You have three options for yogurt
blueberry, strawberry, and strawberry cheesecake.
Now, assuming that you like all these equally
and assuming that they're all the same price
which one are you more likely to choose and why?
In this video,  I'll explain four factors that subtly guide you toward a particular choice.
The first factor is what I call simulation fluency.
And this can influence whether or not 
you buy yogurt in the first place.
All else equal, you're more likely 
to buy yogurt from an open fridge
where all of the products are facing you
rather than a closed fridge
where everything Is behind a closed door.
And the reason why that happens is because
we're constantly simulating interactions 
within our environment.
So suppose that you're looking at a mug . . . say from an advertisement.
Most people will prefer the image of that mug where the handle faces the right-hand side.
When that handle is on the right hand side, you can more easily simulate the interaction.
Left-handed people prefer the opposite pattern.
They prefer handles on the left because that orientation
provides the strongest amount of simulated interaction.
We intuitively prefer open fridges
because we can more easily simulate ourselves
reaching in and interacting with those items
and we misattribute that ease with a desire
 to want to buy those products.
In a more direct study, people showed weaker preferences for snacks behind a plexiglass barrier
because they weren't able to 
simulate the interaction as vividly.
Now, certain factors like your current bodily state
can influence the strength of those simulations
and thus your desire for those products.
When people drank something sugary,
They perceived hills to be flatter
because with their heightened energy,
they can more easily simulate 
themselves climbing those hills.
There was another study where researchers asked people to estimate the heights of walls
and they found that parkour experts
consistently estimated walls to be shorter
because those people could more easily simulate themselves climbing those walls.
Based on those reasons
I suspect that you're more likely to 
buy yogurt from a closed fridge
if you are holding a shopping basket.
And I'm making that argument because 
if you're holding a shopping basket
that physiology activates the same 
physiological state as pulling something open.
So when that arm muscle is activated 
from the shopping basket
you can more easily simulate yourself 
pulling open a door.
So when you're walking down the the freezer aisle
and you're looking at that door
because you can simulate yourself 
opening that door more easily
You're going to, by nature, misattribute that ease
with a desire for whatever is behind that door.
And I would also make the argument that
you're more likely to buy strawberry yogurt 
if you're wearing high heels.
And that sound weird, but stick with me.
There's a much deeper explanation, but essentially . . .
We learn all of the concepts in this world
by building them on top of sensory experiences
So for example, your concept of physical balance
you used that as a basis to learn 
metaphorical types of balance.
So research shows that people standing on one foot
think that the relationships in their life 
are going to end sooner.
And that happens because they 
misattribute their physical instability
to more of a metaphorical instability.
So because they feel physically unstable
it seems like everything around them 
also has more instability.
If people feel physically unstable,
they're going to seek 
metaphorical solutions to that problem.
So research shows that 
when people feel physically off-balance
they're more likely to choose compromise options
so the quote unquote balanced options, so to speak.
Now with yogurt, we perceive strawberry cheesecake
 to be kind of the extreme option
where it might be high on taste, 
but it's also lower on healthiness.
So if we feel physically off balance 
say from wearing high heels
or any type of footwear where we kind of feel wobbly
Because of that instability, we're going to be 
more likely to buy strawberry or blueberry
because those options provide the 
metaphorical balance that we're seeking.
and I argued for strawberry in particular
because that flavor shares the same fruit 
as strawberry cheesecake.
So it also acts like a semantic compromise
between the polar sides of 
blueberry and strawberry cheesecake.
And I don't have time to go into 
all of the other examples and explanations
but this underlying mechanism has such a profound influence over every choice and decision that we make.
And I'm writing a new book on this topic, 
so keep on the lookout in the future.
But that was simulation fluency.
The next principle is choice closure.
Even though you're more likely to 
buy yogurt from an open fridge
I'd argue that the yogurt will taste better
if you buy it from a closed fridge 
for psychological reasons.
Research shows that after you choose an option
you're going to enjoy that option more 
if you perform a metaphorical act of closure.
So if you take a chocolate from an assortment
that chocolate will taste better 
if you cover the lid on the other chocolates.
If you're at a restaurant and you choose a meal
you will find that the meal tastes better 
if you're able to close the restaurant menu.
And, in our case with yogurt, that yogurt will taste better
if we can close a fridge door.
But why does all of that happen?
Well it's happening because of the same simulation process that we just looked at.
Open fridges are influential before the choice 
because of that heightened simulation.
After the choice, however, that 
simulation process becomes detrimental
because we can still simulate ourselves 
interacting with the other options that we didn't choose
which triggers a sensation called post-purchase dissonance
or sometimes post decision dissonance
With closed fridges, because they barricade 
the other options that we didn't choose
it reduces our ability to simulate the interaction 
with those leftover options
which reduces that feeling of dissonance
and we end up feeling better 
about the option that we did choose.
