Knowledge that Transforms

AbstractThis article provides a conceptual framework for studying the effects of religion on consumer behavior, with the goal of stimulating future research at the intersection of these two topics. We delineate religion as a multidimensional construct and propose that religion affects consumer psychology and behavior through four dimensions—beliefs, rituals, values, and community. For each dimension of religion, we offer definitions and measures, integrate previous findings from research in the psychology, consumer behavior, marketing, and religion literatures, and propose testable future research directions. With this conceptual framework and research agenda, we challenge consumer researchers to ask deeper questions about why religious affiliation and level of religiosity may be driving previously established differences in consumer behavior, and to uncover the psychological mechanisms underlying the effects. This framework complements and extends previous literature and provides a new delineated framework for considering research on the effects of religion on consumer behavior.

AbstractThe effect of assortment size on purchase decisions is an ongoing subject of debate, in light of conflicting findings (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). The authors show that a key determinant of the effect is the order in which “whether to buy” and “which option to choose” decisions are made. Increasing assortment size has a more positive effect on the likelihood of consumers to make a purchase when the initial decision emphasis is on whether to make a purchase from a given set of options, as opposed to first identifying the best available option in the set. This prediction is based on the proposition that decision order determines how likely consumers are to make trade‐offs between the perceived costs and benefits associated with a large product assortment, and that the benefits are given relatively greater weight when consumers decide first “whether to buy” (rather than “which option to choose”). Two incentive‐compatible studies, using a systematic manipulation of assortment size and decision order, support the prediction.

AbstractMindsets—or implicit theories—are the beliefs people have about the nature of human characteristics. This article applies mindset theory and research to the field of consumer behavior. Specifically, we suggest how a fixed or growth mindset may shape consumer product preferences, acceptance of brand extensions, trust recovery following product failures, as well as the effectiveness of advertising and marketing campaigns. We argue that people with a fixed mindset are more likely to seek products and brands in line with their goals to burnish their self‐image and demonstrate their positive qualities, while people with a growth mindset seek products that help them pursue their goals to improve and learn new things. Thus, products and brands may serve important self‐enhancement functions—encouraging consumers to reinforce or expand core aspects of their identity. We also suggest that brands and companies can project a fixed or growth mindset. In turn, these organizational mindsets should shape consumers' expectations of, and relationships with, products, brands, and companies.

AbstractWhile consumers believe that knowing the ending of a story will spoil their enjoyment of the narrative, recent work shows that spoilers have little impact on consumers' actual experiences. The psychological mechanism underlying this affective misforecasting, however, is less clear. In this research, we propose that compared with real experience, affective forecasting may be associated with longer psychological distance and high‐level construal, which may encourage forecasters to assign greater weight to the outcome of a plot. In addition to showing the basic effect, we also identify circumstances under which such affective misforecasting is less likely to happen or even reverses. In line with our theorizing, the results of two studies showed that the misforecasting disappeared when participants had chronic or situationally primed low (vs. high) construal levels. In the final experiment we reversed the previous finding, showing that participants underpredicted the negative impact of a spoiler when the spoiler revealed the process of a plot.

AbstractCausal attributions and brand‐relationships are known to determine how consumers react to brand transgressions. Considering both transgression controllability and brand‐relationship strength, the authors show that self‐construal moderates consumer reactions to brand transgressions. Three studies using different product and service failure scenarios demonstrate that consumers who have independent self‐construals are more forgiving when the brand has no control over the transgression, regardless of brand‐relationship strength. However, consumers who have interdependent self‐construals are more forgiving when they have strong relationships with the transgressing brand, even if the brand is at fault. Furthermore, the salience of justice concerns versus expectancies for long‐term brand‐relationships underlies the self‐construal effects on consumer forgiveness.