Knowledge that Transforms

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.

Tradeoffs between quality and quantity are widespread in consumer decision-making. While existing research has focused on situational and contextual factors driving choices of higher-quality or higher-quantity purchases, in the current work, we find that consumers possess generalized preferences for quality or quantity across purchase categories. Some consumers systematically prefer quality over quantity, and others systematically prefer quantity over quality. In 32 studies (N = 24,404) that use correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, and proprietary data from the Federal Reserve Bank, the current research introduces quality–quantity preferences as a novel facet of consumer decision-making. Studies 1–3 demonstrate quality–quantity preferences as an individual difference, develop the “quality-quantity tradeoffs” scale to measure it, and demonstrate that it is different from related existing constructs. Studies 4A–5 show that consumers who prefer quantity over quality spend more money, borrow more, and accrue more debt, indicating that quality–quantity preferences are consequential. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of quality–quantity preferences as a driver of consumer behavior and pave the way for future research investigating the causes and consequences of consumers’ dispositions toward quality or quantity.

Charities often advertise the cost of a given impact (e.g., $5 provides a meal). Though often intended to demonstrate cost-effectiveness, we find that donors also use the cost as a target. Therefore, the impact cost can be too low, reducing donation amounts, or too high, deterring donors from donating altogether. We propose that, whenever donors have a reference point for a reasonable donation, the revenue-maximizing impact cost is at or just below this reference point, due to loss aversion. We examined these predictions across two online studies (N = 1,711) and one field experiment conducted within a US non-profit’s mailing appeal (N = 141,161). Study 1 demonstrates that donors target impact costs; participants report giving more when the cost of a mosquito net is higher. Study 2, the field experiment, reveals the pernicious effect of setting a target too high. Study 3 tests how the reference donation amount informs the revenue-maximizing impact cost. Supplemental studies robustly support our optimal-target recommendation, while demonstrating that cost information is ubiquitous and theoretically distinct from other types of targets. Together, these results shed light on an often-unintended side effect of providing cost information, with practical insight on how to leverage it for higher donation revenue.