Knowledge that Transforms

News outlets commonly highlight the most popular content using different labels (e.g., “most read” and “most shared”). As prior research has found that people primarily consume news for information or entertainment, it is important to understand what these popularity labels convey about the information value and entertainment value of articles and how they shape consumers’ news preferences and decisions. Nine lab and field studies, including two in the web appendix, demonstrate that labels reflecting less social behavior (e.g., “most read”) signal higher information (vs. entertainment) value, while labels reflecting more social behavior (e.g., “most shared”) signal higher entertainment (vs. information) value. Thus, consumers with information motives prefer less social popularity labels, a stronger signal of information value. Conversely, consumers with entertainment motives prefer more social labels, a stronger signal of entertainment value. Notably, an analysis of 120 major media outlets revealed that many use labels that are misaligned with readers’ dominant motives or use no label at all, indicating considerable room for improvement. Reassuringly, this work finds that strategically using popularity labels can increase clicks by over 20%. This has implications for media outlets aiming to spur engagement as well as researchers and organizations concerned with information dissemination.

Traditionally, being authentic is regarded as something one is, in which an entity is judged to possess the appropriate “authenticity” attributes independently acquired outside of marketplace pressures. We consider two factors that challenge this traditional view to arrive at an alternative view of authenticity. First, we draw on existentialism that describes authenticity as a process of self-creation that occurs in interaction with others. Second, we consider neoliberal ideology whereby consumers are regarded as fully immersed market actors. By examining social media influencers (SMIs) who foster authenticity with overt marketization efforts, we identify a marketplace of existential authenticity in which public performances of self-creation by an SMI are accompanied by resolute vulnerability that is valorized as work, thus warranting monetization. This cultural space of existentialism, in which authenticity is something one does (vs. something one is), is governed by a “reflexive synopticon”: a form of governmentality that shapes the actions of participants (SMIs, audience members, and the social media platform) through their mutual reflection on each other. Our work articulates how neoliberal horizontal governmentality structures operate, which includes the enabling (vs. antagonistic) role of the market. Moreover, our findings emphasize the culturally bound nature of different types of authenticities.

From Netflix to Spotify to TikTok, consumers’ entertainment experiences increasingly revolve around personalized content. Does consuming personalized content in a specific entertainment domain influence the likelihood of consumers discussing that domain overall, beyond the specific content they engage with? Across eleven experiments, we investigate the impact of personalized content in the music and short-form video domains (i.e., content that feels tailored to one’s tastes) on the intent to discuss domain-related topics. We find that the impact of consuming personalized content (vs. other types of content or no content) on discussion intent varies depending on the strength of an individual’s identification with the domain. For weak identifiers, personalized content increases discussion intent, whereas for strong identifiers, it decreases intent. Process evidence highlights two underlying psychological forces: enhanced enjoyment of the domain and diminished confidence in domain knowledge. Personalized content increases discussion intent for weak identifiers—users whose intent is likely driven by high enjoyment. In contrast, personalized content decreases discussion intent for strong identifiers—users whose intent is likely driven by low confidence.

We examine the effect of “Black-owned” labeling on cannabis and psychedelic brands, in context of the stigmatized and risky nature of the drugs category. Building on prior studies examining social justice or discrimination, we introduce an expertise stereotype framework. As study 1, we surveyed 37 Black professionals in the drugs industry about expectations regarding “Black-owned” labels, as juxtaposition to consumer responses in the following studies. In study 2, we measured expertise stereotypes about Black and women entrepreneurs across various product types. Utilizing these findings, we contrasted the effect of “Black-owned” labels on cannabis versus candy products in study 3. “Black-owned” labeling increased Black participants’ intentions to consume candy, but not cannabis; and the pattern reversed for White participants such that “Black-owned” labeling increased their intentions only for cannabis. Whereas out-group members’ response is consistent with expertise stereotypes, in-group members’ support does not extend to the stigmatized category. In study 4, field ad campaigns revealed that “Black-owned” (vs. no) label increases click-through by 21% on a psychedelics ad, while a “Woman-owned” (vs. no) label reduces by 15%, consistent with expertise stereotypes. These findings advance the discourse on ownership labeling and provide insight into nuanced consumer responses in this category.

Effective communication relies on consumers remembering, sharing, and applying relevant information. Source memory, the ability to link a claim to its original source, is an essential aspect of accurate recall, attitude formation, and decision making. We propose that claim objectivity, whether a claim is a fact or an opinion, affects memory for the claim’s source. This proposal follows a two-step process: (i) opinions provide more information about sources than facts do; (ii) claims that provide more information about sources during information encoding are more likely to be accurately attributed to original sources during recall. Across 13 pre-registered experiments (N = 7,510) and a variety of consumer domains, we investigate the effect of claim objectivity on source memory. We find that source memory is more accurate for opinions than for facts, with no consistent effect on claim recognition memory. We find support for the proposed process by manipulating facts to be more informative about sources and opinions to be less informative about sources. When forming inferences and seeking advice from sources, participants rely more on previously shared opinions than on previously shared facts. Our results indicate that opinions are more likely to be accurately attributed to original sources than are facts.

