Rachel E Hochstein, Ela Veresiu, Colleen M Harmeling
Morality, appraisals of right and wrong, is central to consumers’ identities and decisions. Even everyday consumption choices can be subject to moral judgments and require moral justifications. When and how do consumers moralize formerly taken-for-granted consumption practices? Considering self-care consumption in the United States, which includes practices that range from bathing to dieting to meditating to vacationing, this paper examines the moralization of everyday consumption practices. This research reveals that consumption is likely to be moralized when there are culturally contested meanings of its core constructs, like “self” and “care,” leading cultural authorities to prescribe alternative ways to pursue the same consumption goal (ie, cultural scripts). Exposure to cultural scripts that clash with consumers’ moral intuitions about self-care consumption triggers moral introspection, an evaluation and re-calibration of those intuitions. Consumers then set moral boundaries of acceptable self-care consumption by (1) denouncing, such that they assume a position of moral righteousness; (2) positioning, to indicate moral inclusivity; (3) balancing, which implies moral licensing; or (4) ritualizing, in which case they express moral autonomy. This study advances consumer research by establishing that moral considerations intertwine with consumers’ identities and underlie the symbolic meanings of everyday consumption practices.
{"title":"Moralizing Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care","authors":"Rachel E Hochstein, Ela Veresiu, Colleen M Harmeling","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae056","url":null,"abstract":"Morality, appraisals of right and wrong, is central to consumers’ identities and decisions. Even everyday consumption choices can be subject to moral judgments and require moral justifications. When and how do consumers moralize formerly taken-for-granted consumption practices? Considering self-care consumption in the United States, which includes practices that range from bathing to dieting to meditating to vacationing, this paper examines the moralization of everyday consumption practices. This research reveals that consumption is likely to be moralized when there are culturally contested meanings of its core constructs, like “self” and “care,” leading cultural authorities to prescribe alternative ways to pursue the same consumption goal (ie, cultural scripts). Exposure to cultural scripts that clash with consumers’ moral intuitions about self-care consumption triggers moral introspection, an evaluation and re-calibration of those intuitions. Consumers then set moral boundaries of acceptable self-care consumption by (1) denouncing, such that they assume a position of moral righteousness; (2) positioning, to indicate moral inclusivity; (3) balancing, which implies moral licensing; or (4) ritualizing, in which case they express moral autonomy. This study advances consumer research by establishing that moral considerations intertwine with consumers’ identities and underlie the symbolic meanings of everyday consumption practices.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Graham Overton, Joachim Vosgerau, Ioannis Evangelidis
We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity, and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.
我们的研究表明，消费者会混淆民意调查中的共识信息（如 90% 的受访者更喜欢 A 产品而非 B 产品）与喜欢程度的差异（即受访者喜欢 A 产品的程度高于 B 产品）。我们通过经验和模拟证明--虽然这可能是真的--但更有可能的是，A 的平均喜爱程度只略高于 B 的平均喜爱程度。这种规律性对 A 和 B 评价之间相关性的符号和大小以及 A 和 B 的喜爱程度的大多数分布都是稳健的。传播者（营销者、管理者、公共政策制定者等）可以利用这些错误的推断，战略性地将偏好信息显示为共识或喜欢度，从而导致选择的巨大变化。消费者的错误推断可以通过教育他们了解喜好差异的分布形状来纠正。我们讨论了理解和使用民意调查的理论和管理意义。
{"title":"People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B","authors":"Graham Overton, Joachim Vosgerau, Ioannis Evangelidis","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae055","url":null,"abstract":"We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity, and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do people decide what should—and should not—be censored? Seven studies investigate the psychology of digital censorship regarding user-generated content. Study 1 is inductive, identifying three dimensions—content, intent, and outcomes—along which consumers believe censorship decisions regarding user-generated content should be made. Despite the prevailing practice of content-based digital-censorship decisions—that is, censorship based on whether the focal content includes negative, concrete attributes such as obscene language and violence—people’s acceptance of censorship decisions is determined, in part, by the degree to which the creator’s intent is considered (an “intent-sensitivity hypothesis”; Studies 2A–2D) even when failing to censor would engender negative consequences. The current research contends that this effect stems from people’s belief that when online platforms make censorship decisions regarding user-generated content, they should abide by conversation norms. Thus, people demonstrate less intent sensitivity in contexts in which doing so is not as conversationally normative—for instance, when platforms are used for professional, rather than social, purposes (Study 3). Furthermore, people do not expect the platform to exhibit intent sensitivity in less conversationally intimate contexts (Study 4).
