Many consumers purchase products in stores, where they can physically examine and touch the items. In addition, consumers shop for products online or through direct mail, where they cannot physically examine and touch the merchandise. Building on an analysis of perceptual mechanisms involved in the sense of touch, we find that products with primarily material properties, such as clothing or carpeting, are more likely to be preferred in shopping environments that allow physical inspection than in those environments that do not. We also find that there is no difference in preference across the two environments for products with primarily geometric properties, such as packaged goods, for which vision is highly diagnostic. Furthermore, when the touch properties of a material product are verbally described, this reduces the difference in preference between the two environments.

Although brand switching is one of the most researched topics in marketing, we still know very little about the moderators of switching between brands in different price‐quality tiers (e.g., from Häagen–Dazs ice cream to Breyers or to a store brand). Building on the notion that buyers have a (category‐specific) consideration set of price–quality tiers, we propose that sales promotions and the choice set composition (or the choice context) have compensatory effects on brand switching between price–quality tiers. Specifically, if one of these factors causes buyers to switch to a higher price–quality tier within their brand‐tier consideration set, then the other factor is less likely to induce switching in the same direction (to an even higher tier) and more likely to induce switching in the opposite direction. This general proposition leads to several specific hypotheses, including (a) the likelihood of switching between particular brand tiers due to price promotions can be predicted based on the choice set composition; (b) asymmetric switching, whereby consumers are more likely to switch up from a low‐tier to a promoted high‐tier brand than from a high‐tier to a promoted low‐tier brand, is reduced or eliminated if consumers consider three price–quality tiers; and (c) the compromise effect is reduced when the lowest tier brand offers a price promotion. These hypotheses were supported in a series of studies, which also examined rival explanations. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

Consumers are often exposed to the arguments used by other consumers for supporting or rejecting particular alternatives, through word‐of‐mouth, testimonial ads, or other means. We propose that a reason for preferring a particular alternative that is irrelevant to the consumer receiving the communication tends to decrease the alternative's choice probability. Similarly, an irrelevant reason used to reject an alternative can enhance its choice probability. These propositions were supported in two studies in which respondents were told that, due to budget constraints, each questionnaire was designed for use by two respondents. In all cases, we systematically manipulated the choices and reasons provided by “Respondent I,” and the (real) subjects became the second respondent. As predicted, subjects were less likely to choose the alternatives selected by “Respondent 1” if the choices were supported by idiosyncratic (and irrelevant to most subjects) reasons (e.g., “I chose Breyer's ice cream because it is kosher”) and more likely to choose alternatives that were rejected for irrelevant reasons (e.g., “Quality Inn does not have a sauna”). Alternative explanations for the effects of irrelevant preference arguments are explored. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

Several studies have shown that consumer choice is often influenced by the context or the set of alternatives under consideration. Context effects have largely been explained in terms of constructive preferences that are consistent with 2 theoretical accounts—effort minimization and perceptual contrast—that emphasize different underlying motivations. We propose that the effect of time pressure on context effects can be used as a moderating variable to determine which of the 2 motives is supported. Specifically, if context effects bias preferences due to effort minimization, time pressure should increase the magnitude of such effects. In contrast, if context effects arise due to an excessive focus on the relational characteristics of the alternatives provided, time pressure should reduce the magnitude of such effects. We examine this proposition in relation to the compromise effect and a choice between an extreme and an all‐average option. We find that the compromise effect and the preference for an all‐average alternative are both reduced under time pressure. A study using Mouselab provides additional support for the underlying decision mechanisms. We discuss the theoretical implications of this research and explore its consequences for marketers.