In this research we investigate the effect of combining unfamiliar faces with those of celebrities. Using facial morphing software we create composite faces consisting of 65% of an unfamiliar face and 35% of a celebrity face. In two studies participants rated the resulting composite images as being significantly more trustworthy than the unfamiliar faces despite being entirely unaware of the presence of the celebrity faces in the morphed image. Building on previous literature, we argue that this effect is consistent with a familiarity explanation but is inconsistent with explanations relying on either similarity or transfer of specific individual meaning.
{"title":"Familiarity Hijack: How Morphing Faces With Celebrity Images Can Enhance Trust","authors":"Robin J. Tanner, Ahreum Maeng","doi":"10.1037/e621072012-037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e621072012-037","url":null,"abstract":"In this research we investigate the effect of combining unfamiliar faces with those of celebrities. Using facial morphing software we create composite faces consisting of 65% of an unfamiliar face and 35% of a celebrity face. In two studies participants rated the resulting composite images as being significantly more trustworthy than the unfamiliar faces despite being entirely unaware of the presence of the celebrity faces in the morphed image. Building on previous literature, we argue that this effect is consistent with a familiarity explanation but is inconsistent with explanations relying on either similarity or transfer of specific individual meaning.","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129405402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Defending Against Loss: Temperamental Fear Predicts Endowment Effect","authors":"R. Ganesan, N. Saqib","doi":"10.1037/e621072012-165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e621072012-165","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125483701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-26647-3_152
Marilyn Giroux, F. Pons, L. Maltese
{"title":"Sustainability Marketing Strategies: How Self-Efficacy and Controllability Can Stimulate Pro-environmental Behaviors for Individuals","authors":"Marilyn Giroux, F. Pons, L. Maltese","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-26647-3_152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26647-3_152","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127057222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107706552.014
Jonah A. Berger
{"title":"The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology: Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication","authors":"Jonah A. Berger","doi":"10.1017/CBO9781107706552.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706552.014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126859678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present research re-examines one of the most basic findings regarding the evaluation of hedonic experiences: the end effect. The end effect suggests that people’s retrospective evaluations of an experience are disproportionately influenced by the final moments of the experience. The findings in this paper indicate that endings are not inherently over-weighted in retrospective evaluations. That is, episodes do not disproportionately affect the evaluation of an experience simply because they occur at the end. We replicate prior demonstrations of the end effect, but provide additional evidence implicating other processes as driving factors of those findings.
{"title":"Questioning the End Effect: Endings Do Not Inherently Have a Disproportionate Impact on Evaluations of Experiences","authors":"Stephanie M. Tully, T. Meyvis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2498663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2498663","url":null,"abstract":"The present research re-examines one of the most basic findings regarding the evaluation of hedonic experiences: the end effect. The end effect suggests that people’s retrospective evaluations of an experience are disproportionately influenced by the final moments of the experience. The findings in this paper indicate that endings are not inherently over-weighted in retrospective evaluations. That is, episodes do not disproportionately affect the evaluation of an experience simply because they occur at the end. We replicate prior demonstrations of the end effect, but provide additional evidence implicating other processes as driving factors of those findings.","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121605487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Identity