Journal of Consumer Psychology最新文献

Ramos et al. (Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2024) explain the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and discuss its applicability to explain marketing persuasion, consumer emotions, and prosocial behavior. We concur with Ramos et al. but suggest that the scope for MFT in consumer behavior is much broader – it can be used to investigate heterogeneity in consumers' moral utility. Specifically, we discuss how MFT can be used to investigate heterogeneity in product preferences, consumers' financial choices, consumer reactions to brand activism, and market regulation. We conclude by discussing three important challenges of using MFT in consumer research – causal identification, discriminant validity, and scientific objectivity.

When anthropomorphized, brands are often imbued with gender. Consequently, when brands seen as female or male adopt marketplace behaviors that are incongruent with their gender, it can result in a perceived violation of expectations. We demonstrate that brands anthropomorphized as female versus male are stereotyped more strongly and draw lower fit perceptions when they engage in gender incongruent behaviors. We show that these asymmetric gender boundaries have implications for how consumers perceive and react to an anthropomorphized brand's marketplace behaviors, including the introduction of gender incongruent personality traits, product characteristics, and brand extensions. We find evidence for our proposed effect across both externally valid secondary data and internally valid experiments. In doing so, our work highlights how merely cuing female or male gender through anthropomorphism not only sets in motion a specific set of expectations from consumers, it also shapes the strength of these gender-based expectations that place female brands at a disadvantage relative to male brands.

This research proposes a new promotional selection method, showing in seven laboratory studies, one field experiment, and five supplemental studies that consumers prefer promoted hedonic products when a company selects which products to promote using chance rather than more traditional intentional methods. This preference arises because consumers can perceive chance selection as fun and consequently view a company engaging in such chance selection as more fun. We find converging evidence for this preference, demonstrating the effect on consumer intentions, click-through rates, and real consumption decisions, while ruling out a variety of alternative explanations. Importantly, because this increased preference is driven by heightened hedonic perceptions, we find that this preference emerges for hedonic products but not for utilitarian products, for which more traditional selection methods are preferred.

Elements of surprise are effective tools for attracting consumers' attention and influencing their choices. Consequently, a common marketing practice is to promote a product or consumption experience as surprising. An example is Netflix, which relabeled its “Play Something” feature as “Surprise Me.” While surprise labeling positively influences choice, across 10 studies and a variety of consumption experiences, this research shows that adding a surprise label can negatively influence actual consumption. Particularly when a consumption experience in itself is not meaningfully different from usual, surprise labeling might result in a perceived label–experience mismatch, ultimately leading to a curtailing of consumption. This research adopts a dual-process perspective, providing evidence for both the cognitive appraisal of this label–experience mismatch and the heightened state of tense arousal accompanying this expectancy violation. Relatedly, we show that the negative consumption effect can be attenuated by increasing the degree of unexpectedness of the experience or by reducing tense arousal. Moreover, we show that consumers' dispositional need for cognitive closure moderates the observed consumption effect.

While charities typically use the same messaging when appealing to consumers on their smartphones and PCs, this approach may backfire. Across three studies, we find consumers are less likely to donate on their smartphones (vs. PCs), a phenomenon we call the mobile giving gap. In study 1, we demonstrate that consumers are less willing to donate real money to a charitable organization. In study 2, we provide process support and demonstrate that the focal effect is mediated by other-focus. Finally, a field experiment using Google display ads (study 3) replicates the focal effect and demonstrates that the negative impact of smartphones is attenuated when the appeal explicitly focuses on others (vs. the self). This study not only provides additional process support, but also suggests an easily implementable strategy that charities can use to close the mobile giving gap. Taken together, our findings offer theoretical insights related to the mobile mindset and its impact on consumer behavior and highlight that charities should tailor their donation appeals based on device type.

How should brands present quantity discounts to increase consumer appeal? We propose that, compared to distributed presentations that spread a discount across units (e.g., buy two, get 30% off on each unit), consolidated presentations that place the discount on a single unit (e.g., buy two, get 60% off on the second unit) can lead to a higher purchase likelihood. Four studies demonstrate this “discount consolidation effect” across a variety of consumption contexts, product categories and price levels. The studies show that this effect occurs because compared to consolidated presentations of a quantity discount, distributed presentations can lead to less favorable perceptions about the quality of the discounted product and about the savings offered. We also identify an important boundary condition, illustrating that when the discount offered is substantively small in size, the effect is attenuated. These findings add to the theoretical literature and offer actionable managerial insights.

This research shows that merely believing that one can access an explanation of how an algorithm works can foster an illusory sense of understanding the algorithm, even when people do not actually access and read the explanation. This effect occurs because the belief that one can access an explanation provides a feeling of empowerment that fosters an illusory sense of understanding. In turn, this illusory sense of understanding can yield unfounded reliance on algorithmic determinations. We further show that this effect is moderated by the target of an explanation and by the perceived utility of an explanation in enabling consumers to use an algorithm more effectively. From a theoretical standpoint, we offer a novel psychological account of illusory understanding based on empowerment. From a practical standpoint, we point to an unintended effect of algorithmic transparency: merely knowing that one can access an explanation for how an algorithm works may lull consumers into a false sense of understanding that yields unfounded reliance on algorithmic recommendations.

This paper conceptualizes the phenomenon of historizing the present, defined as emphasizing the historical significance of present events and treating the present from the perspective of history. The authors identify four modes of historizing the present (emphasizing that: (1) the present will shape history; (2) the present is a unique moment in history; (3) the present will be remembered in history; (4) the present echoes history) and demonstrate how historizing can be employed by marketers of for-profit and nonprofit organizations in a variety of contexts. The paper examines the psychological implications of appreciating the historical significance of the present and outlines a research agenda for studying the downstream behavioral consequences of historizing the present across diverse substantive consumer domains. It concludes with an examination of the broader societal implications of historizing the present as well as its implications for consumer well-being.

Six studies explore the psychology of borrowing and lending. Across two different contexts—friends lending to friends and taxpayers bailing out businesses—lenders are angrier with borrowers who specifically make hedonic (as opposed to utilitarian) purchases with loaned money. This anger is pronounced enough that lenders' negative feelings toward borrowers who made past hedonic (vs. utilitarian) purchases remains even after they have been fully repaid. Undergirding lender anger is deserved oversight—a novel construct capturing people's belief that they deserve control and say over another's decision-making. Borrowers and lenders do not agree on who deserves oversight over how the loaned funds are spent in large part because they differ in how much perceived ownership they each feel over the money. When lenders are yet to be repaid, their desire for oversight extends even to purchases made separately from the loaned amount. Finally, these processes and consequences are most powerful when money is lent compared with other forms of exchange, such as gifting money or being paid for work.

We explore how self-presentation concerns and the desire to avoid embarrassment impact two distinct types of interactions consumers have with chatbots: interactions when a chatbot's identity is (1) not disclosed and therefore ambiguous or (2) disclosed. We propose that consumers feel less embarrassed with a chatbot than a human service agent in purchase contexts where self-presentation concerns are active because consumers ascribe less mind to chatbots. Therefore, when a chat agent's identity is ambiguous, consumers with greater self-presentation concerns are more likely to infer that an agent is human because this judgment allows consumers to proactively protect themselves from potential embarrassment in the event they are interacting with a human. We further show that when agent identity is clearly disclosed, consumers respond more positively to chatbots than human agents. However, this effect is contingent on the extent to which the chatbot is imbued with human characteristics: Anthropomorphizing chatbots leads consumers with higher self-presentation concerns to ascribe more mind to even clearly identified chatbots, resulting in a more negative consumer response.