Suchergebnisse

AbstractFive studies provide converging evidence for the joint effect of perceived economic mobility and socioeconomic status (SES) on compensatory behavior, such that low SES consumers who perceive low economic mobility (i.e., economically stuck consumers) seek more variety than other consumers. We trace this effect to these consumers' desire to compensate for their low sense of personal control. Furthermore, we show that these consumers' variety-seeking tendency disappears when their sense of control is boosted by other means or when the more varied option is not associated with a sense of control. Alternative explanations based on instrumental benefits, reactance, and affect were tested and did not account for the effect. Thus, the current research provides fresh insights to consumer research by contributing to the literature on compensatory behavior, variety seeking, and SES.

AbstractNine studies investigate when and why people may paradoxically prefer bad news—for example, hoping for an objectively worse injury or a higher-risk diagnosis over explicitly better alternatives. Using a combination of field surveys and randomized experiments, the research demonstrates that people may hope for relatively worse (vs. better) news in an effort to preemptively avoid subjectively difficult decisions (studies 1 and 2). This is because when worse news avoids a choice (study 3A)—for example, by "forcing one's hand" or creating one dominant option that circumvents a fraught decision (study 3B)—it can relieve the decision-maker's experience of personal responsibility (study 3C). However, because not all decisions warrant avoidance, not all decisions will elicit a preference for worse news; fewer people hope for worse news when facing subjectively easier (vs. harder) choices (studies 4A and B). Finally, this preference for worse news is not without consequence and may create perverse incentives for decision-makers, such as the tendency to forgo opportunities for improvement (studies 5A and B). The work contributes to the literature on decision avoidance and elucidates another strategy people use to circumvent difficult decisions: a propensity to hope for the worst.

AbstractInterruptions during consumer decision making are ubiquitous. In seven studies, we examine the consequences of a brief interruption during a financial risk decision. We identify a fundamental feature inherent in an interruption's temporal structure—a repeat exposure to the decision stimuli—and find that this re-exposure reduces decision stimuli's subjective novelty. This reduced novelty in turn reduces decision makers' apprehension and increases the amount of risk they take in a wide range of risky financial decision contexts. Consistent with our theoretical framework, this interruption effect disappears when a stimulus's subjective novelty is restored after an interruption. We further find that these consequences are often unique to interruptions are often do not result from other interventions (e.g., time pressure and elongated thinking); this is because an interruption's unique temporal structure (which results in a repeat exposure to the decision stimuli) underlies its consequences. Our findings shed light on how and when interruptions during decision making can influence risk taking.

Abstract
The term "natural" is ubiquitous in advertising and branding, but limited research has investigated how consumers respond and relate to naturalness. Some researchers have documented preferences for natural products, specifically food, but there has been scant investigation of the psychological antecedents of such preferences, especially in the critical, multi-trillion-dollar domain of healthcare. Using publicly available country-level data from 41 countries and individual-level experimental and survey data from the lab and online panels, we find converging evidence that consumers do indeed differ in their preferences for relatively natural versus artificial healthcare options. These differences are influenced by the extent to which they subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE)—a belief system that influences judgments and behaviors across diverse domains—such that people who subscribe strongly (vs. weakly) to the PWE are more likely to prefer natural healthcare options because they are more averse to external intervention in general. Further, belief in the PWE makes consumers more sensitive to the intrusiveness of an intervention than to its extent. Theoretical and substantive implications are discussed.

AbstractWhile existing consumer research on political ideology often focuses on ideological differences in preferences for high-status, typically observably superior products, little is known about how political ideology may shape preferences for observably inferior products in non-status-signaling domains. Observably inferior products are product options that are dominated by alternatives along observable dimensions. We propose that, in non-status-signaling domains, conservatives are more interested in observably inferior products than liberals. This happens because conservatives (vs. liberals) have a stronger belief that things, including products, are in balance, whereby positives offset negatives. As a result, when presented with observably inferior products, conservatives (vs. liberals) are more likely to engage in compensatory reasoning and attribute positive qualities to these products, boosting their appeal. Activating belief in balance and preventing compensatory reasoning through cognitive load attenuate this effect. Salience of status-signaling motives serves as a boundary condition. Five studies and four follow-ups provide converging evidence using data collected in the laboratory and in the field, hypothetical and actual product choices, a variety of product categories and participant populations. These findings contribute to research on political ideology, compensatory inferences, and inferior products and provide insights with respect to managing product manufacturing, inventory, and waste.

Abstract
Solicitation of time and money donations are central to the success of nonprofit organizations like charities and political groups. Although nonprofits tend to prefer money, experimental and field data demonstrate that donors prefer to donate time, even when doing so does less good for the cause. However, despite the importance of this asymmetry, little is known about its psychological underpinnings. In the current investigation, we identify a previously unexplored difference between time and money, which we argue can explain the preference to donate time over money. Specifically, we propose that potential donors feel more personal control over their time (vs. money) donations, leading to greater interest in donating and donation amount. We test this framework across seven studies using incentive-compatible and hypothetical behaviors, utilizing both mediation and moderation approaches. Our results show that when donors' sense of control is threatened, donations of time might be used as a compensatory strategy and that simple linguistic interventions can increase perceived control and donations for money, which we find to typically lag behind time. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for marketing theory and practice.

Abstract
Nowadays consumers can easily connect with others who are pursuing similar goals via smart devices and mobile apps. This technology also enables them to compare how well they are doing relative to others in a variety of contexts, ranging from online gaming to losing weight to loyalty programs. This research investigates consumers' motivation to achieve a goal when they compare themselves with a superior other who has already attained the goal. Building on the literature on social comparison, and on competition in particular, we find that consumers are less motivated when the superior other has attained the goal compared to when the superior other is just ahead, keeping the relative distance equal. This negative effect on motivation is evident even in situations in which consumers can still attain the same goal as the superior other. We argue and demonstrate that this effect occurs because the other's goal attainment limits consumers' prospect to compete and overtake the superior other. Six experimental studies show evidence for this effect in hypothetical loyalty programs and behavioral task completion. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the motivational effect of social comparison, which have implications for marketing managers and public policy makers.

Abstract
Brand leaders possess tremendous agency, with the ability to shape a sweeping variety of outcomes. Does this fact confer psychological value to consumers? We posit that external conditions that undermine feelings of personal control cause consumers to affiliate more with brand leaders. This occurs because affiliating with such high-agency brands gives consumers a sense of personal agency and thereby restores feelings of control. An initial study using archival data from nearly 18,000 consumers reporting on over 1,200 brands documents real-world effects that are consistent with these propositions. Four follow-up experiments demonstrate the effect of low control on brand leader (vs. nonleader) purchase intentions using direct manipulations in controlled settings, capture the underlying process, and rule out alternative explanations. This research thus reveals that the psychology of personal control underlies a process that benefits brand leaders.

AbstractThis research examines how consumers make unilateral decisions on behalf of the self and multiple others, in situations where the chosen option will be shared and consumed jointly by the group—for instance, choosing wine for the table. Results across six studies using three different choice contexts (wine, books, and movies) demonstrate that such choices are shaped by the decision-maker's self-construal (independent vs. interdependent) and by the size of the group being chosen for (large vs. small). Specifically, we find that interdependent consumers consistently make choices that balance self and others' preferences, regardless of group size. In contrast, the choices of independent consumers differ depending on group size: for smaller groups, independents make choices that balance self and others' preferences, while for larger groups, they make choices that more strongly reflect their own preferences. Via mediation and moderation, the data show that differential attention to others underlies the combined effect of self-construal and group size on the joint consumption choices that consumers make for the self and others.