Cambridge A Level Psychology 9990: Consumer Psychology (Specialist Option 2)

Consumer Psychology is Specialist Option 2 of Cambridge International A Level Psychology 9990. It studies how people behave in shops, restaurants and online: how the physical and psychological environment shapes spending, how consumers make (and mistake) decisions, how products are packaged and sold, and how advertising works. The exam expects you to describe and evaluate theories and studies, link them to issues and debates and research methods, and apply them to real retail settings.

This guide follows the Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus for 2024, 2025 and 2026 and covers every numbered sub-topic from 2.1.1 to 2.5.3, including the five key studies. Use it with the Consumer Psychology revision notes and Consumer Psychology practice questions. The Specialist Options overview explains how the options are chosen.

How is Consumer Psychology examined?

The option is examined on Paper 3 (Specialist Options: Approaches, Issues and Debates) and on Paper 4 Section A (Specialist Options: Application and Research Methods). Paper 3 gives each option three short-answer questions (14 marks) and a structured essay of 6 marks (describe) and 10 marks (evaluate). The syllabus states that the topic areas on Paper 3 will differ from those on Paper 4, so every topic can appear somewhere.

Syllabus coverage

Number	Sub-topic	Content
2.1.1	Retail store design	Exterior design (storefront, window displays, landscaping), e.g. Mower et al. (2012); interior layouts (grid, freeform, racetrack) and virtual stores, e.g. Vrechopoulos et al. (2004)
2.1.2	Sound and consumer behaviour	Music in restaurants, key study North et al. (2003); background noise and taste, e.g. Woods et al. (2011)
2.1.3	Retail atmospherics	Mehrabian and Russell’s PAD model; odour, e.g. Chebat and Michon (2003); crowding, e.g. Machleit et al. (2000)
2.2.1	Environmental influences	Wayfinding in malls, e.g. Dogu and Erkip (2000); trip types and spatial behaviour patterns with CCTV tracking, e.g. Gil et al. (2009)
2.2.2	Menu design psychology	Menu features and eye-tracking, e.g. Pavesic (2005); primacy, recency and item position, e.g. Dayan and Bar-Hillel (2011); food names, e.g. Lockyer (2006)
2.2.3	Personal space	Hall’s four zones; overload, arousal and behaviour constraint; key study Robson et al. (2011); defending a queue, e.g. Milgram et al. (1986)
2.3.1	Consumer decision-making	Utility theory, satisficing, prospect theory; compensatory, non-compensatory and partially compensatory strategies; internet shopping, e.g. Jedetski et al. (2002)
2.3.2	Choice heuristics	Availability, representativeness, recognition, take-the-best, anchoring; multiple unit pricing and suggestive selling, e.g. Wansink et al. (1998); decision styles, e.g. del Campo et al. (2016)
2.3.3	Mistakes in decision-making	System 1 and system 2, e.g. Shleifer (2012); choice blindness, key study Hall et al. (2010); interference in memory for adverts, e.g. Burke and Srull (1988)
2.4.1	Packaging and positioning	Gift-wrapping; food package design, key study Becker et al. (2011); shelf position, planograms and the central gaze cascade effect, e.g. Atalay et al. (2012)
2.4.2	Selling the product	Customer-, competitor- and product-focused techniques; disrupt-then-reframe and need for cognitive closure, e.g. Kardes et al. (2007); Cialdini’s six ways to close a sale
2.4.3	Buying the product	Engel Kollat Blackwell model; store choice, e.g. Sinha et al. (2002); post-purchase dissonance, e.g. Nordvall (2014)
2.5.1	Types of advertising	Yale model of communication; print, TV, internet and smartphone media; eye-tracking and EEG, e.g. Ciceri et al. (2020); Lauterborn’s 4 Cs
2.5.2	Advertising–consumer interaction	Self-monitoring, key study Snyder and DeBono (1985) study 3; product placement, e.g. Auty and Lewis (2004)
2.5.3	Brand awareness and recognition	Children’s logo recognition, e.g. Fischer et al. (1991); brand image and slogans, e.g. Kohli et al. (2007)