Collective layoffs can occur for many reasons, often related to a firm’s pursuit of greater efficiency and cost reduction, and they tend to trigger negative reactions among the public. Anecdotal evidence suggests that offshoring, one of the most controversial and politicized aspects of globalization, evokes particularly negative reactions. We propose a social contract account of consumer reactions to collective layoffs and demonstrate differential consumer responses to collective layoffs due to offshoring versus other reasons, such as automation. Layoffs due to offshoring are perceived as an especially egregious violation of the normative expectation that firms should support members of their society. Data from nine experimental studies (N = 5,568; seven reported in the main paper and two in the General Discussion section), public consumer responses to layoffs in a large online community (N = 29,045), and layoff announcements in the European Union (N = 1,261) show that consumers react more negatively to collective layoffs due to offshoring compared to other reasons. Supporting our social contract account, the negative effect of offshoring is stronger when offshoring affects workers in the consumers’ home (vs. foreign) country, when the firm is domestic (vs. foreign), and when most customers are domestic (vs. foreign).

We identify a novel way in which setting goals can backfire. In 13 studies and 4 supplemental studies, using both incentive-compatible and hypothetical designs across a range of domains, we demonstrate that setting an explicit goal and making progress toward it decreases the likelihood of switching to alternative means of pursuit. This occurs because means seem more effective relative to alternatives if they have been used to progress toward a reference point. Consistent with this mechanism, we show that the perceived effectiveness of the means used to pursue a goal, relative to an alternative, partially mediates the effect of setting a goal on the decision to switch means. Furthermore, the effect occurs only after people make initial progress toward a specified reference point. Setting a goal does not decrease switching if people are reminded to consider the advantages of both the initial and alternative means. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

Social interactions among consumers, especially in the consumption of digital goods, have become commonplace in an increasingly interconnected marketplace. As such, understanding the impact of such interactions on consumer behavior carries major academic and practitioner significance. This research focuses on an important but under-researched aspect of social influence and the underlying mechanisms that may be driving peer effects. Using the context of a massive online peer-to-peer game, we estimate peer effects arising from anonymous peers. The findings suggest a robust and significant influence of anonymous peers on one’s own purchase behavior. Further, we find that peer effects arising from anonymous peers are largely driven by informational reasons as opposed to competitive concern even in a competitive online gaming context. That is, players rely on others’ purchase decisions despite anonymity; moreover, such influence is more pronounced for inexperienced players with little contextual knowledge. To demonstrate the effectiveness of leveraging the nature of peer influence in online game settings, we provide an illustrative example using an intervention simulation. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for marketing academia and practitioners in the video game industry.

“The Journal of Consumer Research is an anomaly in the ‘house of intellect’. Its primary objective is to serve as an interdisciplinary communication vehicle for theory, empirical research and methodology of the study of consumer behavior. … It is our objective to be the first journal in which professionals sharing an interest in consumer behavior across disciplines send their material. … JCR is intended to be a medium for interdisciplinary exchange over an exceedingly broad range of topics, the common denominator of which is their relationship to the study of consumer behavior.” —Ronald Frank, 1974 (inaugural JCR editorial) The Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) was founded on a unique premise: to serve as the place where scholars from across academic disciplines and research perspectives share scientific knowledge about consumers and about the study of consumer behavior. Now, 50 years later, we see JCR as more than ever playing that crucial role, as the source of a broad range of high-quality research on key questions from a diverse set of researchers and perspectives with the shared goal to improve our scientific understanding of consumer behavior.

Growing inequality continues to impact consumers’ lives, further widening the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. The present work examines how these inequalities impact consumer pickiness, defined as the latitude of acceptance around idiosyncratic ideal points. Across eight studies, including an analysis of consumer panel data, a study in the field at a local food pantry, and six preregistered experiments, we find that a sense of disadvantage leads consumers to be less picky, while a sense of advantage leads consumers to be pickier. We find evidence that this process is driven by differences in psychological entitlement: A sense of disadvantage leads consumers to feel less entitled, and a sense of advantage leads consumers to feel more entitled, driving subsequent pickiness. Importantly, while some might think that those who are advantaged might be pickier because they have more resources or access to products, we find these differences in the absence of resource or other external constraints, further speaking to entitlement as an important psychological mechanism. We find that the effects are moderated by social dominance orientation. The impact of disadvantage versus advantage on entitlement and subsequent pickiness is attenuated for individuals who do not endorse existing inequalities.