A new series of studies shows that cat owners are drawn to products that reduce risk and prevent problems, while dog owners prefer products that promise gains. That has implications for the messages marketers craft and even for policy makers trying to influence consumer behavior.
Xiaojing Yang of the University of South Carolina and two coresearchers gave pet owners basic definitions of stocks and mutual funds, highlighting the increased risk associated with the former, and asked them which type of financial instrument they’d rather buy and how much they’d invest. Dog owners were more likely than cat owners to opt for stocks, and they allocated more money to them than the relatively few cat owners who made that choice did. Additional experiments revealed that cat owners also preferred products that prevented problems, while dog owners were drawn to products that promised gains. The conclusion: Cat owners are more cautious consumers than dog owners.
Professor Yang, defend your research.
Yang: Consumer behaviors are driven in part by two opposing mindsets: a promotion focus and a prevention focus. The first is characterized by eagerness, risk seeking, and a priority on maximizing gains, while the second is marked by caution, risk aversion, and a priority on minimizing losses. We tend to associate dogs with a promotion focus, given their typical openness and adaptability, while linking cats—which are generally warier and more aloof than their canine counterparts—with a prevention focus. My colleagues and I believe that exposure to dogs or cats reminds people of these stereotypical traits and activates the related mindset, making them either more inclined to favor products that are risky or promoted for positive outcomes, or more drawn to products that are low-risk or said to prevent negative outcomes.
HBR: Why would associations with pets have such a strong effect?
Social influences help shape how we make decisions and pursue goals. For example, an upbeat gathering with friends can foster a promotion focus, while exclusion from a group can encourage a prevention one. Given the prevalence of pets in our daily lives, they’re an important part of our socialization, affecting our mindset and cognitive style. That’s true even for people who don’t own pets but have simply observed others interacting with them.
What other products did you test?
We conducted 11 studies in all. One involved pet toothpaste. Participants were randomly assigned to write about a time when they interacted with either a dog or a cat. All of them then viewed two versions of an ad for the toothpaste and reported which they preferred. One version featured promotion-focused claims: “Our product helps your dog/cat freshen breath and strengthen tooth enamel!” The other made prevention-focused claims: “Our product helps your dog/cat prevent gingivitis and fights plaque buildup!” Participants who wrote about dogs had a stronger preference for the promotion-focused ad than those who wrote about cats, and vice versa.
We also did tests involving several nonpet items. People primed to think about dogs were more willing than those who thought about cats to exchange money they had in hand for a chance to win a lottery. They placed significantly higher bids for a massage when the session was said to increase metabolism and strengthen immunity than when it was said to alleviate tension and soothe aches. Similarly, when participants were shown sneaker ads with a promotion focus, those primed to think about dogs placed higher bids for the footwear than those thinking about cats did. But when the ads had a prevention focus, thinking about cats prompted higher bids.
How did you prime people to think about one type of pet or the other?
In several experiments we had people write about a past experience with a dog or a cat, as in the study with pet toothpaste. In others we asked for their feedback on dog- or cat-themed calendars or showed them print ads or video commercials featuring a dog or a cat. The pattern was remarkably consistent no matter what method we used.
Not all pets fit the stereotypes, however. Some dogs are shy and fearful, and some cats are so sociable that their owners describe them as doglike. Wouldn’t that change your results?
That’s a good question! In fact, we tested for that effect in one of our experiments. We divided participants into dog and cat groups and had them read a short text pointing out that although some members of the species in question exhibit its stereotypical traits, not all do. Half the people in each group were instructed to write about an interaction with a stereotypical member of the species; the other half wrote about a nonstereotypical member. We then asked all participants whether they’d rather invest in stocks or in mutual funds. Participants who wrote about stereotypical dogs were far likelier than those who wrote about stereotypical cats to prefer stocks, while people who wrote about stereotypical cats preferred mutual funds. But there was no difference among participants who wrote about nonstereotypical pets.
Your studies involved U.S. consumers. Would you expect the same results in other cultures?
I have a feeling we wouldn’t see the same results everywhere. In many other Western countries, pets are treated like friends or family members, as they are in the United States. In France they’re often treated as people’s equals. We’d probably find a similar pet-exposure effect in those places. But in some other countries—ones whose social structures are more hierarchical—people are more likely to view pets as possessions, and my guess is that their consumption choices wouldn’t be influenced in the same way.
How should managers use your results?
When a product’s features are mostly promotion-oriented, companies could feature dogs in their marketing materials. When they have more to do with prevention, cats would be a better choice. And the pets’ stereotypical behaviors would need to be depicted.
Marketers could also gather information about consumers’ pet ownership from product purchases, online views of pet videos, and so on, which can be easily done in our era of big data. They could then suggest differing products and services to owners of the two types of pets and craft their advertising messages accordingly—for example, emphasizing promotion-focused features when targeting dog owners.
Are there implications beyond consumption behavior?
There are! One of our studies didn’t deal with consumer products at all. It involved responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, and it revealed a similar dichotomy between dog and cat owners.
Using information from the American Veterinary Medical Association, we calculated the share of dog- and cat-owning households in each state. We then examined statewide per capita Covid-19 cases from January to November 2020, drawing on data reported to the CDC. Mapping the two data sets against each other, we found that people in predominantly dog-owning states were more likely than those in predominantly cat-owning states to have gotten the virus—even after accounting for states’ political leanings. An ancillary study using data from Google Trends showed that in comparison with people from chiefly cat-owning states, people in chiefly dog-owning states were more likely to have done searches using promotion-focused pandemic terms, such as “dining in,” and less likely to have searched for prevention-focused ones, such as “social distancing.” Policy makers could use those findings when faced with outbreaks of infectious disease, customizing their information campaigns on a statewide level to enhance their effectiveness.
Are you contemplating any related research?
We’re interested in whether pet ownership influences conspicuous consumption. We’re guessing that dog owners are more likely to engage in it, mirroring the openness and expressiveness of their pets—whereas cat owners might rather avoid the limelight.
