{"title":"Intimate Transportation: The Persuasive Role of Personal Narratives in Online Reviews.","authors":"Ana Valenzuela, Maria Galli","doi":"10.1086/727832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727832","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135061073","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}
uch of themost important research in the economics and investing arenas over the past half-century has been in the realm of behavioral finance. In contrast with classical economics, which posits that people will maximize their financial self-interest at all times, behavioral finance acknowledges that we are all just human at the end of the day. We are motivated by rational thought and advancing our own financial well-being, of course, but we also draw upon our personal experiences and emotions when we’re making financial choices. That helps explain why we buy lottery tickets even when we know the odds of winning are infinitesimal (dreaming feels good) or why we pull money out of the market when stocks are down (losing money feels terrible). To date, much of the analysis and energy around the rational/irrational world of financial decisionmaking has centered around investment choices. How investors’ pain in seeing their account values fall affects their subsequent investment selections. How having toomany choices on the 401(k) menu can breed decision paralysis and inertia. How frothy market environments encourage risk taking. And so on. It’s probably only natural that investment decision making hogs the spotlight when the conversation turns to how people behave with their money. After all, it is not hard to demonstrate that emotion-fueled decisionmaking about investment choices does undermine financial well-being. For example, in its 2022 “Mind the Gap” study (Arnott et al. 2022), Morningstar researchers found that the typical mutual fund investor earned 1.7 percentage points less than funds’ published total returns over the previous decade. That seems like a head-scratcher: How could investors earn so much less than the products they invest in? The difference, it turns out, relates to investors’ timing decisions and, specifically, their ongoing tendency to buy high and sell
{"title":"Commentary: The Rich Potential of Behavioral Finance","authors":"Christine Benz","doi":"10.1086/727222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727222","url":null,"abstract":"uch of themost important research in the economics and investing arenas over the past half-century has been in the realm of behavioral finance. In contrast with classical economics, which posits that people will maximize their financial self-interest at all times, behavioral finance acknowledges that we are all just human at the end of the day. We are motivated by rational thought and advancing our own financial well-being, of course, but we also draw upon our personal experiences and emotions when we’re making financial choices. That helps explain why we buy lottery tickets even when we know the odds of winning are infinitesimal (dreaming feels good) or why we pull money out of the market when stocks are down (losing money feels terrible). To date, much of the analysis and energy around the rational/irrational world of financial decisionmaking has centered around investment choices. How investors’ pain in seeing their account values fall affects their subsequent investment selections. How having toomany choices on the 401(k) menu can breed decision paralysis and inertia. How frothy market environments encourage risk taking. And so on. It’s probably only natural that investment decision making hogs the spotlight when the conversation turns to how people behave with their money. After all, it is not hard to demonstrate that emotion-fueled decisionmaking about investment choices does undermine financial well-being. For example, in its 2022 “Mind the Gap” study (Arnott et al. 2022), Morningstar researchers found that the typical mutual fund investor earned 1.7 percentage points less than funds’ published total returns over the previous decade. That seems like a head-scratcher: How could investors earn so much less than the products they invest in? The difference, it turns out, relates to investors’ timing decisions and, specifically, their ongoing tendency to buy high and sell","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42495529","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}
T he applied behavioral science community currently faces two important and related calls to action. The first is to better explain how important findings work in different ways across different contexts and populations. The second is to harness these richer insights to more reliably scale applications to address important real world challenges. Larger and longer collaborations between researchers and field partners are one way to facilitate more sustained and coordinated testing of important insights across contexts, and to more efficiently address both. The last decade has seen a surge in interest for applied behavioral science, with a growing community of practitioners, policymakers, and researchers responding to exciting headlines claiming new cost-effective and choice-preserving ways to address important real world challenges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Soman and Leung 2020). However, this excitement was often followed by disappointment as insights failed to have the same effects when scaled across different contexts and populations (List 2022; Mažar and Soman 2022). There are now growing calls from researchers and practitioners to direct more efforts toward field research that can accelerate our understanding of how different interventions work across contexts and populations (Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021; Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022). To do so efficiently, research teams would benefit from more programs that systematically and iteratively test different ideas across contexts over longer time lines in coordinated ways. However, behavioral science field research practices are not typically set up with these critical elements. A more common approach sees researchers working independently on narrow or siloed programs (Milkman et al. 2021) with short-term field partners, often using opportunistic samples (Bryan et al. 2021) or biased sites (Allcott 2015) andwithout access to sufficient contextual detail (Szazi et al. 2017).
