Journal of Consumer Psychology最新文献

Recent research shows that algorithms learn societal biases from large text corpora. We examine the marketplace-relevant consequences of such bias for consumers. Based on billions of documents from online text corpora, we first demonstrate that from gender biases embedded in language, algorithms learn to associate women with more negative consumer psychographic attributes than men (e.g., associating women more closely with impulsive vs. planned investors). Second, in a series of field experiments, we show that such learning results in the delivery of gender-biased digital advertisements and product recommendations. Specifically, across multiple platforms, products, and attributes, we find that digital advertisements containing negative psychographic attributes (e.g., impulsive) are more likely to be delivered to women compared to men, and that search engine product recommendations are similarly biased, which influences consumer's consideration sets and choice. Finally, we empirically examine consumer's role in co-producing algorithmic gender bias in the marketplace and observe that consumers reinforce these biases by accepting gender stereotypes (i.e., clicking on biased ads). We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications.

This work examines the trade-offs that consumers in relationships make between the overall quality of an activity (i.e., experience quality) and the ability to share the activity in physical proximity to a relationship partner (i.e., togetherness). A pilot study and five experiments demonstrate that consumers value togetherness (vs. experience quality) relatively more when they share the experience with a close (vs. distant) relationship partner. Importantly, this work documents a novel mechanism underlying the value that consumers place on togetherness: a desire to create shared memories. Supportive of this mechanism, the extent to which consumers value togetherness (vs. experience quality) is increased when outcomes for the self and the partner are asymmetrical (vs. symmetrical) if choosing to be apart and is reduced when the experience is framed as utilitarian (vs. hedonic) and when consumers are reminded that they can create shared memories even when apart. Taken together, this work extends previous research on shared consumption by documenting a desire to create shared memories as a novel driver of consumer decision-making in the context of close relationships.

The negative association between materialism and life satisfaction is well-documented, but it is unclear what the directionality of the association is. To address this issue, we (a) conducted a three-wave longitudinal study (N = 6551) over 3 years and examined the bidirectional relations between life satisfaction and materialism as a composite measure and with each of its three facets (happiness, success, and centrality), and (b) estimated Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Models (RI-CLPMs) that separate inter- and intra-individual effects and compared them with traditional CLPMs that do not. The traditional CLPM showed bidirectional negative associations between composite materialism and life satisfaction and strong negative bidirectional association for the happiness facet, but positive effects of the centrality facet on life satisfaction. However, and importantly, the RI-CLPM revealed that these relations exist predominantly between people. Within people, materialism does not impact life satisfaction, but life satisfaction does impact the happiness facet negatively. These findings challenge common ideas that the direction of the effect is from materialism to life satisfaction and that it is unilaterally negative.

Given its multi-faceted nature, consumer research has evinced interest from scholars both within and outside the marketing domain, resulting in ongoing knowledge contributions from a diverse range of disciplines. We conduct a comprehensive review and comparison across both marketing (“inside”) and non-marketing (“outside”) disciplines to identify which topics are most and least focused on within each disciplinary domain and which are emerging as the most impactful. We also identify which of the marketing (FT50) journals are at the forefront of cutting-edge research and demonstrate their contributions to the progression of the most impactful topics in the field. Based on our findings, we identify key gaps and under-researched areas of substantive interest, highlight impactful emerging topics in non-marketing journals where marketing could offer unique perspectives, and provide concrete suggestions and directions to further progress and stimulate consumer research.

Is consumers' present spending influenced by future changes in their income? From an economic perspective, consumers should reduce present spending when anticipating a future income decrease and boost spending when anticipating a future income increase to maximize their welfare. We find that although consumers tend to adjust their spending to a future income decrease, they are less likely to do so to a future income increase. We show that this is, in part, due to a low sense of self-continuity, a tendency to view the future self whose income increases as if it were a different person and, as a result, to categorize present and future income into two separate mental accounts. Enhancing self-continuity leads consumers to combine present and future income in a single mental account, and thereby facilitates adjustment of present spending to a future income increase. Whereas prior work linked high self-continuity to reduced present spending, we identify a context in which high self-continuity can boost present spending. We discuss the implications of these findings for consumer well-being.

