MKTG6007 · Consumer Behaviour
Applied Consumer Behaviour
MKTG6007 has no exam — it is assessed entirely by applied work, so this chapter is the unit's signature: how to apply CB theory in the assessments. The skill being graded is the same one every page teaches — take a CB theory (motivation, learning, attitudes, decision, post-purchase, social, self) and pin it precisely to a real consumer or behaviour, with evidence. It walks the one move behind every task (observe → name the theory → map theory to evidence → diagnose or intervene → reflect critically), then shows it for the two heavyweight pieces: the 30% Changing Consumer Behaviour Challenge (CCBC) — a personal self-experiment written up as a CB-theory blog post — and the 25% group report plus 20% oral, where you diagnose a real consumer problem and design a theory-grounded solution. It closes on evidence craft: the difference between naming a theory and showing the mechanism operating in your case.
What this chapter covers
- 01A.1 The one move behind every task (observe → name → map → intervene → reflect)
- 02A.2 The CCBC (30%) — picking a behaviour and mapping it to theory
- 03A.3 Gathering evidence — baseline, dated log, lapses
- 04A.4 Structuring the blog write-up
- 05A.5-A.6 Group written report (25%) & group oral (20%)
- 06A.7 Writing & evidence craft — weak vs strong moves
Worked example: turn a description into an analysis
- +1Fix the behaviour claim. Replace “I drank less coffee” with a measured baseline and result: “Coffee fell from 21 to 6 cups/week over five weeks” — numbers are evidence, an adjective is not.
- +1Name the mechanism, not the vibe. Replace “the ads are colourful and fun” with the construct: “the ads use peripheral cues to build a low-effort affective attitude via mere exposure.”
- +1Show the mechanism in the case. Add the evidence: “my log shows 6 of 7 cravings were cue-triggered at 3pm — a classically-conditioned cue sustained by operant reinforcement.”
- +1Add the critical / ethical layer. Close with what the theory missed and the ethical read — the postgrad layer that separates a credit from a distinction.
Key terms
- Application (theory-to-evidence)
- The single skill MKTG6007 grades: take a CB theory and pin it to a real consumer or behaviour with evidence. Naming a theory earns almost nothing; marks come from showing the mechanism operating in the specific case — the cue that triggered it, the reinforcement that sustained it, the attribute that decided it.
- Changing Consumer Behaviour Challenge (CCBC)
- The 30% headline assessment: change one of your own consumption behaviours over the semester, document the journey with a dated log, then write it up as a mock blog post interpreting the whole experience through CB theory. An n=1 self-experiment — rigour comes from honest evidence and tight theory, not sample size.
- The diagnose → intervene loop
- The structure behind every task: define the consumer problem precisely, diagnose why with CB theory (a low-MAO trap, a non-compensatory rule, a negative attitude), design a solution that traces to the diagnosis, then justify it with evidence and an ethical check. A solution that doesn't answer its own diagnosis is the classic group-report fail.
- Evidence hierarchy
- A ranking of support: measured/observed data (your log, real campaign metrics) > documented example (a real brand action) > cited literature > plausible assertion. Push every claim as far up the ladder as you can — the top two tiers are where distinctions are won.
- Critical reflection
- The postgrad layer that lifts a credit to a distinction: what the theory predicted, where it fell short, the ethical read, and what you'd do next. It directly serves the unit's learning outcome to reflect critically on consumption.
Applied Consumer Behaviour FAQ
What does “apply” actually mean in this unit?
It means showing the mechanism operating in your specific case, not name-dropping a theory. “This is classical conditioning” earns little; “the jingle (CS) had been paired with the reward of the snack (US) so often that hearing it alone triggered my craving (CR) at 3pm” earns the mark. The two killers are theory too loose (“motivation” instead of “low-perceived-relevance, low-MAO processing”) and assertion without evidence — so tie every theory to a datum.
How do I pick a good CCBC behaviour?
Choose something genuinely yours and habitual (so you can study the learning that built it), observable and measurable (cups/day, $/week, screen minutes — so you have evidence, not vibes), theory-rich (touching several constructs — a cue, a reward, an attitude, a rule — so you can apply the whole unit), and achievable in the window. “I switched my phone case” has almost no CB mechanism to analyse; a behaviour with a visible cue–routine–reward loop gives you 1,000+ words of real analysis.
Does a failed behaviour change score badly?
No — honesty outscores a clean win. A failed or partial change, analysed well, scores higher than a suspiciously perfect success with no mechanism, because markers reward CB insight, not willpower. A relapse is data, usually a reinforcement-failure or situational-override story; explain it with theory. Start collecting evidence on day one (you can't reconstruct it later) and measure a baseline before you change anything.
How is the group report structured?
It mirrors the unit's diagnose → intervene loop: define a real, specific consumer-behaviour problem (not “low sales” but the consumer behaviour behind it); diagnose why with precise CB theory; design a theory-grounded solution where every recommendation traces to the diagnosis (diagnose a peripheral-route attitude, fix it on the peripheral route); then justify with consumer evidence and literature, predict the outcome, and add the ethical check. The classic fail is a generic marketing plan bolted onto a diagnosis it doesn't answer.
Exam move
Internalise the one move behind every task and run it with the nouns swapped: observe a real consumer phenomenon → name the precise CB construct → map theory to evidence → diagnose or intervene → reflect critically. For the CCBC, pick a theory-rich habit, measure a baseline before you change anything, keep a dated cue–feeling–context log, and weave constructs through the narrative as the story needs them rather than writing separate “motivation/learning/attitude” sections. Push every claim up the evidence hierarchy (measured data beats a cited assertion), keep the writing warm but the CB precise and APA-7 cited, and finish with critical reflection plus an ethical read — the distinction-shaped layer. Before submitting anything, check five yeses: precise theory, evidence-tied claims, mechanism shown, critical/ethical reflection, readable and referenced.
