Consumer Psychology Review最新文献

We comment on a proposal in the target article that draws on “behaviorism” for developing interventions geared at attenuating negative consumer behaviors. One interpretation of this proposal emphasizes the influence of stimuli (S) on responses (R) and de-emphasizes intervening mental processes. We contrast this S–R perspective with an S–O–R perspective that embraces O, the organism (in our context, the consumer) and in doing so attempts to explain and then leverage S–R relations. We discuss in detail that without an organism- and theory-centered perspective of S–R relations, it is difficult to identify relevant stimuli and predict patterns of behavior in new contexts. We illustrate in more depth using Janiszewski and Laran's example of aiding an individual suffering from depression how this theory- and organism-centered perspective can improve possible intervention strategies.

Consumers have available to them several potential strategies they might use to evaluate a given price. Research suggests they might compare an observed price to internal reference prices (IRPs) drawn from memory. Alternatively, consumers might evaluate a price relative to external reference prices (ERPs) available in the immediate environment. Finally, a consumer might use the seller's price image (PI), the overall impression that consumers form of the price level of a store, as a heuristic to evaluate prices. This paper briefly reviews previous research on these three evaluation strategies, as well as work investigating how these strategies interact with each other. Building on previous work, these insights are organized into a framework for predicting the factors likely to influence consumers' use of each of these strategies. It is argued that the selection of a price evaluation strategy will be based on the relative accessibility and perceived diagnosticity of IRPs, ERPs, and PIs, as well as the consumers' motivations and type of judgment the consumers are making.

The cognitivist paradigm has dominated the past 50 years of consumer research. Cognitivist theories have provided extensive insights into pre-consumption behaviors (i.e., information gathering, attitude formation, product choice, and product purchase) and the processes that support these behaviors (i.e., attitudes, persuasion, information processing, memory, knowledge, and choice processes). Yet, the cognitivist paradigm has limitations, especially when it comes to addressing detrimental consumption, over-consumption, and perverse incentives in consumption systems. To address these issues, we discuss how a behaviorist paradigm can be used to identify more efficient and effective interventions for societal ills. The behaviorist perspective emphasizes that an alteration of the consumption environment can influence the ease of expressing a behavior and the rewards/punishments associated with this expression. Hence, behaviorism is useful in identifying and implementing intelligent nudges.

This conceptual paper presents a framework that integrates 11 forms of voluntary payments as seemingly disparate as bribes and bequests, and gifts and gratuities to show that “voluntary” payments vary in the shades of gray not only in terms of how much like bribes they are but also in terms of how voluntary they actually are. We provocatively suggest that these payment types might be susceptible to becoming entrenched through self-reinforcing norms because the voluntary payments are not necessarily voluntary and to an extent akin to bribes. Specifically, it provides an overarching framework to showcase the similarities and differences between bribes, lobbying efforts, suggested fees, pay what you want, tips, bequests, legacies, charity, crowdsourcing, dowry, and gifts, identifying gaps in domains that are under-researched. Starting with the question as to whether a service has been, is being, or will be performed for the voluntary payment, and whether payments are made to an individual or a cause, the framework highlights the following: (1) the differences in the purpose underlying these payments, (2) the different modes of payment used; (3) the economic and social norms governing the payments; and (4) external and internal emotions associated with these payment types. The integrative framework allows for an amalgam of disparate literatures ranging from morality and behavioral pricing to charity and gift giving. The process model suggests a multitude of areas for future research in the domain of consumers' voluntary payment decisions.

Consumers' decisions are intricately interwoven with their conversations. Whether it is an animated discussion with a trusted friend extolling the virtues of a newly acquired car (i.e., Word-of-Mouth), an engaging dialogue with a salesperson, or a clarifying call to a help center seeking guidance on a just-purchased smartwatch, every exchange hinges on a pivotal factor: the quality of listening. Listening quality shapes perceptions, affects social influence, drives behavioral intentions, and, ultimately, determines purchase and post-purchase outcomes. Yet, despite its importance to these consumer behavior outcomes, listening has received scant attention in consumer psychology. In this paper, we review the effects of listening on consumer behavior-relevant outcomes and unpack the components of quality listening to reveal their independent mechanisms. We also point to new frontiers in listening research beyond the in-person, dyadic interactions that have been the primary focus of listening research to date. By doing this, we elucidate how listening and consumer behavior are connected and encourage more research on listening in consumer psychology.