2.1 How does the physical environment affect consumers?

Store design (2.1.1). The exterior is the first signal to a passer-by. The syllabus names three features: the storefront (entrance, signage, materials), window displays and landscaping (plants and outdoor features). Mower et al. (2012) is the suggested study of how exterior features affect liking of a store and intentions to shop there. Inside, three classic layouts are named. A grid layout uses parallel aisles, as in supermarkets; it is efficient and easy to restock but encourages shoppers to move quickly. A freeform layout arranges fixtures irregularly, as in boutiques, which encourages browsing but can be confusing. A racetrack (loop) layout leads shoppers along a main path past every department. Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) applied these layouts to virtual (online) grocery stores and found that the layout type affected how useful, easy and enjoyable shoppers found the site, so no single layout was best on every measure.

Key study: North et al. (2003). North, Shilcock and Hargreaves played classical music, pop music or no music on different evenings in a restaurant and recorded how much diners spent on starters, main courses, desserts, coffee, drinks and in total. Spending per head was highest when classical music played, compared with pop music or no music. The authors explained this through the idea that classical music creates an upmarket atmosphere, which primes diners to spend more. It was a field experiment, so ecological validity is high, but customers were not randomly allocated to conditions and other evening-to-evening variables (weather, day of the week) could not be fully controlled.

Background noise. Woods et al. (2011) found that loud background noise reduced ratings of sweetness and saltiness in foods. A suggested reason is that noise draws attention away from taste, which matters for airline food and loud restaurants.

Atmospherics (2.1.3). Mehrabian and Russell’s PAD model proposes that environmental stimuli produce emotional states of pleasure, arousal and dominance (feeling in control), which lead to approach behaviours (staying, spending) or avoidance behaviours (leaving). Chebat and Michon (2003) studied a pleasant ambient odour in a shopping mall and found it improved shoppers’ perceptions of the mall and its products, which then influenced spending. Machleit et al. (2000) found that perceived crowding reduces shopping satisfaction, though the effect depends on what shoppers expected and how tolerant of crowding they are. Crowding lowers dominance in PAD terms.

2.2 What is the psychological environment?

Wayfinding and movement (2.2.1). Wayfinding is how people find their way through a space. Signs and “you are here” maps help, and Dogu and Erkip (2000) studied how such features affect wayfinding in a shopping mall. Shopper movement can be classified by trip type: short, round, central and wave. The syllabus lists five spatial behaviour patterns: specialist, native, tourist, explorer and raider. Gil et al. (2009) is the suggested study using CCTV-style tracking of shoppers’ paths, which gives objective data without relying on what shoppers remember.

Menu design (2.2.2). Pavesic (2005) set out features of menus that help or hinder sales, such as where the eye falls first, the use of boxes and graphics to highlight items, and avoiding lists of prices in a single column that invite price comparison. Eye-tracking can test where diners actually look. Dayan and Bar-Hillel (2011) showed position effects: items placed at the very beginning or end of a menu category were chosen more often than the same items in the middle, which fits primacy and recency. Lockyer (2006) looked at how food names and descriptions affect choice.

Personal space (2.2.3). Hall described four zones: intimate (up to about 45 cm), personal (about 45 cm to 1.2 m), social (about 1.2 to 3.6 m) and public (beyond about 3.6 m). Personal space serves functions of avoiding overload (too much stimulation), regulating arousal, and avoiding behaviour constraint (loss of freedom to act).

Key study: Robson et al. (2011). Robson, Kimes, Becker and Evans investigated how the distance between restaurant tables affects diners. In a web survey, 1,013 American respondents were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions: a photograph of tables for two at 6, 12 or 24 inches apart (6 inches is the close phase of Hall’s intimate zone and typical of banquette seating; 24 inches the close phase of personal distance), combined with one of three scenarios (a business meal, a meal with a friend or a romantic date). They rated statements on 7-point scales measuring stress and arousal, perceived control, privacy and comfort. Tables 6 inches apart produced significantly more stress and discomfort and less privacy and control than 12 or 24 inches, and the effect was strongest in the romantic scenario. Women reported more stress and discomfort than men at every distance, and many respondents disliked banquette seating whatever the spacing. Closely spaced tables therefore reduced comfort and satisfaction, especially when the dining situation was private or intimate, which links to the overload and behaviour-constraint functions of personal space. The study has clear applications to restaurant layout, but responses about imagined situations may not match real behaviour.