{"title":"When Is Digital Censorship Permissible? A Conversation Norms Account","authors":"Tami Kim","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae054","url":null,"abstract":"How do people decide what should—and should not—be censored? Seven studies investigate the psychology of digital censorship regarding user-generated content. Study 1 is inductive, identifying three dimensions—content, intent, and outcomes—along which consumers believe censorship decisions regarding user-generated content should be made. Despite the prevailing practice of content-based digital-censorship decisions—that is, censorship based on whether the focal content includes negative, concrete attributes such as obscene language and violence—people’s acceptance of censorship decisions is determined, in part, by the degree to which the creator’s intent is considered (an “intent-sensitivity hypothesis”; Studies 2A–2D) even when failing to censor would engender negative consequences. The current research contends that this effect stems from people’s belief that when online platforms make censorship decisions regarding user-generated content, they should abide by conversation norms. Thus, people demonstrate less intent sensitivity in contexts in which doing so is not as conversationally normative—for instance, when platforms are used for professional, rather than social, purposes (Study 3). Furthermore, people do not expect the platform to exhibit intent sensitivity in less conversationally intimate contexts (Study 4).","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When consumers compare a worse product to a better product, negative contrast can make the worse product less attractive, and positive contrast can make the better product more attractive. We show that positive contrast is relatively scope-insensitive: the size of the difference between products affects negative contrast but not positive contrast. Even when the difference between products is small enough to make negative contrast negligible, positive contrast remains strong. This means that when consumers compare a product to a slightly worse product, contrast makes the better product more attractive without making the worse product any less attractive. The asymmetry occurs because consumers are less likely to consider the size of the difference between products when evaluating the better product than when evaluating the worse product, such that nudging consumers to consider the size of the difference eliminates the asymmetry.
{"title":"Positive Contrast Scope-Insensitivity","authors":"Guy Voichek, Nathan Novemsky","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae052","url":null,"abstract":"When consumers compare a worse product to a better product, negative contrast can make the worse product less attractive, and positive contrast can make the better product more attractive. We show that positive contrast is relatively scope-insensitive: the size of the difference between products affects negative contrast but not positive contrast. Even when the difference between products is small enough to make negative contrast negligible, positive contrast remains strong. This means that when consumers compare a product to a slightly worse product, contrast makes the better product more attractive without making the worse product any less attractive. The asymmetry occurs because consumers are less likely to consider the size of the difference between products when evaluating the better product than when evaluating the worse product, such that nudging consumers to consider the size of the difference eliminates the asymmetry.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Popular brands like Wendy’s, Postmates, and RyanAir have gained notoriety by making fun of their consumers, but is this an effective strategy to build strong consumer relationships? Across eleven (seven pre-registered) studies, using lab data, field data, and a variety of analytical approaches, the current research demonstrates that teasing communication increases consumer engagement with and connection to the brand compared to merely funny or neutral communication. These effects occur because consumers anthropomorphize brands more when they use teasing communication. This leads to greater engagement with brand messages and greater self-brand connection. We also leverage the interpersonal teasing literature to distinguish between prosocial and antisocial teases and highlight an important boundary condition. Specifically, we demonstrate that while prosocial teasing evokes a positive human schema, antisocial teasing, although still anthropomorphic, activates a negative human schema which reduces connection to the brand. As a result, antisocial teases lose their relational advantage over purely funny communication. This work contributes to the streams of research on brand humor, anthropomorphism, and consumer-brand relationships. It also provides actionable implications by demonstrating a novel antecedent to consumer brand connection and the boundaries within which these positive effects are expected to occur.
