This paper examines product‐facilitated conversations . In three studies, we show that the products consumers publicly display influence how other consumers start conversations with them and how enjoyable and self‐disclosing these conversations are. Study 1 is an experiment in the field that shows that product‐facilitated conversations are deeper and more enjoyable than non‐product‐facilitated ones. Study 2 examines the characteristics of products that, when mentioned, lead to good conversations and identifies uniqueness and commonality as key characteristics. Study 3 is an additional experiment in the field that tests these characteristics and shows that products with those characteristics are better conversation starters than the weather. Overall, these studies show novel social benefits to talking about products and generate new ideas about how talking about products can help consumers meet new people, smooth awkward social situations, and build relationships.
American consumers tip $36bn annually, predominantly using small sums of cash. Yet, little is known about how the denominations of cash affect tipping behavior. In contrast to existing findings on the spending of different denominations (i.e., the denomination effect), we posit that consumers are less likely to tip smaller (vs. larger) denominations (e.g., $1 in 4 × 25¢ coins vs. a $1 banknote) to the same total value. We term this the “denomination‐tipping” effect and predict that it occurs because it is more embarrassing to tip with smaller denominations than larger denominations. Consistent with this prediction, we find across one field study and four online studies ( N = 1402) that consumers are less likely to tip smaller (vs. larger) denominations, and that this “denomination‐tipping” effect is mediated by feelings of embarrassment regarding tipping smaller denominations. Our findings add to the literature on how cash denomination affects consumers' usage of money in the context of tipping, and we provide practical guidance on how service providers can minimize the adverse impact of smaller denominations on tips to their service staff.
The initial version of the article by Clithero, Karmarkar, Nave, and Plassmann (Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2024) was critiqued by open comments from a small group of scholars. Their suggestions encouraged the authors to clarify challenging relationships between brain processes and emotions, beliefs, and actions. The revision expanded fMRI and EEG to include measures of vision, facial expression, breathing, heart rhythms, and blood chemistry. The paper provides multiple avenues of joint work between neurological and psychological scholars. The comments below reflect different reactions to the final article. Wes Hutchinson acknowledges that neuroscience insights complement cognitive measures that generate explicit measures of thought, emotion, or preferences, but he warns that repeated measures over time are problematic for both types of measurement, and the inherent complexity of brain–behavior relationships is often underestimated. With both orientations, understanding the functioning of human behavior is akin to making sense of an orchestra, where the interactive blending of different instruments and musicians reflects a complex activity that generates sounds, emotions, and stories. Both consumer neuroscientists and psychologists need to broaden their paradigmatic approaches with bodily measures and advanced psychological procedures to overcome challenges to joint progress. Martin Reiman asserts that despite difficulties with measures that have different levels of abstraction or velocity, research has provided remarkable associations between brain activity and consumer behavior. Effective studies merging brain and behavior can effectively proceed with studies that differ in two dimensions: first, by altering the number of variables, and second, by shifting whether the scientific paradigm is inductive or deductive. In its simple form, the Excavation path explores brain activity when a person is exposed to specific statements or emotions. In its most challenging form, Integrative Studies generate predictions from theories that test the convergent validity of divergent measures and leverage skills from different researchers. Studies reflecting high levels on one dimension but low levels on the other can also provide fruitful research opportunities. Brian Knutson, like Reimann, counters the idea that consumer psychology has not lived up to its promises. He references studies showing that activity from very specific areas of the brain reliably predicts choices better than explicit ratings or choices. Such research generates deductions from increasingly precise neural maps that enable confirmation of theory. That said, he acknowledges that consumer neuroscience is not able to identify a brain button that would alter choice through manipulated neurostimulation. However, since human brains are similar across people, the depth of neural insights that are consistent across a small sample of 40 respondents may generate greater insights than conventional marketing research with 2000 respondents. The cost of neuroscience will further decrease with gains in reliability, validity, and generalizability, particularly if augmented with bodily measures. He acknowledges that the theoretical side has developed more slowly than applications, particularly applications that are supported by sponsoring organizations more satisfied with local insights than general models.
The assumption that consumers prefer better quality options over worse ones seems almost definitional. However, a variety of marketplace examples suggest that consumers sometimes choose content that is “so bad it's good,” such as Tommy Wiseau's The Room or Rebecca Black's “Friday,” over apparently better alternatives (e.g., those of mediocre quality). In 12 preregistered studies ( N = 5393) across several content domains (e.g., jokes, talent show auditions), we provide the first controlled, empirical demonstration of consumer preferences for badness (i.e., choosing options because consumers expect them to be bad). We provide initial evidence that these preferences are rooted in expectations of entertainment value from the worst available option. Preferences for these options emerge more frequently when their deviations from quality standards are perceived as benign (i.e., inconsequential). Accordingly, such preferences are less prevalent when consumption is consequential, and involves utilitarian goals or monetary costs. We conclude by exploring the extent to which dimensions such as humor, absurdity, esthetic quality, and utilitarian value underlie so‐bad‐it's‐good perceptions, and highlight several open questions to spark future research.