Queues. Milgram et al. (1986) had confederates push into queues in New York. People objected more when two intruders pushed in than one, and people standing behind the intrusion point were more likely to object than those in front. The study shows queues have a social structure that members defend, but it raises ethical issues because people were deceived and did not consent.

2.3 How do consumers make decisions, and why do they get them wrong?

Models (2.3.1). Utility theory assumes consumers are rational and choose the option giving the greatest value. Satisficing (Simon) proposes that people stop at the first option that is “good enough”. Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky) proposes that people judge outcomes as gains or losses from a reference point, and that losses feel worse than equal gains (loss aversion). Strategies: a compensatory strategy weighs all attributes, so a weak point can be made up by a strong one; a non-compensatory strategy rejects options that fail on one key attribute (for example, “anything over my budget is out”); a partially compensatory strategy compares options on some attributes, such as counting which option wins on the most features. Jedetski et al. (2002) applied these strategies to website design, showing that sites can support or hinder the strategy a shopper prefers.

Heuristics (2.3.2). Heuristics are mental shortcuts. Availability: judging by what comes to mind easily. Representativeness: judging by how typical something looks. Recognition: choosing the option you recognise. Take-the-best: deciding on the single most important cue that separates the options. Anchoring: being pulled towards a starting number. Wansink, Kent and Hoch (1998) showed anchoring at the point of purchase: multiple unit pricing (such as “4 for $2”) and suggestive selling (a sign suggesting a large number to buy) both increased the quantity bought. del Campo et al. (2016) is suggested for how heuristics relate to decision-making styles.

Mistakes (2.3.3). Kahneman’s system 1 is fast, automatic and intuitive; system 2 is slow, effortful and logical. Shleifer (2012) reviewed this framework and its use in economics. Errors arise when system 1 answers a question system 2 should handle.

Key study: Hall et al. (2010). Hall, Johansson, Tärning, Sikström and Deutgen set up a tasting stall in a supermarket. Shoppers sampled two jams or two teas and chose their favourite. They were then asked to sample the chosen one again and explain their choice, but the containers had been secretly switched, so they were tasting or smelling the one they had rejected. No more than a third of the manipulated trials were detected, and even very different pairs (such as cinnamon-apple and bitter grapefruit jam) were detected in no more than half of trials. Participants often defended a choice they had not made. This is choice blindness. The field setting gives ecological validity; deception was needed, so debriefing was essential.

Memory for advertising. Burke and Srull (1988) showed that memory for an advert is worse when people also see adverts for competing brands in the same product category. Later adverts disrupt memory for earlier ones (retroactive interference) and earlier adverts disrupt later learning (proactive interference).

2.4 How are products packaged, positioned and sold?

Packaging (2.4.1). Gifts are wrapped to create surprise, show effort and mark an occasion; the giver’s and recipient’s beliefs about wrapping can differ, and types range from plain to elaborate paper.

Key study: Becker et al. (2011). Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein and Galetzka tested whether package design changes taste impressions. Participants tasted yoghurt from packages that varied in shape (angular or rounded) and colour saturation. Angular shapes and highly saturated colours led to expectations and ratings of a stronger, more intense taste, and the effect was strongest for people who care a lot about visual design. The conclusion is that packaging can change how a product is experienced, not only whether it is bought. It was a controlled experiment, so cause and effect can be inferred, but the product range was narrow.

Shelf position. A planogram is a diagram showing where each product goes on the shelf. Atalay et al. (2012) used eye-tracking and found the central gaze cascade effect: products in the horizontal centre of a display attract more visual attention and are more likely to be chosen.