{"title":"Brand Teasing: How Brands Build Strong Relationships by Making Fun of Their Consumers","authors":"Demi Oba, Holly S Howe, Gavan J Fitzsimons","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae051","url":null,"abstract":"Popular brands like Wendy’s, Postmates, and RyanAir have gained notoriety by making fun of their consumers, but is this an effective strategy to build strong consumer relationships? Across eleven (seven pre-registered) studies, using lab data, field data, and a variety of analytical approaches, the current research demonstrates that teasing communication increases consumer engagement with and connection to the brand compared to merely funny or neutral communication. These effects occur because consumers anthropomorphize brands more when they use teasing communication. This leads to greater engagement with brand messages and greater self-brand connection. We also leverage the interpersonal teasing literature to distinguish between prosocial and antisocial teases and highlight an important boundary condition. Specifically, we demonstrate that while prosocial teasing evokes a positive human schema, antisocial teasing, although still anthropomorphic, activates a negative human schema which reduces connection to the brand. As a result, antisocial teases lose their relational advantage over purely funny communication. This work contributes to the streams of research on brand humor, anthropomorphism, and consumer-brand relationships. It also provides actionable implications by demonstrating a novel antecedent to consumer brand connection and the boundaries within which these positive effects are expected to occur.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142218844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The sunk cost bias, ie, people’s suboptimal tendency to continue to pursue previously invested options, has been found in many domains, and various mechanisms have been proposed. The current study offers a novel perspective for understanding sunk cost bias. Drawing on previous findings suggesting that sunk cost bias may be adaptive and promoted by fundamental motives, it is theorized that sunk cost bias may be a goal-oriented behavior in the mating domain and that this bias can extend to consumption domains (e.g., product/service with nonrefundable deposits, lotteries earned through prior effort, loyalty program memberships obtained through previous purchases) when mating cues are salient. One field study and seven experiments (six of which were pre-registered) demonstrated that mating cues strengthen an implemental mindset among men (vs. women). Consequently, men exhibit a stronger sunk cost bias in consumption when mating cues are salient. However, this effect was not found among women due to differences in their mating tactics. In addition, this paper distinguishes sunk cost effect from status quo bias and rules out multiple alternative explanations for the results (including affect, overconfidence, the investment-payoff link, persistence, perceived morality, shame, guilt, and disgust associated with abandoning the original option).
{"title":"He Loves the One He Has Invested In: The Effects of Mating Cues on Men’s and Women’s Sunk Cost Bias","authors":"Rui Chen, Hao Sun, Zhaoyang Guo, Haipeng (Allan) Chen","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae048","url":null,"abstract":"The sunk cost bias, ie, people’s suboptimal tendency to continue to pursue previously invested options, has been found in many domains, and various mechanisms have been proposed. The current study offers a novel perspective for understanding sunk cost bias. Drawing on previous findings suggesting that sunk cost bias may be adaptive and promoted by fundamental motives, it is theorized that sunk cost bias may be a goal-oriented behavior in the mating domain and that this bias can extend to consumption domains (e.g., product/service with nonrefundable deposits, lotteries earned through prior effort, loyalty program memberships obtained through previous purchases) when mating cues are salient. One field study and seven experiments (six of which were pre-registered) demonstrated that mating cues strengthen an implemental mindset among men (vs. women). Consequently, men exhibit a stronger sunk cost bias in consumption when mating cues are salient. However, this effect was not found among women due to differences in their mating tactics. In addition, this paper distinguishes sunk cost effect from status quo bias and rules out multiple alternative explanations for the results (including affect, overconfidence, the investment-payoff link, persistence, perceived morality, shame, guilt, and disgust associated with abandoning the original option).","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141777322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Interracial couples are increasingly featured in marketing messages, yet little is known about how their representation influences consumer behavior. Across six experiments (N = 4,956) and a field study on Facebook, interracial couples in marketing appeals enhance brand outcomes relative to monoracial dominant (ie, White) couples, but decrease brand outcomes relative to monoracial nondominant (ie, minority) couples. These effects stem from how the racial composition of dominant (vs. nondominant) members within a couple either amplifies or dilutes perceived warmth. Monoracial couples possess consistent stereotype attributes, with dominant (vs. nondominant) groups typically seen as lower in warmth. Thus, monoracial couple warmth is amplified: monoracial dominant couples are seen as less warm (ie, negative amplification), and monoracial nondominant couples as warmer (ie, positive amplification) than the individuals in the couple. Interracial couples possess inconsistent racial attributes, inducing stereotype dilution with intermediate levels of perceived warmth. Warmth drives brand outcomes above and beyond brand diversity, social desirability, and brand morality. Effects are moderated by consumers’ social dominance orientation and whether the monoracial dominant couple is nondominant along another dimension (ie, sexual orientation). This work holds theoretical implications for stereotyping research and provides practical insight into multiracial marketing.