Three commentaries below provide different perspectives on data analysis and reporting. They generally focus on how the quality of the measures and manipulations determines the value of the analysis. Norbert Schwarz and Fritz Strack's comment is less on the right statistic and more on “sloppy reasoning, gaps between theoretical concepts and their operationalizations, and blissful ignorance of the situated nature of human thinking, feeling, and doing contribute more to the limited reproducibility of empirical findings than the choice of a particular test statistic.” They propose that particular effects are contextual and inappropriately labeled as true or false. Instead, our job is to focus on general constructs that make sense of the diversity of human experience and psychological reactions. Too often studies replicating psychological effects in the noisy and confounded conditions of the marketplace result in statistical uncertainty of garbage in, garbage out. Researchers instead need to look toward tests of specific interactions, which can clarify the influencing factors based on theoretical considerations. The second comment is by Andrew Gelman, an outstanding psychological statistician. He proposes that “once the data have been collected, the most important decisions have already been done.” He then provides four recommendations that enable the statistics to work appropriately. The first requirement of an effective study is to be sure that the measures address the construct of interest. Similar to the position of Schwarz and Strack, it is important to articulate the relevance of a statistically significant finding. The second recommendation seeks to curb large number of studies with inflated effect sizes built from narrow studies and unwarranted optimism. The third recommendation is to simulate data from a model and consider the distribution of possible results. That is often done to test a new analysis method, but it can be even more important in marketplace studies where novel characteristics of the sample and experimental conditions are included in the analysis. Finally, he recommends that one consider likely analyses needed before getting the data. Such foresight would encourage, for example, thinking about the kind of data needed to defend the equality of the control demographics against the treatment. The final commentary is by Stijn van Osselaer. He agrees that p ‐values reflect the detailed methods from a given study but do not focus on the problem of generalizability. Like Gelman, he sees designs focused on effect sizes may have generated too many studies that do not replicate. He contrasts broad explorations with narrowly defined existence tests that provide evidence that an effect exists somewhere but are mute on other contexts where they may apply. For theoretical problems relevant to applications, it is important to identify moderators through broad sampling across population characteristics, stimuli, and situations. He proposes that consumer psychologists should not try to do everything in one paper, but to build practically relevant, applicable knowledge across multiple articles. Different articles, authors, and research methods play various roles, with each article focusing on important stages in the process from generating hypotheses, providing existence proofs, and exploring their broad applicability. That pragmatic approach can integrate theoretical silos that seek to resolve complex human problems and has promise as a criterion for relevant publications.
We hypothesize that the physical characteristics of cash lead to differences in “pain of holding” which influences spending. In one field study (rural India) and two controlled experiments ( N = 1710), we tested that hypothesis by endowing people with coins or equivalently valued banknotes and measuring their pain of holding and spending. Holding denomination constant (e.g., $1 coins vs. $1 banknotes), participants reported a greater pain of holding for coins (vs banknotes) which in turn increased spending. These findings were consistent across three incentive‐compatible experiments using a range of contexts (spending/donation), populations (Americans/Indians), and currencies (USD/INR). There was no evidence that coins were spent more than banknotes because of lower perceived purchasing power. Our findings suggest that the pain of holding contributes to under‐saving, which may be especially problematic among vulnerable populations who rely on cash. Conceptually, we shed new insight on the denomination effect (greater spending of smaller than larger denominations) and the pain of paying (the aversive experience of spending money). Practically, we provide recommendations for practitioners who wish to encourage donations, spending, or saving.
This study investigates how people's tendency to avoid action, known as “omission bias,” influences their financial decisions, specifically in the context of debt repayment to the UK government. Using a randomized controlled trial, we communicated with individuals who owed money, employing two distinct message framings. The omission‐framed message suggested that nonresponse was seen as inadvertent, while the commission‐framed message treated nonresponse as a deliberate choice. Analyses of nearly 40,000 responses revealed that repayment rates almost doubled with commission framing, reaching 23.2%, as opposed to 12% under omission framing. This reframing strategy generated over $1.4 million in additional revenue, underscoring the considerable real‐world impact of understanding and leveraging the omission bias in shaping financial behaviors.
Is trying to earn status effective or self‐defeating? We show that whether effort increases or decreases admiration and respect (i.e., status) depends on how the person is trying to earn status. Groups evaluate people along multiple status dimensions (e.g., wealth, coolness). Each dimension is associated with a different ideology, or set of beliefs, that ascribe status to behaviors that contribute to the group's goals. Whether behaviors, including effort, increase status, thus, depends on the ideologies that people use to interpret if a behavior contributes to the group. Four experiments demonstrate that people earn more status when they try to become wealthy compared to when they are effortlessly wealthy, but earn less status when they try to become cool compared to when they are effortlessly cool. Effort increases status when directed at wealth but not at coolness because contemporary ideologies suggest that people who gain wealth through effort contribute more to society, whereas people who gain coolness through effort contribute less.
Given its multi‐faceted nature, consumer research has evinced interest from scholars both within and outside the marketing domain, resulting in ongoing knowledge contributions from a diverse range of disciplines. We conduct a comprehensive review and comparison across both marketing (“inside”) and non‐marketing (“outside”) disciplines to identify which topics are most and least focused on within each disciplinary domain and which are emerging as the most impactful. We also identify which of the marketing (FT50) journals are at the forefront of cutting‐edge research and demonstrate their contributions to the progression of the most impactful topics in the field. Based on our findings, we identify key gaps and under‐researched areas of substantive interest, highlight impactful emerging topics in non‐marketing journals where marketing could offer unique perspectives, and provide concrete suggestions and directions to further progress and stimulate consumer research.
Some retailers round up price discounts, such as displaying a 7.7% discount as an 8% discount. In such instances, lay beliefs would suggest that displaying an 8% discount (vs. a 7.7% discount) would increase purchase intentions. In this research report, however, we show that displaying a rounded‐up, higher‐value discount (8%) versus a more precise but lower‐value discount (7.7%) reduces purchase intentions. Specifically, we show that using a more precise discount framing increases perceptions that the discount duration is shorter, in turn increasing purchase intentions. This research report presents a relevant and counterintuitive effect, and we propose contributions to work on both behavioral pricing and numerical information processing. Furthermore, this work has implications for practice, showing how to optimally display price discounts.