应用行为科学界目前面临着两个重要且相关的行动呼吁。首先是更好地解释重要的发现如何在不同的背景和人群中以不同的方式起作用。第二是利用这些更丰富的见解来更可靠地扩展应用程序，以应对重要的现实世界挑战。研究人员和领域合作伙伴之间更大规模和更长期的合作是促进跨环境的重要见解的更持续和协调测试的一种方式，并且更有效地解决这两个问题。在过去的十年里，人们对应用行为科学的兴趣激增，越来越多的实践者、政策制定者和研究人员对令人兴奋的头条新闻做出了回应，声称新的具有成本效益和保留选择的方法可以解决现实世界的重要挑战(Thaler和Sunstein 2008;Soman and Leung 2020)。然而，兴奋之后往往是失望，因为在不同的背景和人群中，见解未能产生相同的效果(List 2022;Mažar和Soman 2022)。现在，越来越多的研究人员和从业人员呼吁将更多的精力投入到实地研究中，以加速我们对不同干预措施如何在不同背景和人群中发挥作用的理解(Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021;Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022)。为了有效地做到这一点，研究团队将受益于更多的项目，这些项目可以在更长的时间内以协调的方式系统地、迭代地测试不同的想法。然而，行为科学领域的研究实践通常不具备这些关键要素。一种更常见的方法是，研究人员与短期现场合作伙伴一起独立研究狭窄或孤立的项目(Milkman等人，2021)，通常使用机会性样本(Bryan等人，2021)或有偏见的站点(Allcott 2015)，并且无法获得足够的上下文细节(Szazi等人，2017)。
{"title":"Commentary: Advancing Applied Behavioral Science with Larger and Longer Field Partnerships","authors":"William Mailer","doi":"10.1086/727221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727221","url":null,"abstract":"T he applied behavioral science community currently faces two important and related calls to action. The first is to better explain how important findings work in different ways across different contexts and populations. The second is to harness these richer insights to more reliably scale applications to address important real world challenges. Larger and longer collaborations between researchers and field partners are one way to facilitate more sustained and coordinated testing of important insights across contexts, and to more efficiently address both. The last decade has seen a surge in interest for applied behavioral science, with a growing community of practitioners, policymakers, and researchers responding to exciting headlines claiming new cost-effective and choice-preserving ways to address important real world challenges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Soman and Leung 2020). However, this excitement was often followed by disappointment as insights failed to have the same effects when scaled across different contexts and populations (List 2022; Mažar and Soman 2022). There are now growing calls from researchers and practitioners to direct more efforts toward field research that can accelerate our understanding of how different interventions work across contexts and populations (Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021; Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022). To do so efficiently, research teams would benefit from more programs that systematically and iteratively test different ideas across contexts over longer time lines in coordinated ways. However, behavioral science field research practices are not typically set up with these critical elements. A more common approach sees researchers working independently on narrow or siloed programs (Milkman et al. 2021) with short-term field partners, often using opportunistic samples (Bryan et al. 2021) or biased sites (Allcott 2015) andwithout access to sufficient contextual detail (Szazi et al. 2017).","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48438693","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}
W henmaking purchasing decisions, consumers consider their available budget and determine what payment method they will use as well as how they will finance the purchase. Consumers must also plan for long-term consumption by considering shortand longterm savings objectives, taking into account how they will invest money saved, as well as how they will borrow needed money and repay outstanding loans. This issue of the Journal of Association of Consumer Research explores financial decision making, which we define as the accumulation and use of resources across time, as reflected by consumers’ behavior and choices. Financial decisions are foundational to consumption and thus to understanding consumer behavior. Nonetheless, while a subset of marketing academics have examined financial decision making for some time, the topic has only recently became a core area within marketing. Specifically, a 2011 special issue of the Journal of Marketing Research, edited by Professor John G. Lynch