There is value in blending behaviorism and cognitivism when investigating consumer behavior. Traditionally, the blend has consisted of a serving of cognitivism with a dash of behaviorism. Behaviorism might inform the focus (e.g., predictive learning) or assumptions about the process (e.g., Bayesian updating), but cognitivism comprises the theoretical foundation. We propose there is value in an alternative blend—a serving of behaviorism with a dash of cognitivism. Cognitivism might inform the selection of stimulus cues (e.g., predictive learning) or assumptions about the process (e.g., association strengths), but behaviorism informs the manipulations of causal factors (e.g., stimulus properties, reward schedules, and learning history). Embracing alternative approaches to blending behaviorism and cognitivism creates opportunities for novel insights into consumer behavior.

Disclosure is a pervasive behavior critical to the human experience, and has been the focus of both empirical research and theorizing by social and consumer psychologists. This work has typically characterized disclosure as a deliberate and strategic act, the product of a careful weighing of costs and benefits. In this paper, we argue that, although some disclosure can be deliberate and “rational,” much of it exhibits drive-like qualities. We review evidence to suggest that, much like other drive states (e.g., hunger), the desire to disclose can be visceral, driven by emotions and physical arousal, and satiated through the act of disclosing. And just as more basic drives evolved to motivate adaptive action but can engender maladaptive behavior (e.g., over-eating), disclosures can likewise be impulsive and ultimately regrettable. We propose a dual-process model that encompasses both viscerally driven and deliberate disclosures and that makes sense of the conflicts that often arise between the two.

Economic price theory assumes that consumers' responses to prices can be characterized by stable demand curves and price elasticities. The author posits that this assumption lacks descriptive validity because the demand curve is rather unstable; subtle changes in framing and contextual cues can change the demand curve. The article outlines heuristic price theory, which posits that price evaluations are pluralistic in nature. Each price evaluation entails several heuristic decision rules (or decision criteria) that are activated by conscious and unconscious evaluative responses to price and the contextual cues. The extant literature identifies six types of evaluative responses that influence these heuristic decision rules: the pain of paying, price comparisons, price–quality inferences, price negotiability judgments, price fairness judgments, and price–feature tradeoff. To predict how prices influence consumer behavior in a particular context, it is important to identify the heuristic decision rules being used in that context. This implies that managers and researchers, instead of focusing only on estimating price elasticities using stylized demand curves, should also study the heuristic decision rules that shoppers use to evaluate prices.

We review the classic clinical versus statistical prediction debate as well as related modern work on humans versus. algorithms. Despite the successes of statistical prediction over clinical prediction, there is still widespread resistance to algorithms. We discuss recent attempts to understand that resistance. Current research focuses on when people use algorithmic predictions, how people perceive algorithms, and how algorithms can be made more appealing. We also examine attempts to boost human forecasting accuracy, either by spotting talent, cultivating talent via training, or developing algorithms that aggregate individual forecasts. We hypothesize that hybrid models with both human and algorithmic predictions may encounter less resistance than algorithms alone, especially when the algorithm is “humanized” (with anthropomorphic features) and the human is “algorithmized” (by reducing noise, decreasing bias and increasing signal).

Research questions in the prosocial behavior literature focus on the pro aspect of prosocial behavior—that is, how to motivate actions that benefit others. These questions typically employ simplified decision contexts that neglect the intersocial aspect of prosocial behavior—that is, people are embedded in social networks and impacted by interactivity among two or more persons, entities, or societies. These intersocial influences have increased with technology access. Consumers now face richer choice tradeoffs, can access more information on causes, observe others' actions, and choose to make their own choices public. To ask questions that address the nature of prosocial behavior itself rather than consider it merely as another decision context to motivate human behavior in, we call for researchers to conceptualize prosocial behavior as intersocial. This approach can help capture the more realistic decision tradeoffs consumers face, as well as illuminate new research opportunities arising from considering technology-enabled giving and socially hyperconnected consumers.