{"title":"Mixed Couples, Mixed Attitudes: How Interracial Couples in Marketing Appeals Influence Brand Outcomes","authors":"Nicole Davis, Rosanna K Smith, Julio Sevilla","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae047","url":null,"abstract":"Interracial couples are increasingly featured in marketing messages, yet little is known about how their representation influences consumer behavior. Across six experiments (N = 4,956) and a field study on Facebook, interracial couples in marketing appeals enhance brand outcomes relative to monoracial dominant (ie, White) couples, but decrease brand outcomes relative to monoracial nondominant (ie, minority) couples. These effects stem from how the racial composition of dominant (vs. nondominant) members within a couple either amplifies or dilutes perceived warmth. Monoracial couples possess consistent stereotype attributes, with dominant (vs. nondominant) groups typically seen as lower in warmth. Thus, monoracial couple warmth is amplified: monoracial dominant couples are seen as less warm (ie, negative amplification), and monoracial nondominant couples as warmer (ie, positive amplification) than the individuals in the couple. Interracial couples possess inconsistent racial attributes, inducing stereotype dilution with intermediate levels of perceived warmth. Warmth drives brand outcomes above and beyond brand diversity, social desirability, and brand morality. Effects are moderated by consumers’ social dominance orientation and whether the monoracial dominant couple is nondominant along another dimension (ie, sexual orientation). This work holds theoretical implications for stereotyping research and provides practical insight into multiracial marketing.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"253 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141741090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Societies create material, social, and moral boundaries that define who and what is dirty. “Dirt” encompasses literal and figurative things—objects, beings, ideas—that transgress these boundaries and thus are “out of place.” Previous research describing how consumers avoid and manage dirt assumes that dirt is aversive. The concept of consumer dirtwork emerged from our examination of self-described “dirtbag” wilderness consumers. Dirtwork reveals the potential usefulness of dirt. Instead of cleaning, dirtworkers redraw dirt boundaries, revealing resources they then work to capture. Boundary redrawing describes a continuum of adjustments to dirt boundaries, ranging from small shifts to complete inversions. Resourcing work describes the efforts required to capture the resources that are uncovered by boundary redrawing. Dirtwork results in challenges and rewards, and offers the possibility of continued dirtwork-resourced consumption. Dirtwork contributes by revealing the process wherein consumers make use of dirt, thus demonstrating the usefulness of dirt and fluidity of dirt boundaries. Dirtwork provides a useful lens for understanding consumer behaviors that do not aspire or cannot conform to socially-imposed cleanliness rules, including stigmatized, mundane, and extraordinary consumption. Dirtwork challenges assumptions that clean is good, socially-valuable, safe, and sustainable, and implicit associations of dirt with danger, stigma, and unsustainability.
{"title":"Consumer Dirtwork: What Extraordinary Consumption Reveals about the Usefulness of Dirt","authors":"Nathan B Warren, Linda L Price","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae046","url":null,"abstract":"Societies create material, social, and moral boundaries that define who and what is dirty. “Dirt” encompasses literal and figurative things—objects, beings, ideas—that transgress these boundaries and thus are “out of place.” Previous research describing how consumers avoid and manage dirt assumes that dirt is aversive. The concept of consumer dirtwork emerged from our examination of self-described “dirtbag” wilderness consumers. Dirtwork reveals the potential usefulness of dirt. Instead of cleaning, dirtworkers redraw dirt boundaries, revealing resources they then work to capture. Boundary redrawing describes a continuum of adjustments to dirt boundaries, ranging from small shifts to complete inversions. Resourcing work describes the efforts required to capture the resources that are uncovered by boundary redrawing. Dirtwork results in challenges and rewards, and offers the possibility of continued dirtwork-resourced consumption. Dirtwork contributes by revealing the process wherein consumers make use of dirt, thus demonstrating the usefulness of dirt and fluidity of dirt boundaries. Dirtwork provides a useful lens for understanding consumer behaviors that do not aspire or cannot conform to socially-imposed cleanliness rules, including stigmatized, mundane, and extraordinary consumption. Dirtwork challenges assumptions that clean is good, socially-valuable, safe, and sustainable, and implicit associations of dirt with danger, stigma, and unsustainability.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141741091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With increasing longevity, the need for institutional elderly care has become commonplace. This study explores the experiences of elderly care consumers in institutional care settings, which we define as the “elderscape”—a heterotopic place shaped by the marketization of care. Drawing from 24 in-depth interviews with elderly care consumers, their family caregivers, and professional caregivers, we present a model of elderly care consumers' navigation patterns and identity processes in the elderscape. The transition to the elderscape often compels elderly consumers to strive to preserve their identities. Boundaries defined by market logic and professional care logic require elderly care consumers to navigate these constraints, sometimes adapting their identities. As a result, distinct navigation patterns emerge: rebuilding personal connections, revaluating possessions, reconsidering activities, and reclaiming space. Furthermore, the identity preservation efforts of elderly care consumers are complicated by the interventions of family caregivers. The findings highlight the dual nature of family caregivers' impact on elderly consumers' identity processes. Depending on their motivations—such as care, obligation, or nostalgia—family caregivers engage in patterned actions that either support or destabilize the elderly consumers' identity processes. This research provides valuable insights for care institutions, family caregivers, and care consumers alike.