Cues in Product Rating Distributions? the Role of Self-Concept Clarity in Consumer Preferences","authors":"Bella Rozenkrants, S. Wheeler, B. Shiv","doi":"10.1037/e570052013-077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e570052013-077","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115035994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Discrimination Against the Rich","authors":"Boyoun Chae","doi":"10.14288/1.0102470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0102470","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130894729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Managing Debt and Managing Each Other: Debt Management Decisions in Interpersonal Contexts","authors":"J. Olson, Scott I. Rick","doi":"10.1037/e509992015-071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e509992015-071","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"209 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132704701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Do People Agree More On Who is Pretty or On Who is Ugly?” Christopher K. Hsee, The University of Chicago This research explores two general questions: whether people agree more on what they like or on what they dislike, and whether people err more when predicting what others like or predicting what others dislike. We find that in general people agree more on what they dislike yet err more when predicting what others like. We explore the underlying reasons of these effects and identify situations where the reserve effects may emerge. “De gustibus non est disputandum? The Impact of the Nature of the Chosen Option in Positive and Negative Contexts” Thomas Kramer, City University of New York Michal Maimaran, Stanford University Itamar Simonson, Stanford University Given that consumers often criticize others’ choices or seek to defend their own, it is surprising that academic research provides such little empirical evidence on the impact that the specific nature of the chosen option has on both choice criticism and choice defense. That is, we currently know very little about whether consumers’ sensitivity to the choice type (e.g., virtue vs. vice, or compromise vs. non-compromise) differs between criticizing others and responding to others’ criticism. Presumably, criticism of choice and response to criticism are two sides of the same coin: the option that is easier to criticize should be harder to defend. For example, if it is easier to criticize a choice of a cake over an apple, then choice of the cake should also be harder to defend. However, we propose that the two actions are asymmetric with respect to the impact of the nature of the chosen option. In particular, we hypothesize that in the relatively negative context of criticizing choices, consumers tend to focus more generally on shared norms, whereas in the relatively positive context of defending choices, they focus more on the particular product attributes of the chosen option. Thus, the nature of the chosen option will have a larger impact when criticizing choices than when defending these choices. Specifically, in order to respond to criticism of their choices, consumers can generate reasons justifying their choice based on the sovereignty of their idiosyncratic preferences (e.g., Shafir, Simonson, and Tversky 1993; Simonson 1989). Since tastes or preferences are highly subjective, choice options irrespective of their nature can be defended by reliance on the options’ attributes matching these particular values. In contrast, the particular nature of others’ choices is likely to play a relatively greater role in negative contexts of criticism. Since subjective tastes are difficult to argue (“de gustibus non est disputandum”), criticizing consumers for their choices may involve shared norms regarding which choices are the appropriate ones to make. For example, when choosing between a vice (e.g., a chocolate brownie) and a virtue (e.g., a fruit salad), it is common knowledge that one should c
