‘What non-marketing environmental conditions could be the cause of these behaviors?'”
The study, “Unconscious Drivers of Consumer Behavior: An Examination of the Effect of Nature–Nurture Interactions on Product Desire,” was authored by Jim B. Swaffield and Jesus Sierra Jimenez.