{"title":"Who Am I Here? Care Consumers’ Identity Processes and Family Caregiver Interventions in the Elderscape","authors":"Julia Rötzmeier-Keuper, Nancy V Wünderlich","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae045","url":null,"abstract":"With increasing longevity, the need for institutional elderly care has become commonplace. This study explores the experiences of elderly care consumers in institutional care settings, which we define as the “elderscape”—a heterotopic place shaped by the marketization of care. Drawing from 24 in-depth interviews with elderly care consumers, their family caregivers, and professional caregivers, we present a model of elderly care consumers' navigation patterns and identity processes in the elderscape. The transition to the elderscape often compels elderly consumers to strive to preserve their identities. Boundaries defined by market logic and professional care logic require elderly care consumers to navigate these constraints, sometimes adapting their identities. As a result, distinct navigation patterns emerge: rebuilding personal connections, revaluating possessions, reconsidering activities, and reclaiming space. Furthermore, the identity preservation efforts of elderly care consumers are complicated by the interventions of family caregivers. The findings highlight the dual nature of family caregivers' impact on elderly consumers' identity processes. Depending on their motivations—such as care, obligation, or nostalgia—family caregivers engage in patterned actions that either support or destabilize the elderly consumers' identity processes. This research provides valuable insights for care institutions, family caregivers, and care consumers alike.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141741092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Brands and retailers often offer different aesthetic versions of the same base product that vary from visually simple to visually complex. How should managers price these different aesthetic versions of the same base product? This research provides insights for such decisions through uncovering a novel consumer lay belief about the relationship between visual complexity and production costs. Consumers associate simple (vs. complex) visual aesthetics with lower production costs when evaluating different aesthetic versions of a product. This lay belief occurs in joint evaluation mode but is mitigated in separate evaluation mode. An important downstream implication of this lay belief is that consumers’ willingness to pay is lower for visually simple (vs. complex) versions. This gap in willingness to pay occurs even when consumers like both product versions or aesthetics equally, and it is only eliminated when consumers like the visually simple version substantially more than the complex version. Finally, reducing the diagnosticity of the lay belief by disclosing information that the two versions took similar amounts of production time and effort reduces the gap in willingness to pay between visually simple (vs. complex) versions.
{"title":"The Visual Complexity = Higher Production Cost Lay Belief","authors":"Lauren Min, Peggy J Liu, Cary L Anderson","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae044","url":null,"abstract":"Brands and retailers often offer different aesthetic versions of the same base product that vary from visually simple to visually complex. How should managers price these different aesthetic versions of the same base product? This research provides insights for such decisions through uncovering a novel consumer lay belief about the relationship between visual complexity and production costs. Consumers associate simple (vs. complex) visual aesthetics with lower production costs when evaluating different aesthetic versions of a product. This lay belief occurs in joint evaluation mode but is mitigated in separate evaluation mode. An important downstream implication of this lay belief is that consumers’ willingness to pay is lower for visually simple (vs. complex) versions. This gap in willingness to pay occurs even when consumers like both product versions or aesthetics equally, and it is only eliminated when consumers like the visually simple version substantially more than the complex version. Finally, reducing the diagnosticity of the lay belief by disclosing information that the two versions took similar amounts of production time and effort reduces the gap in willingness to pay between visually simple (vs. complex) versions.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141612122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：