The goal of Consumer Psychology is to use manipulations and measures in order to make inferences as to the psychological processes that underlie consumer behavior. A statistical tool available to do so is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Recent issues of this journal have provided primers in the use of SEM. Herein, three noted experts provide further guidance and philosophical consideration of the issues associated with SEM, as well as statistical and methodological concerns in general. The goal of this dialogue is to provide a foundation for the use of SEM in Consumer Psychology and the Social Sciences in general.

Fishbein and Middlestadt (1995) argued that evidence for nonbelief‐based attitude change is primarily artifactual, resulting from inadequate one, belief‐based measurement of attitudes and beliefs. Thus, all attitude change occurs through this process. In this article, we present three arguments in response. First, evidence exists suggesting that some attitude change processes are best conceptualized as relatively nonbelief based. Second, evidence is presented of attitudes resulting from relatively nonbelief‐ and belief‐based attitude change processes, as assessed by the same measure of beliefs within the same study. Third, studies have found substantive and meaningful differences in the attitudes resulting from what are posited to be different attitude change processes. Together, these arguments provide a strong case for the existence and differential consequences of both belief‐ and nonbelief‐based attitude change processes.

How consumers perceive and relate to brands has become a question fundamental to Consumer Psychology. Research over the past twenty years has developed the insight that consumers both perceive brands to possess personalities (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012) and develop relationships with brands (e.g., Fournier, 1998; Park, Maclnnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010). Much of recent research has focused on how to best conceptualize and measure such relationships: the target paper of this Research Dialogue advances this topic. Specifically, C. Whan Park, Andreas Eisingerich, and Jason Park present the “Attachment–Aversion (AA) Model of Consumer–Brand Relationships.” This model represents the entire spectrum of the consumer–brand relationships by measuring customer aversion, indifference and attachment to a brand based on two key components, brand-self distance and brand prominence. It thus allows for a more complete representation of valence experienced by consumers towards brands. The paper develops the model both conceptually and empirically; differentiating the model from other approaches, identifying three types of self-relevant benefits and liabilities as antecedents to brand attachment and aversion, and introducing the role of customer age as a meaningful moderator to the customer–brand relationship. Three commentaries are provided by leading researchers in the area of Consumer–Brand Relationships. Bernd Schmitt (2013-this issue) challenges the authors to better integrate their model with other currently accepted brand models. In addition, Schmitt points out that the model focuses on self-related cognitions and feelings as antecedents. Schmitt asks Park et al. to consider how marketing factors influence such cognitions and feelings. Schmitt also offers a key question for the area of consumer–brand relationships in general. Specifically, Schmitt questions whether and how brand relationships differ from person relationships. Susan Founier and Claudio Alvarex (2013-this issue) provide an extensive commentary that focuses upon the negative relationships advanced by the AA model. Fournier and Alvarez suggest that greater specification is available both for differentiating 1) among different types of negative relationships and 2) between neutral versus ambivalent reactions towards brands. Joseph Alba and Richard Lutz (2013-this issue) provide the third commentary. Their commentary first raises the question of how the conceptualization of customer–brand relationship provides insight above and beyond those theories of brand that did not include the notion of relationship. Alba and Lutz then disentangle the construct of brand-self distance from that of evaluative valence, resulting in three, rather than two, dimensions by which to consider how customers relate to brands. Park, Eisingerich, and Park (2013-this issue-a,b) provide a thoughtful response that considers the various points and questions raised by the commentaries. Given the rise of consumer–brand relationship as a lens to which to understand Consumer Psychology, we hope that this Research Dialogue is helpful in providing insight into what is currently known, and what questions remain to be answered.

That choice is constructed, and hence influenced by a wealth of variables, has become axiomatic to consumer psychology, indeed, marketing and psychology in general (see for example, Bettman, Luce, and Payne, 1998). In this Research Dialogue, Ravi Dhar and Margaret Gorlin (2013a--in this issue) advance a conceptual framework by which to organize, and understand, the myriad effects previously uncovered. Specifically, the authors build upon the dual-process model advanced by Kahneman and Frederick (2002). In brief, this model hypothesizes that human judgment can be understood to be the result of two broad sets of processes, one of which is intuitive, requiring little or no deliberation (referred to as System I) and the other of which is deliberative, thoughtful, and effortful (referred to as System II). Dhar and Gorlin further develop this dual-process approach to account for when and how preferences are constructed. Specifically, they hypothesize that choices will be the result of System I to the extent that System I's response is strongly consistent with a choice, and to the extent that motivation is relatively low. In contrast, choices will be the result of System II to the extent that System I's response is weak, and/or there exists motivation to modify System I's reaction. Four commentaries to Dhar and Gorlin's paper are provided by noted experts. Duane Wegener and Yi-Wen Chien (2013--in this issue) rely upon the dual-processing framework offered by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty, 1977; Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979, 1981, 1986) to suggest how Dhar and Gorlin's framework might be enhanced. Justin Martin and Steven Sloman (in this issue) suggest that Systems I and II ought to be better understood as operating in parallel (and interactively) rather than sequentially. They articulate how such a modification bears upon their categorization of choice effects. Bertam Gawronski (2013--in this issue) is concerned that the dual-process model explanation offered by Dhar and Gorlin is potentially circular in logic. As a way to overcome this difficulty, he articulates the distinction between associative and propositional evaluative processes (APE; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2011), and suggests that such a distinction may prove more useful in developing a framework by which to understand choice. Keith Stanovich (2013--in this issue) applauds Dhar and Ghorlin's integration of choice with dual-process models. He suggests, however, that such an integration does not undermine or contradict previously offered explanations. Dhar and Ghorlin (2013b--in this issue) provide a response to the commentaries. It is hoped that this Research Dialogue will be of interest to choice researchers in that the Dhar and Ghorlin paper provides an interesting and potentially useful framework by which to consider choice construction. At the same time, it is hoped that this Research Dialogue will be of interest to those interested in dual-model processes. This set of papers provides a particularly helpful means by which to consider and evaluate different approaches to theoretical conceptualization of dual-processes.