“人们更认同谁漂亮还是谁丑?”Christopher K. Hsee，芝加哥大学这项研究探讨了两个普遍的问题:人们是更认同自己喜欢的还是不喜欢的，以及人们在预测别人喜欢什么还是不喜欢什么时是否更容易出错。我们发现，一般来说，人们对自己不喜欢的东西更认同，但在预测别人喜欢的东西时却更容易出错。我们探讨了这些影响的潜在原因，并确定了储备效应可能出现的情况。“没有争议?”考虑到消费者经常批评他人的选择或寻求为自己的选择辩护，令人惊讶的是，学术研究提供的经验证据如此之少，即所选选项的特定性质对选择批评和选择辩护的影响。也就是说，我们目前对消费者对选择类型(例如，美德与罪恶，妥协与不妥协)的敏感性在批评他人和回应他人的批评之间是否存在差异知之甚少。大概，对选择的批评和对批评的回应是同一枚硬币的两面:更容易批评的选择应该更难辩护。例如，如果批评蛋糕的选择比苹果的选择更容易，那么蛋糕的选择也应该更难辩护。然而，我们认为，就所选选项的性质的影响而言，这两种行为是不对称的。特别是，我们假设，在批评选择的相对消极的背景下，消费者倾向于更普遍地关注共同规范，而在捍卫选择的相对积极的背景下，他们更关注所选选项的特定产品属性。因此，当批评选择时，所选择的选项的性质将比捍卫这些选择时产生更大的影响。具体来说，为了回应对其选择的批评，消费者可以基于其特殊偏好的主权(例如，Shafir, Simonson, and Tversky 1993;西蒙森1989)。由于品味或偏好是高度主观的，选择选项无论其性质如何，都可以通过依赖与这些特定值相匹配的选项属性来捍卫。相比之下，他人选择的特定性质可能在负面批评的背景下发挥相对更大的作用。由于主观品味是难以争辩的(“de gustibus non - est disputandum”)，批评消费者的选择可能涉及到关于哪些选择是合适的共同规范。例如，当在恶习(如巧克力布朗尼)和美德(如水果沙拉)之间做出选择时，为了保持更好的健康，人们应该选择沙拉，这是常识。同样，当在妥协和不妥协之间做出选择时，大多数人认为选择妥协更安全，损失也最小，因此选择妥协是“正确的”选择。因此，消费者可能会根据已知的规范和共同的规则进行批评，因此被批评的选项的性质可能会发挥更大的作用。具体来说，批评传统选择的选择更加困难，那些更容易证明的选择(例如，妥协选择;Simonson, 1989)，或“确定的”选项(Simonson, Kramer, and Young, 2004)。相反，非传统的选择(如不妥协或冒险赌博)更容易受到批评。因此，我们在一系列的研究中假设和检验，虽然选项的选择对形成批评有很大的影响，但对批评的反应能力对所选择的选项的性质相当不敏感。在研究1中，参与者被随机分配到两个条件中的一个:在“批评”条件下，他们阅读其他学生在以下选择中的选择:(1)恶习和美德(例如，一个布朗尼和一个苹果)，(2)享乐和实用的选择(例如，一块糖果和一张名片)，(3)妥协和不妥协的选择，以及(4)“确定的事情”(例如，肯定得到25美元)和冒险的赌博(例如，有20%的机会得到250美元)。然后，受试者被要求对他们批评另一个学生选择《消费者研究进展》(第34卷)/ 535个选项的难易程度进行评分。在“回应”条件下，参与者评估如果他们自己选择每个选项，他们对批评做出回应的难易程度。在各种各样的问题中，我们发现任务(批评vs.回应)和选项类型之间存在相互作用。
{"title":"Do People Agree More on Who Is Pretty Or on Who Is Ugly","authors":"Christopher K. Hsee","doi":"10.1037/e683162011-058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e683162011-058","url":null,"abstract":"“Do People Agree More On Who is Pretty or On Who is Ugly?” Christopher K. Hsee, The University of Chicago This research explores two general questions: whether people agree more on what they like or on what they dislike, and whether people err more when predicting what others like or predicting what others dislike. We find that in general people agree more on what they dislike yet err more when predicting what others like. We explore the underlying reasons of these effects and identify situations where the reserve effects may emerge. “De gustibus non est disputandum? The Impact of the Nature of the Chosen Option in Positive and Negative Contexts” Thomas Kramer, City University of New York Michal Maimaran, Stanford University Itamar Simonson, Stanford University Given that consumers often criticize others’ choices or seek to defend their own, it is surprising that academic research provides such little empirical evidence on the impact that the specific nature of the chosen option has on both choice criticism and choice defense. That is, we currently know very little about whether consumers’ sensitivity to the choice type (e.g., virtue vs. vice, or compromise vs. non-compromise) differs between criticizing others and responding to others’ criticism. Presumably, criticism of choice and response to criticism are two sides of the same coin: the option that is easier to criticize should be harder to defend. For example, if it is easier to criticize a choice of a cake over an apple, then choice of the cake should also be harder to defend. However, we propose that the two actions are asymmetric with respect to the impact of the nature of the chosen option. In particular, we hypothesize that in the relatively negative context of criticizing choices, consumers tend to focus more generally on shared norms, whereas in the relatively positive context of defending choices, they focus more on the particular product attributes of the chosen option. Thus, the nature of the chosen option will have a larger impact when criticizing choices than when defending these choices. Specifically, in order to respond to criticism of their choices, consumers can generate reasons justifying their choice based on the sovereignty of their idiosyncratic preferences (e.g., Shafir, Simonson, and Tversky 1993; Simonson 1989). Since tastes or preferences are highly subjective, choice options irrespective of their nature can be defended by reliance on the options’ attributes matching these particular values. In contrast, the particular nature of others’ choices is likely to play a relatively greater role in negative contexts of criticism. Since subjective tastes are difficult to argue (“de gustibus non est disputandum”), criticizing consumers for their choices may involve shared norms regarding which choices are the appropriate ones to make. For example, when choosing between a vice (e.g., a chocolate brownie) and a virtue (e.g., a fruit salad), it is common knowledge that one should c","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130061764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nina Mazar, H. Plassmann, Nicole Robitaille, A. Linder
{"title":"The Origin of the Pain of Paying","authors":"Nina Mazar, H. Plassmann, Nicole Robitaille, A. Linder","doi":"10.1037/e519682015-046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e519682015-046","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":268180,"journal":{"name":"ACR North American Advances","volume":"96 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114116902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：