Jr., served as a call to action on the topic and launched financial decision making to the mainstream of consumer behavior research. Just over a decade later, the current issue serves as a reflection point to consider financial decision making in the academic field of marketing. In this introduction, we review progress made in themarketing field in studying financial decision making, and identify gaps and opportunities for further exploration. We first present an overview of the core topics that have been studied within financial decisionmaking research by text mining the past 2 decades of research in top marketing journals. We then propose a framework for understanding the landscape
{"title":"Consumer Financial Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going","authors":"Abigail B. Sussman, Hal E. Hershfield, O. Netzer","doi":"10.1086/727194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727194","url":null,"abstract":"W henmaking purchasing decisions, consumers consider their available budget and determine what payment method they will use as well as how they will finance the purchase. Consumers must also plan for long-term consumption by considering shortand longterm savings objectives, taking into account how they will invest money saved, as well as how they will borrow needed money and repay outstanding loans. This issue of the Journal of Association of Consumer Research explores financial decision making, which we define as the accumulation and use of resources across time, as reflected by consumers’ behavior and choices. Financial decisions are foundational to consumption and thus to understanding consumer behavior. Nonetheless, while a subset of marketing academics have examined financial decision making for some time, the topic has only recently became a core area within marketing. Specifically, a 2011 special issue of the Journal of Marketing Research, edited by Professor John G. Lynch Jr., served as a call to action on the topic and launched financial decision making to the mainstream of consumer behavior research. Just over a decade later, the current issue serves as a reflection point to consider financial decision making in the academic field of marketing. In this introduction, we review progress made in themarketing field in studying financial decision making, and identify gaps and opportunities for further exploration. We first present an overview of the core topics that have been studied within financial decisionmaking research by text mining the past 2 decades of research in top marketing journals. We then propose a framework for understanding the landscape","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44139393","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}
Policies often have effects on groups outside those directly targeted by the intervention. We test whether hyperlocal spillovers amplified the intended effects of a program designed to encourage households to refinance. We use a nearest neighbor research design to analyze borrowers’ refinancing decisions following a large increase to the conforming loan limit. We find that households with mortgages that qualified under the previous conforming loan limit as well as the new limit (i.e., always-conforming households) were more likely to refinance their mortgage if they lived on the same residential block as at least one household that newly qualified following the conforming loan limit increase. Moreover, refinancing rates of always-conforming households were especially affected when their newly conforming neighbors also refinanced. We use a difference-in-differences research design to identify positive spillover effects: Always-conformers with at least one newly conforming neighbor were 55% more likely to refinance relative to those with no newly conforming neighbors. Consistent with a word-of-mouth mechanism, the social influence effect of slightly farther away neighbors increases with neighborhood walkability. We conclude that neighbor social networks—and the built environment in which they interact—can affect households’ financial decision making and induce policy spillovers.
