坏得好:消费者何时以及为何偏爱糟糕的选择

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-05 DOI:10.1002/jcpy.1394
Evan Weingarten, Amit Bhattacharjee, Patti Williams
{"title":"坏得好:消费者何时以及为何偏爱糟糕的选择","authors":"Evan Weingarten,&nbsp;Amit Bhattacharjee,&nbsp;Patti Williams","doi":"10.1002/jcpy.1394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The assumption that consumers prefer better quality options over worse ones seems almost definitional. However, a variety of marketplace examples suggest that consumers sometimes choose content that is “so bad it's good,” such as Tommy Wiseau's <i>The Room</i> or Rebecca Black's “Friday,” over apparently better alternatives (e.g., those of mediocre quality). In 12 preregistered studies (<i>N</i> = 5393) across several content domains (e.g., jokes, talent show auditions), we provide the first controlled, empirical demonstration of consumer preferences for badness (i.e., choosing options <i>because</i> consumers expect them to be bad). We provide initial evidence that these preferences are rooted in expectations of entertainment value from the worst available option. Preferences for these options emerge more frequently when their deviations from quality standards are perceived as benign (i.e., inconsequential). Accordingly, such preferences are less prevalent when consumption is consequential, and involves utilitarian goals or monetary costs. We conclude by exploring the extent to which dimensions such as humor, absurdity, esthetic quality, and utilitarian value underlie so-bad-it's-good perceptions, and highlight several open questions to spark future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","volume":"34 4","pages":"632-640"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"So bad it's good: When and why consumers prefer bad options\",\"authors\":\"Evan Weingarten,&nbsp;Amit Bhattacharjee,&nbsp;Patti Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcpy.1394\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The assumption that consumers prefer better quality options over worse ones seems almost definitional. However, a variety of marketplace examples suggest that consumers sometimes choose content that is “so bad it's good,” such as Tommy Wiseau's <i>The Room</i> or Rebecca Black's “Friday,” over apparently better alternatives (e.g., those of mediocre quality). In 12 preregistered studies (<i>N</i> = 5393) across several content domains (e.g., jokes, talent show auditions), we provide the first controlled, empirical demonstration of consumer preferences for badness (i.e., choosing options <i>because</i> consumers expect them to be bad). We provide initial evidence that these preferences are rooted in expectations of entertainment value from the worst available option. Preferences for these options emerge more frequently when their deviations from quality standards are perceived as benign (i.e., inconsequential). Accordingly, such preferences are less prevalent when consumption is consequential, and involves utilitarian goals or monetary costs. We conclude by exploring the extent to which dimensions such as humor, absurdity, esthetic quality, and utilitarian value underlie so-bad-it's-good perceptions, and highlight several open questions to spark future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Consumer Psychology\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"632-640\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Consumer Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1394\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1394","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

消费者宁愿选择质量更好的内容,也不愿选择质量更差的内容,这一假设几乎是一成不变的。然而,各种市场实例表明,消费者有时会选择 "坏到极致 "的内容,如汤米-威索(Tommy Wiseau)的《房间》或丽贝卡-布莱克(Rebecca Black)的《星期五》(Friday),而不是明显更好的替代内容(如质量一般的内容)。在 12 项预先登记的研究(N = 5393)中,我们对多个内容领域(如笑话、选秀节目试镜)进行了研究,首次对消费者的 "坏 "偏好(即由于消费者认为选项不好而选择它们)进行了控制性实证论证。我们提供的初步证据表明,这些偏好源于对最差选项娱乐价值的预期。当这些选项与质量标准的偏差被认为是良性的(即无足轻重)时,对这些选项的偏好就会更频繁地出现。相应地,当消费具有后果性、涉及功利目标或金钱成本时,这种偏好就不那么普遍。最后,我们探讨了幽默、荒诞、审美质量和功利价值等维度在多大程度上影响了人们对 "好得不能再好 "的看法,并强调了几个有待解决的问题,以引发未来的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
So bad it's good: When and why consumers prefer bad options

The assumption that consumers prefer better quality options over worse ones seems almost definitional. However, a variety of marketplace examples suggest that consumers sometimes choose content that is “so bad it's good,” such as Tommy Wiseau's The Room or Rebecca Black's “Friday,” over apparently better alternatives (e.g., those of mediocre quality). In 12 preregistered studies (N = 5393) across several content domains (e.g., jokes, talent show auditions), we provide the first controlled, empirical demonstration of consumer preferences for badness (i.e., choosing options because consumers expect them to be bad). We provide initial evidence that these preferences are rooted in expectations of entertainment value from the worst available option. Preferences for these options emerge more frequently when their deviations from quality standards are perceived as benign (i.e., inconsequential). Accordingly, such preferences are less prevalent when consumption is consequential, and involves utilitarian goals or monetary costs. We conclude by exploring the extent to which dimensions such as humor, absurdity, esthetic quality, and utilitarian value underlie so-bad-it's-good perceptions, and highlight several open questions to spark future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Psychology is devoted to psychological perspectives on the study of the consumer. It publishes articles that contribute both theoretically and empirically to an understanding of psychological processes underlying consumers thoughts, feelings, decisions, and behaviors. Areas of emphasis include, but are not limited to, consumer judgment and decision processes, attitude formation and change, reactions to persuasive communications, affective experiences, consumer information processing, consumer-brand relationships, affective, cognitive, and motivational determinants of consumer behavior, family and group decision processes, and cultural and individual differences in consumer behavior.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Refining and expanding applications of Moral Foundations Theory in consumer psychology Message framing to enhance consumer compliance with disease detection communication for prevention: The moderating role of age AI‐induced dehumanization The model‐sizing dilemma: The use of varied female model sizes helps the impressions of brand values but hurts shopping ease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1