Knowledge that Transforms

Prior literature is yet to explain how algorithms systematically constrain consumer experience (CX). To address this issue, we conducted a multi-method ethnographic study of consumers using fitness tracking software. We draw on the information science literature to demonstrate that the constitutive properties of information technology (IT) that underlie algorithms result in a set of restrictive fundamental interactional mechanisms imposed through algorithmic logics of legibility (what is selectively registered as input), visibility (what is selectively represented in output), and legitimacy (normative commitments embedded in input and output choices). We find that these mechanisms systematically constrain the distinct dimensions of the CX construct by eliciting consumption work. Consumers perform cognitive work to think through algorithmic limitations, practical work to accommodate those limitations, relational work to clarify algorithmic misrepresentation, and affective work to deal with algorithmic delegitimization. We make two contributions. First, our emergent framework not only demonstrates how algorithms systematically constrain CX, but is also more broadly relevant to consumer research because it enables accounting for the agency of IT. Second, we provide a corrective to the passive, emotion focused, view of CX by demonstrating how the consumption work of accommodating algorithmic limitations constrains the distinct dimensions of the CX construct.

Glasses and stones, metals and textiles, leathers and plastics … . The materials of objects can shape consumption in a variety of ways. Drawing on affordance theory, the authors conceptualize materials as prominent drivers of object affordances, that is, action (im)possibilities with and around objects. The authors explain when, how, and what materials drive object affordances. And, they explain how consumers actualize (or put to use) materials-driven object affordances. This research makes three contributions. First, the authors propose post-hylomorphism as a novel principle of understanding materiality that recognizes matter as a prominent driver of object affordances. Second, the authors explicate how the matter-ness of objects increases object agency and reduces consumer agency. Third, the authors introduce the concept of object affordance management as a novel way to understand how consumers manage object affordances by increasing action possibilities while reducing action impossibilities via a range of processes and micro-practices.

Globalization and technological advancements have spurred a rapid increase in the number of novel brands in the marketplace. When and why consumers choose a novel brand are increasingly important questions for marketers. The present research explores these questions and posits that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand depending upon the choice context. Specifically, we theorize that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand under means-goal conflict (as opposed to means-goal congruence). We suggest this effect occurs because, in contexts involving means-goal conflict, consumers are motivated to justify their choice, and novel brands afford consumers the opportunity to do so. That is, unlike familiar brands, novel brands lack strong associations in consumers’ minds, which allows consumers the ability to interpret them as less impedimental (i.e., less harmful) to their goal (a choice-justification strategy), thereby increasing choice. We test and find support for our hypotheses about novel brand choice across eight studies. The present research contributes to the literatures on branding, consumer goals and choice, and means-goal associations and has implications for managers launching new brands into the competitive global marketplace.

When consumers compare a worse product to a better product, negative contrast can make the worse product less attractive, and positive contrast can make the better product more attractive. We show that positive contrast is relatively scope insensitive: the size of the difference between products affects negative contrast but not positive contrast. Even when the difference between products is small enough to make negative contrast negligible, positive contrast remains strong. This means that when consumers compare a product to a slightly worse product, contrast makes the better product more attractive without making the worse product any less attractive. The asymmetry occurs because consumers are less likely to consider the size of the difference between products when evaluating the better product than when evaluating the worse product, such that nudging consumers to consider the size of the difference eliminates the asymmetry.

Outlined below are the six key claims assessed by the Investigative Committee (IC) and the IC's evaluation of each.These are the points the IC determined readers should be aware of when drawing inferences from the article. Issue #1: Dyads do not matchThe anonymous report noted that two different files contain data regarding the dyads studied in Experiment 1.The calculated statistics from the "manipulation check" data (one row per participant) match the results given in the paper.In contrast, the calculated statistics from the "recipient" data (one row per dyad) do not match the results given in the paper.The first author proposed that the critical variable in the "manipulation check" data (representing the withindyad difference score) was calculated using the wrong formula and that the "recipient" data are correct.Under that reconciliation, the calculated test statistics differ from those reported in the article, but the IC did not find evidence that conclusions vary substantively.

ThePersuasiveness of Competence versus Warmth,"(

Consumer food waste, with its extensive social, economic, and environmental implications, gained heightened attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted food supply chains and exacerbated food insecurity. Amidst conflicting reports on the pandemic’s influences on consumer-level food waste, this research differentiates between the infection and lockdown facets of a pandemic. Specifically, we demonstrate that infection salience amplifies safety–health concerns, leading to increased consumer food waste, while lockdown salience raises concerns over resource scarcity, resulting in reduced consumer food waste. Considering that most pandemics or infectious diseases primarily increase infection salience without inducing lockdowns, we propose a safety–health intervention to mitigate the rise in consumer food waste driven by infection salience and the associated safety–health concerns. Through a large-scale field s tudy, a lab experiment measuring real food waste, a country-level secondary dataset, and three supplementary experiments, we provide converging supports for our theory. These studies also showcase various implementations of the safety–health intervention, such as table tents, napkins, and to-go boxes. This research reconciles divergent perspectives on the pandemic’s impact on consumer-level food waste, enriches the understanding of pandemics and associated food waste dynamics, and offers actionable strategies for businesses and policymakers to address consumer food waste during pandemics.