That others influence our judgments, choice, attitudes, and behavior is clear: The extent to which such influence has been well integrated with Consumer Psychology, however, is less clear. This Research Dialogue focuses on how our relationships influence consumer decisions. The target paper for this Research Dialogue specifically examines consumer decisions in relationships. Jeffry Simpson, Vladas Griskevicius, and Alexander Rothman focus on three points. The first articulates how each member of a relationship can influence the process whereby consumer decisions are made. The second advances a methodology by which to study the effect of relationships on consumer decisions — the dyadic framework of decision-making. Finally, the authors review theories applicable to relationships and consumer decisions. Three expert sets of authors provide commentaries on the target article. Richard Bagozzi considers the dyadic model offered by the target article, and advances concerns over the specifiability of the model, as well as the need for a theory of interpersonal process to ground the model. Bagozzi then reviews the Social Relations Model in order to point out additional challenges in developing a methodological and statistical model of relationships and consumer behavior. Bagozzi concludes by advancing the Plural Subject Theory and Goal-Directed Behavior Model, designed to explain joint behavior by individuals in a social relationship. Margaret Gorlin and Ravi Dhar use the target paper as a basis to hypothesize that the type of decision and situational factors moderate the influence of a relationship partner on a decision. Gorlin and Dhar specifically explore the cases of 1) joint decision and joint consumption, 2) single decision and joint consumption, 3) joint decision and single consumption, and 4) single decision and single consumption. They then identify moderators and situational factor key to understand the influence of relationships on consumer decisions. Finally, Wendy Wood and Timothy Hayes review how theory in social psychology has already addressed the influence of relationships on consumer decisions. Wood and Hayes then explore how specific motives can shape the processes of interpersonal influence. They conclude by elaborating how meaning change can serve as a key underlying process by which to understand the role and influence of interpersonal influence. Simpson, Griskevicius, and Rothman provide a response to the commentaries.

Brands have long been a central focus of research in Consumer Psychology. A great deal of research has explored how brands are perceived in human terms (e.g., Aaker, 1997), and indeed, how individuals come to develop relationships with brands (Fournier, 1998). This notion that consumers have relationships with brands has generated a great deal of recent research (e.g., MacInnis, Park, & Priester, 2009; Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010). The current Research Dialogue builds upon the consumer–brand relationship literature. The target paper for this Research Dialogue integrates theory from social perception with the consumer–brand relationship literature. Specifically, Nicolas Kervyn, Susan Fiske, and Chris Malone (2012--this issue) explore how the Stereotype Content Model can be applied to how individuals perceive brands. The Stereotype Content Model holds that individuals perceive groups largely in terms of their Warmth and Competence. In their target paper, they apply this perspective to brands, developing their Brands as Intentional Agents Framework. Their paper argues that individuals perceive brands along the same dimensions by which they perceive groups, and that specific perceptions drive emotional responses, brand loyalty, and brand intentions. Five noted sets of authors provide the comments on the target paper. Jennifer Aaker, Emily Garbinsky, and Kathleen Vohs (2012--this issue) explore in detail when brands are perceived as both competent and warm (the “golden quadrant”). They find that important benefits flow from such perception. Kevin Keller (2012--this issue) suggests that additional dimension (e.g., expertise, trust, and likeability) was also used by consumer to understand brands. In addition, he advances the notion that an important additional outcome of such perceptions is “brand resonance” — an intense and active loyal relationship. Susan Fournier and Claudio Alvarez (2012--this issue) endorse an interdisciplinary approach to exploring consumer-brand relationships, and propose additional avenues of exploration, including the process by which brands come to be seen as intentional agents, consumers as relationship agents, additional consumer-brand relationship dimensions, and the dynamics underlying the warmth — competency judgments. Deborah MacInnis (2012--this issue) explores conceptual questions arising from the target paper, and advances possible avenues for future research. Aronté Marie Bennett and Ron Hill (2012--this issue) investigate how demographic difference, such as importance of age, education, and income, influences the extent to which individuals do perceive brands according to warmth and competency. Fiske, Malone, and Kervyn (2012--this issue) provide a response to the commentaries. This Research Dialogue provides an important conceptual advance in understanding consumers' psychological relationship to brands.

The path to happiness is not always clear. Research suggests that even money (when one has enough to take care of basic needs) does not enhance happiness. This Research Dialogue explores how individuals can take steps to use money in a way that does increase happiness. In addition, four commentaries provide suggestions above and beyond money as possible paths to happiness, as well as the reason why money may not lead to happiness.