Researcher Spotlights are Q&As that shine a light on School of Human Ecology faculty members’ unique scholarship and research interests.
Nancy Wong is the Kohl’s Chair in Retail Innovation, a professor of Consumer Science and the School of Human Ecology’s associate dean for faculty affairs. She is a consumer psychologist who explores how cultural and materialistic values influence the way we consume. Wong is particularly interested in understanding how consumers make choices that could impact their health and financial well-being, as well as those that promote environmental sustainability.
How did you become interested in your area of study?
I consider myself an accidental academic. I was the first in my family to go to college, and when it came time to apply for a major, I had no idea what I should be doing. At first I was interested in the sciences, possibly biochemistry. My dad told me I should study accounting because I’d always be able to find a job, so that’s how I ended up with an accounting and business degree. I was actually relieved because English isn’t my first language, and working with numbers was so much easier for me than writing papers, so at that time I avoided anything that had to do with writing. I think you would find that with a lot of international students.
I was so bored with my first job and decided to pursue a Master of Business Administration (MBA). During that time I received a fellowship to study international marketing and realized I liked that subject. I also eventually earned a PhD in business administration. After becoming an assistant professor, I discovered that, rather than marketing research, I was very interested in behavioral research and consumer psychology. In other words, I’m less interested in what makes customers buy one brand of chips versus another — I like research that deals with the serious financial decisions people have to make, such as medical care, and how those decisions and other consumption choices impact their well-being, along with environmental well-being.
What’s your motivation for doing this type of work, and how does it impact human well-being?
I’m interested in the consumer side of things because businesses hold most of the cards — their goal is to sell and appeal to customers, and they have a great understanding of how to entice consumers to make choices that aren’t necessarily good for them. I think most of us like to be on the side of the underdog — you feel like you need to be an advocate for the less advantaged. I know the tricks from a business’ perspective, and I often wonder, how can we leverage that knowledge to help consumers make better decisions? The School of Human Ecology is a natural fit for me because of that work and interest.
What has surprised you about working in your field?
We are all susceptible to the mental pitfalls and cognitive biases common in marketing because we are human. It happens to every one of us, myself included. For example, a great sales “bundle” from marketers to get you to buy and spend more. I went online to buy a pair of running shoes and they encourage you to buy a second pair to get free shipping and throw in two pairs of socks. You say, “Why not, I can always use another pair of shoes and socks, and see how much I’m saving on shipping?”
Are there any common misconceptions about your work?
I’m fascinated by the whole notion of conspicuous consumption and luxury. I think the psychology of it is complex as far as what this type of materialism does for consumers who buy luxury goods. The common conception about people who splurge on expensive things is that they’re shallow and are only concerned with how others see them. What we’re neglecting is the satisfaction this person derives from consuming that thing, and if the person truly enjoys a product that he or she can afford, and he or she is not depriving anyone else of this particular thing, how is it actually bad? What if that particular object allows that person to enjoy a better life with their family or friends?
Eastern and western cultures also have a different way of looking at this, especially with individualist versus collectivist cultures. Within the western context, if you were to measure people’s material values versus happiness, you’d find a negative relationship, whereas it’s sometimes positive in the east. I think it’s because, in the west, if you as an individual person were to prioritize material possessions and wealth, it means that most of the time you have to work really hard and you’re depriving yourself of time you could spend either enriching yourself or cultivating relationships. On the other side, you see a lot of anecdotal evidence of people who work very hard and say, “This is what I need to do because I want to provide for my family — this brings me happiness because I’m the provider. I want my children to have a better future. That’s why I’m working so hard. It’s for them, not for myself.” When you look at it from that perspective, it’s no longer a sacrifice because it’s collective betterment.
What do you see as the most critical question currently facing your field?
At least in my own experience in the social sciences, academic journals that are considered the most prestigious often pride themselves on publishing high-level theoretical contributions that most people don’t understand — I know I get lost when I read some of these papers. But that type of paper is how you climb the academic ladder. The other type of research you can publish is on things that are much more direct and have real applications for consumers and policymakers. I think there’s room for both but a greater need for the latter, and in certain fields, the latter is sometimes actively discouraged.
I think we should encourage senior academics who have established reputations to either do this more direct work themselves or create space for junior academics to do so. Increasingly, for our research to be relevant, I think it needs to be closer to the ground and involve multiple areas of study, because most issues are way bigger than a single discipline can handle. This is something we’re still trying to sort out — a lot of junior academics are trying to do this kind of work, but institutional structures are not quite in place to support it.
Who are some individuals who have influenced your work? How do you think about “paying it forward” as you gain experience in your field?
I’ve always looked at my PhD advisor, Richard Bagozzi at the University of Michigan, as my inspiration. He’s unusual in the sense that he’s kind of agnostic about where he chooses to publish, and he collaborates with people at all levels. There are no journals that are too small. He’s the most humble person I know. He loves working with graduate students and junior faculty because that’s how he supports them in their careers.
The “paying it forward” piece is just emulating him to the extent that I can. When I’m mentoring doctoral students, I joke that they have Bagozzi to thank, because every time I consider what I can do for them, I think about what he did for me.
What else should the Human Ecology community know about you?
I love scuba diving. My favorite location is an area called the Coral Triangle in the western Pacific Ocean. It’s the most biodiverse in the world in terms of marine life. Being on a dive boat is definitely my happy place, and I’ve been doing it for at least 20 years. It’s the best place to make friends.