Do various kinds of feedback influence consumer impatience? Five studies involving hypothetical and real behavioral consequences demonstrate that compared with lump-sum feedback (i.e., feedback provided in bulk at the end), piecemeal feedback (i.e., feedback provided piece by piece in the process) increases consumer impatience (i.e., preference toward now options). This effect occurs because piecemeal feedback (vs. lump-sum feedback) establishes a reliable action–outcome association, which activates a general action goal to induce consumers to be more action oriented, making them more eager to complete actions for outcomes in subsequent related or unrelated situations. This effect is robust regardless of whether the valence of feedback is positive or negative, whether the outcome involves gain or loss (Study 1), and whether the form of feedback is monetary or informative (Study 2). Furthermore, we show that piecemeal feedback increases consumer impatience only when it is provided at a fixed ratio rather than at a variable ratio schedule (Study 3), when it is provided directly following behaviors (Study 4), and when it is directed to actions (vs. inactions) (Study 5). These findings contribute to the action goal research and consumer impatience literature.

From marketers and consumers to leaders and health officials, everyone wants to increase their communications' impact. But why are some communications more impactful? While some argue that content drives success, we suggest that style, or the way ideas are presented, plays an important role. To test style's importance, we examine it in a context where content should be paramount: academic research. While scientists often see writing as a disinterested way to communicate unobstructed truth, a multi-method investigation indicates that writing style shapes impact. To separate content from style, we focus on a unique class of words linked to style (i.e., function words such as “and,” “the,” and “on”) that are devoid of content. Natural language processing of almost 30,000 articles from a range of disciplines finds that function words explain 4–11% of overall variance explained and 11–27% of language content's impact on citations. Additional analyses examine particular style features that may shape success, and why, highlighting the role of writing simplicity, personal voice, and temporal perspective. Experiments further indicate the causal impact of style. The results suggest ways to boost communication's impact and highlight the value of natural language processing for understanding the success of ideas.

This paper examines when and why consumers are likely to support low-fit cause-related marketing (CM) initiatives. Through six studies, we demonstrate that when consumers think more holistically rather than analytically, they are likely to respond as positively to low-fit CM initiatives as high-fit ones. This effect occurs because holistic thinkers focus not only on the company and its characteristics but also on the perceived need of the cause beneficiaries, making them more likely to perceive the corporate motives to be public-serving, producing more favorable evaluations of the company. Dispositional skepticism toward corporate social responsibility (CSR) acts as a boundary condition of this effect.

With the proliferation of peer-to-peer (P2P) exchanges in the marketplace, understanding which consumer factors drive demand for P2P providers is important. We examine the role of consumers' economic system justification (ESJ) beliefs (about the fairness of existing economic arrangements and outcomes), which, despite their growing salience in the marketplace, have been overlooked in extant P2P research. We show that high (vs. low) ESJ increases consumers' interest in purchasing from P2P providers because it heightens perceptions of these providers' entrepreneurial spirit. The effect emerges in the laboratory and in the field with measured and manipulated ESJ, and it is attenuated for traditional commercial providers. The findings offer novel insights and implications for practice and emerging research on P2P exchanges, system justification, and ideological consumption more broadly.

Across a range of decision contexts, we provide evidence of a novel proximity bias in probability judgments, whereby spatial distance and outcome valence systematically interact in determining probability judgments. Six hypothetical and incentive-compatible experiments (combined N = 4007) show that a positive outcome is estimated as more likely to occur when near than distant, whereas a negative outcome is estimated as less likely to occur when near than distant (studies 1–6). The proximity bias is explained by wishful thinking and thus perceptions of outcome desirability (study 3), and it does not manifest when an outcome is less relevant for the self, such as the case of outcomes with little consequence for the self (studies 4 and 5) or when estimating outcomes for others who are irrelevant to the self (study 6). Overall, the proximity bias we document deepens our understanding of the antecedents of probability judgments.