I don't want to go too off-track
but just like with metaphorical balance
We also used a physical 
sensory concept of containment
to derive a metaphorical containment
So for example, if there's an emotional event 
that no longer affects you or impacts you
we often say that you reached closure
as if you have physically closed something.
When people write about some type of event 
that they regretted in the past
they feel less emotion about that event 
if they seal it inside an envelope.
So similar to physical acts of balance
physical acts of closure 
act like a metaphorical enclosure
that encapsulates the emotional components 
so that they no longer affect us.
So that's choice closure
The next principle is what I call first option advantage.
Whatever option that you happen to look at first
becomes the option that you're more likely to choose.
Once you fixate your gaze on that first option
you evaluate that option by asking yourself
How do I feel about this option?
Now, if you're like me and you enjoy yogurt
you're going to be feeling positive emotions 
merely from this decision
because you're going to be 
receiving something that you enjoy.
So you're more likely to answer that question by saying
Hmmm. How do I feel about this option?
Well, you know, I'm feeling positive emotions
Therefore, those positive emotions 
must be stemming from this option.
And by this point, you've attributed your positive emotional state to this first option
And because you've already made that attribution
you're less likely to make that attribution
to the subsequent options that you evaluate.
So this first option naturally has that advantage
because it becomes the source of your positive mood.
But here's a question.
What option are you more likely to look at first?
All else equal you're more likely 
to look at a middle option
because of the central fixation bias.
And here you also experience another mechanism 
called the central gaze cascade effect.
In any choice context, you're more likely to choose the option that you look at the most.
And this can also explain first option advantage.
We often use that first option as a prototype to 
compare the other options that we look at.
So because of that process, we're naturally considering that first option more often than the other options
because we're using it as that 
prototype for comparison.
So it naturally consumes a 
larger portion of our working memory.
But kind of going back.
Once you initially look at a middle option
you still need to look at the other options
so you move your eyes to the left
view that option
move your eyes to the right
view that option
and then you kind of go back and forth a few times
just evaluating the options.
Well, each time that you move your eyes 
to the opposite side
You naturally cross over those middle options
and because they capture a 
larger percentage of your attention
it triggers that gaze cascade effect
where you look at it more often
and the more often you look at it, the more you like it
the more you like it the more often that you look at it.
All else equal, whenever you look at a set of options
You're more likely to look at a middle option
and you're more likely to 
eventually choose that middle option.
Finally, another principle is mental categorization.
Even though we have three distinct flavors
we can categorize this assortment in different ways
and each categorization can influence 
the option that we end up choosing.
First, some backstory.
Whenever we allocate resources across options
we're biased toward an equal distribution.
An investment firm might have two retirement accounts:
a risky exotic fund
or a safer index fund . . .  the option that people should be allocating more of their money toward.
Now even though people still might allocate 
more money toward the safer fund
just the mere presence of this risky account
then anchors people to allocate 
more money toward that risky account.
Now suppose that the firm separated 
the safe index fund into two accounts
domestic funds and international funds.
Now, before there was a 50/50 split
but by merely changing the category labels
the safer funds now comprise 
two-thirds of the total options
and because of our tendency for equal distribution
that category now extracts 
a larger percentage of our money
and what we should be allocating our money toward.
And we follow that same tendency with yogurt.
Suppose that you're buying twelve yogurts
 to last you the week.
The way that you mentally categorize those yogurts
will influence which options that you choose.
So suppose that you categorize on flavor.
We have three different kinds of flavors
so you might buy four of each kind equally. 
Pretty simple.
You could also categorize the yogurt by type of fruit
You might combine the strawberry 
and strawberry cheesecake
into a singular category of strawberry.
And thanks to our tendency for equal distribution
You might buy six blueberry
and six strawberry: three regular strawberry and three of the strawberry cheesecake.
Or you might categorize on healthiness.
You might combine strawberry and blueberry 
into a singular category of healthy.
And you might combine the strawberry cheesecake 
into a category of unhealthy.
And with that type of categorization
You might buy six healthy:
 three strawberry and three blueberry.
And you might buy six unhealthy
So the way that you merely categorize 
and conceptualize each option
can influence which choices that you make.
Now, this video explained four factors that non-consciously influence your choices.
In reality, there are an infinite number of things that potentially influence your choices.
If you want to learn more factors
you can get a copy of my book 
Methods of Persuasion
or you can subscribe to this channel for more videos.
So the way that you merely categor--an
So the way that you merely categorizize . . . categorizize?
So the way that you merely categori--cat
So the way...No, okay.
So the way that you merely categorizize.
Take umpteen?
So the way that you merely categorize . . . why can't I say this word?
Okay
