NPR84%

This expert watches shoppers like a hawk. Here's her holiday forecast85%

By Alina Selyukh0%

11/28/2025, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 222 hits. Analysis detected 1,830 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,004 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,486 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.10% of the article peer group.

PITTSBURGH  Katie Thomas notices everything in her local mall: How clothes in the window display of an athleisure store switched from blues to browns overnight. 
How Nordstrom aisles are spaced so they seem quiet, but spawn swarms of people carrying the branded bags. 
How many teenagers  a gaggle of boys!  are here on a school night, actually shopping, loaded with bags. 
As a teen, Thomas had worked and hung out at Ross Park Mall. 
Now it's where she does reconnaissance as a retail expert. 
Part anthropologist and part oracle, Thomas leads the Kearney Consumer Institute, a think tank inside a consulting firm used by some of the biggest retailers and brands. 
Her job is to divine what our shopping habits tell us about our economy and our future. 
"Are you shopping today just for fun? Holiday shopping?" 
Thomas asks a woman carrying bags from Madewell, J.Crew and White House Black Market. 
She learns it's a bit of both  the woman has a new pleather jacket for herself and sunglasses for her daughter. 
As Thomas peers into her crystal ball  a muddle of government and corporate data, surveys and research, things she sees and hears from shoppers and retail workers  she has put her finger on a new driving force of the American shopper. 
"What it actually all goes back to is control," she says. 
"They're trying to figure out what they can control in a world where they feel a sheer loss of control." 
Lurched from a worldwide pandemic into surging inflation, then tariffs, a historic government shutdown and an unstable world order, people are finding agency in their own spending. 
And it's changing how they shop this holiday season and into 2026. 
"I'm calling it the frugal consumer," says Thomas. 
Not frugal in the old-fashioned penny-pinching and reusing-grandma's-tinfoil sense, she explains, "but I mean, we're seeing exhaustion that extends far beyond the wallet. 
Where am I spending my money, my time, my energy  how am I distributing that in a world that has felt so exhausting lately?" 
Finding ways to assert ourselves through shopping 
The longing for control and agency shows up in different ways. 
There are the shopper boycotts  think of the crises at Bud Light and Target, among the biggest ones in recent years. 
There's the refusal to pay higher prices for name-brand groceries as shoppers of all incomes switch to store-brand items they never used to buy, including chips and candy. 
And there's a growing shift in aesthetic. 
The pandemic had us cocooning in neutrals and comfy-cozies, fueling the millennial obsession with "quiet luxury," beiges and pastels. 
But now color and maximalism have roared back into our homes and closets, with bold prints and plushies dangling on purses. 
"We want to be loud. We want to be individuals. We want to feel seen," Thomas says. 
"I've even heard from employees in this mall," she says, gesturing down the festively lit, echoey hallway, "people are spending on the 'wow' piece, not the basic  something fun." 
Splurging on the "wow" piece is difficult to slot into the common narrative about the American shopper: that consumers are cautious, on edge, tightening their budgets. 
That's because two seemingly contradictory things are happening in the economy. 
Consumer sentiment  a gauge of how people feel about the financial situation in the U.S. and in their own homes  is near the lowest it's been since the pandemic. 
Yet retail spending continues to grow, with holidays expected to set another record. 
How we feel vs. why we shop 
The National Retail Federation, an industry trade group, forecasts our holiday spending will, for the first time, top $1 trillion. 
Thomas's forecast is less exuberant, but still higher than ever. 
"I think we often miss the psychological piece of it," she says. 
"It's not just where are consumers spending their dollars? It's the why and the how." 
The "why" right now is the season of celebration and gift-giving, a search for joy as a reprieve from the dim economic outlook people tend to share with pollsters. 
And shopping offers a tinge of control and normalcy: Thomas found that in the depths of pandemic shutdowns, going out to shop was among the top things people reported missing the most. 
The "how" right now has to do with who's shopping and with what money. 
Most of the spending has been propped up by wealthier people, many of whom might be invested in the strong stock market or seeing the value of their homes rise. 
But others are shopping, too. 
While it's been harder to find a new job in the past several months, unemployment is not skyrocketing, and wages have been growing faster than inflation. 
Thinking twice about that one more thing 
Still, there's a caveat. 
Shoppers are being choosy and laser-focused on deals, as retailers from Walmart to Macy's to Dick's Sporting Goods have repeated all year. 
"Guests are choiceful, stretching budgets and prioritizing value," Target executive Richard Gomez told investors last week. 
For the holidays, Thomas is noticing shoppers second-guessing and skipping some of the extras  just one more stocking stuffer or a little treat as a self-gift  that people might have dropped into their baskets without much thought during the late-pandemic shopping sprees. 
Thomas's gut-check-the-extras theory quickly proves itself on her recent stroll through Ross Park Mall, as she talks with the shopper carrying Madewell and J.Crew bags. 
Shea Harmison, who's visiting from West Virginia, thinks about how her holiday spending might differ this year. 
"I'll probably just try not to buy as much nonsense stuff," Harmison says. 
"Not spending money on things that I don't think are going to be useful or they might not use… Stuff to buy just to buy, you know?" 
And Thomas predicts  in a forecast that's shared by online-spending trackers such as Adobe Analytics  this means stores may have to offer deeper discounts than they'd anticipated this holiday season, to try to shake loose that urge for control. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Alina Selyukh: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias8.5%This article: 22.1%Alina Selyukh: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic22.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Alina Selyukh: 4.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias22.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Alina Selyukh: 6.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 9.4%Alina Selyukh: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error9.4%This article: 2.7%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.2%Alina Selyukh: 5.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias11.2%This article: 9.9%Alina Selyukh: 6.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Alina Selyukh: 3.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 1.9%Alina Selyukh: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.3%Alina Selyukh: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 14.0%Alina Selyukh: 5.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal14.0%This article: 15.5%Alina Selyukh: 8.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority15.5%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Alina Selyukh: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon6.3%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.1%Alina Selyukh: 6.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.9%Alina Selyukh: 3.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%

1004 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.