Selling (2.4.2). Sales techniques can be customer-focused (built on the buyer’s needs, building trust and long-term relationships), competitor-focused (comparing favourably with rivals) or product-focused (stressing features), and each affects the buyer–seller relationship differently. Disrupt-then-reframe adds a confusing element to the offer, then reframes it positively (“It’s 300 pence… that’s £3, a bargain”). Kardes et al. (2007) linked its effectiveness to the need for cognitive closure: people who want a quick, firm answer, which increases under time pressure, fatigue or noise, accept the reframe more readily. Cialdini’s six principles used to close a sale are reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity.

Buying (2.4.3). The Engel Kollat Blackwell model describes stages of problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase and post-purchase outcomes. Sinha et al. (2002) is suggested for reasons for store choice and how they vary with age and gender. Post-purchase cognitive dissonance is discomfort after buying, stronger for expensive, important or irreversible purchases; it is reduced by seeking reassurance, focusing on the product’s strengths or returning it. Nordvall (2014) is the suggested study.

2.5 How does advertising work?

Types and techniques (2.5.1). The Yale model of communication identifies five features: the source (who), the message (says what), the medium or channel (how), the audience (to whom) and the effect. Advertising media include print, television, internet and smartphone. Ciceri et al. (2020) is suggested for using eye-tracking and EEG to measure attention and emotional response to adverts across media. Lauterborn’s 4 Cs recast the marketing mix from the consumer’s side: consumer (wants and needs), cost, convenience and communication.

Key study: Snyder and DeBono (1985). Self-monitoring is how much a person adjusts their behaviour to fit the social situation. High self-monitors care about image; low self-monitors care about matching behaviour to their inner values. Across three studies, high self-monitors responded more favourably to adverts that appealed to image, while low self-monitors responded more favourably to adverts making claims about product quality. The syllabus asks you to focus on study 3, which measured how willing participants were to try or pay for products depending on the type of advert. The findings support tailoring adverts to audience personality, but self-monitoring was measured by self-report and samples were students.

Product placement. Auty and Lewis (2004) showed children a film clip in which a brand of cola appeared; afterwards they were more likely to choose that brand than children who saw a control clip. Explanations include mere exposure (familiarity breeds liking) and placements acting as reminders.

Brands (2.5.3). Fischer et al. (1991) asked young children to match logos to products; many matched a cigarette brand’s cartoon logo to cigarettes, showing very young children recognise brands. Kohli et al. (2007) proposed guidelines for effective slogans, such as linking the slogan clearly to the brand name and keeping it consistent over time.

How should you evaluate consumer studies?

• Application to everyday life: most findings (music, table spacing, shelf position) translate directly into business practice.
• Ecological validity versus control: field studies (North et al., Hall et al.) are realistic but less controlled; laboratory studies (Becker et al.) are controlled but artificial.
• Determinism versus free will: atmospherics and heuristics imply consumers are steered without awareness, which raises ethical questions about manipulation.
• Cultural differences: spending, personal space and store choice vary between cultures.
• Use of children: Fischer et al. and Auty and Lewis raise ethical issues about consent and advertising to children.

Frequently asked questions

What are the five key studies in Cambridge 9990 Consumer Psychology? North et al. (2003) on music and spending, Robson et al. (2011) on table spacing, Hall et al. (2010) on choice blindness, Becker et al. (2011) on packaging and taste, and Snyder and DeBono (1985) on self-monitoring and advertising.

What does PAD stand for? Pleasure, arousal and dominance. Mehrabian and Russell proposed that these emotional states, produced by the environment, lead to approach or avoidance behaviour.

Which part of Snyder and DeBono (1985) do I need? The syllabus says to focus on study 3. You do not need the specific methods of studies 1 and 2.

Is satisficing a heuristic? Satisficing is listed as a model of decision-making alongside utility theory and prospect theory. It describes accepting the first “good enough” option rather than the best one.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus for 2024, 2025 and 2026, Specialist Option 2: Consumer Psychology — cambridgeinternational.org.

Related resources

• Consumer Psychology revision notes
• Consumer Psychology practice questions
• Specialist Options overview