Knowledge that Transforms

Journal Article Editorial Review Board Get access Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 44, Issue 6, April 2018, Pages i3–i4, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx028 Published: 12 March 2018

Journal Article Editorial Review Board Get access Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 44, Issue 5, February 2018, Pages i3–i4, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx023 Published: 11 January 2018

Consumers often encounter product-related numerical information, such as attribute ratings and version numbers. This research demonstrates that a smaller (compared to a larger) numerical difference can increase perceived improvement and enhance product appeal. We find that when a product’s version number or rating changes from a decimal number to an integer (e.g., 2.4 to 3), product appeal is enhanced compared to when the change is between two integers (e.g., 2 to 3), even though the latter difference is mathematically larger. This effect occurs when the meaning of the numerical information is unclear, leading consumers to try to infer what it represents. We suggest that a decimal number is inferred to be part of a fine-grained scale, in which decimals are the intermediate values and integers are endpoints or category boundaries. The switch from a decimal to an integer is therefore perceived as skipping over intermediate values and crossing a category boundary. This suggests that the product has made a substantive improvement, making it more appealing. A consecutive integer-to-integer change does not provide a cue to support such inferences. In five studies, we demonstrate the decimal-to-integer effect, its underlying process, and its boundary conditions.

This article has been retracted. Please see: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa009

Although previous research suggests that there are hedonic and interpersonal benefits to gifting experiences, consumers often give material gifts rather than experiential gifts. Exploring this mismatch, the current research examines when and why consumers prefer to give material versus experiential gifts. The authors propose that gift givers are more likely to give experiential gifts to socially close recipients than socially distant recipients. Since experiences are perceived as more unique than material goods, givers perceive that choosing an experiential gift requires more specific knowledge of a recipient’s preferences to avoid the greater social risk of giving a poorly matched gift. Eight studies provide converging evidence for the proposed effect of social distance on gift preference and demonstrate that this effect is driven by a giver’s knowledge of a recipient’s preferences. Further supporting the mechanism of preference knowledge, the effect of social distance is moderated by the social risk associated with experiential gifts. When experiences contain little social risk—and thus require less knowledge of a recipient—the effect of social distance is significantly mitigated. Together, these results provide answers for why consumers often prefer to give material gifts over experiences, despite the advantage of giving experiences.

Many apps require consumers to evaluate products by swiping them to the right or left. This work explores whether product orientation affects the product evaluations communicated by swiping movements, compared with those made by pressing onscreen buttons. Building on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) theory, which suggests that irrelevant product display features can activate certain behavioral responses when the product display and the behavioral response share a common dimension, this study predicts that the horizontal direction (left to right or right to left) cued by a product’s orientation should facilitate a swipe movement in the congruent direction. Five studies indicate that when people use swiping movements to evaluate objects, their evaluations are influenced by the object’s orientation, whereas evaluations conveyed through button presses reveal no orientation effect. The orientation effect for swiping responses also disappears when the objects contain a direction cue that is incongruent with their orientation, and when only one directional swipe movement is defined as a valid response option. Moreover, the effect holds for subjective evaluations but is eliminated for objective judgments, when these involve no time pressure.

This article has been retracted. Please see: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa033

Consumers gain choice closure when they perceive a sense of finality over a past decision and limit comparisons between the selected and the forgone options. We investigate consumers’ ability to make strategic use of choice closure to enhance outcome satisfaction. Seven studies show that consumers experience greater satisfaction when they achieve choice closure with an inferior outcome and when they do not achieve choice closure with a superior outcome; however, they expect to be more satisfied by avoiding choice closure with an inferior outcome and by seeking it with a superior outcome. We provide a rationale for this experience—expectation contrast based on rule overgeneralization. Consumers form their expectation on an implicit rule learned and internalized in a context in which it is appropriate and advantageous: when they aim to increase satisfaction with a future choice. However, consumers erroneously apply the same implicit rule to a different context, one in which they aim to increase satisfaction with a past choice. We conclude that consumers are unlikely to be able to make strategic use of choice closure to enhance satisfaction with the outcome of a decision they have made.