{"title":"“I’ll Have What She’s Having”: Neighborhood Social Interactions Lead to Policy Spillovers","authors":"Avni M Shah, W. McCartney","doi":"10.1086/726541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726541","url":null,"abstract":"Policies often have effects on groups outside those directly targeted by the intervention. We test whether hyperlocal spillovers amplified the intended effects of a program designed to encourage households to refinance. We use a nearest neighbor research design to analyze borrowers’ refinancing decisions following a large increase to the conforming loan limit. We find that households with mortgages that qualified under the previous conforming loan limit as well as the new limit (i.e., always-conforming households) were more likely to refinance their mortgage if they lived on the same residential block as at least one household that newly qualified following the conforming loan limit increase. Moreover, refinancing rates of always-conforming households were especially affected when their newly conforming neighbors also refinanced. We use a difference-in-differences research design to identify positive spillover effects: Always-conformers with at least one newly conforming neighbor were 55% more likely to refinance relative to those with no newly conforming neighbors. Consistent with a word-of-mouth mechanism, the social influence effect of slightly farther away neighbors increases with neighborhood walkability. We conclude that neighbor social networks—and the built environment in which they interact—can affect households’ financial decision making and induce policy spillovers.","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46062503","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}
Although consumers often have multiple payment methods at their fingertips, such as cash and credit/debit cards, prior research is silent on how consumers choose between them. We home in on a key element of purchase—purchase justifiability—that affects how consumers choose to pay. Analysis of 118,042 real-world purchases and six experiments reveals that when consumers are motivated to forget (vs. remember) a purchase because they see it as difficult (vs. easy) to justify, they have an increased preference to pay with cash (vs. card) because cards create a “paper/electronic trail” that aids memory retrieval. These payment preferences are strongest among consumers most likely to recall/track their card spending, and manifest only when card expenses are trackable. We reconcile our results with the classic effect of payment method on pain of paying and discuss implications for merchants and for financial institutions designing payment methods of the future.
{"title":"Purchase Justifiability Drives Payment Choice: Consumers Pay with Card to Remember and Cash to Forget","authors":"C. Bechler, Szu‐chi Huang, Joshua I. Morris","doi":"10.1086/726429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726429","url":null,"abstract":"Although consumers often have multiple payment methods at their fingertips, such as cash and credit/debit cards, prior research is silent on how consumers choose between them. We home in on a key element of purchase—purchase justifiability—that affects how consumers choose to pay. Analysis of 118,042 real-world purchases and six experiments reveals that when consumers are motivated to forget (vs. remember) a purchase because they see it as difficult (vs. easy) to justify, they have an increased preference to pay with cash (vs. card) because cards create a “paper/electronic trail” that aids memory retrieval. These payment preferences are strongest among consumers most likely to recall/track their card spending, and manifest only when card expenses are trackable. We reconcile our results with the classic effect of payment method on pain of paying and discuss implications for merchants and for financial institutions designing payment methods of the future.","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44841985","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}
Income inequality, or how much money one consumer earns relative to another, may affect sympathy and gift spending decisions. Earning a relatively higher-income compared to another consumer increases the amount given as a real gift for a relatively lower-income recipient (study 1). The effect is driven by heightened spending on relatively lower earners (study 2) and is mediated by situational sympathy for the lower-income recipients, leading to increased reported spending on gifts (study 3). Using the recipients’ earning effort to manipulate situational sympathy moderates gift spending, demonstrating that a higher-income consumer will not spend more on a relatively lower-income recipient who works fewer hours than the giver (study 4). Consumers are more likely to reciprocate an expensive gift from a lower- versus a higher-income earner (study 5). This research is among the first to document how a consumer’s relative income to another affects financial decisions.
{"title":"Trickle Down Spending: The Role of Income Inequality on Gift Spending Decisions","authors":"M. Alberhasky, Andrew D. Gershoff","doi":"10.1086/726424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726424","url":null,"abstract":"Income inequality, or how much money one consumer earns relative to another, may affect sympathy and gift spending decisions. Earning a relatively higher-income compared to another consumer increases the amount given as a real gift for a relatively lower-income recipient (study 1). The effect is driven by heightened spending on relatively lower earners (study 2) and is mediated by situational sympathy for the lower-income recipients, leading to increased reported spending on gifts (study 3). Using the recipients’ earning effort to manipulate situational sympathy moderates gift spending, demonstrating that a higher-income consumer will not spend more on a relatively lower-income recipient who works fewer hours than the giver (study 4). Consumers are more likely to reciprocate an expensive gift from a lower- versus a higher-income earner (study 5). This research is among the first to document how a consumer’s relative income to another affects financial decisions.","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49533241","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：