Knowledge that Transforms

We document a novel driver of consumer behavior: pay ratio disclosure. Swiss corporation performance data gathered during a legally mandated pay ratio referendum reveals that salient high pay ratios are associated with decreased firm sales (Pilot Study). An incentive‐compatible field experiment shows that, when ratios are revealed, consumers avoid firms with high ratios relative to competitors (Study 1). Finally, the effect of high pay ratios also depends on consumers’ political ideology: Democrats and Independents show decreased purchase intentions for products sold by firms with high ratios, whereas Republicans are unaffected (Study 2).

People—be they politicians, marketers, job candidates, product reviewers, or romantic interests—often use linguistic devices to persuade others, and there is a sizeable literature that has documented the effects of numerous linguistic devices. However, understanding the implications of these effects is difficult without an organizing framework. To this end, we introduce a Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework for classifying linguistic devices based on two continuous dimensions: language complexity, ranging from simple to complex, and processing mode, ranging from automatic to controlled. We then use the framework as a basis for reviewing and synthesizing extant research on the effects of the linguistic devices on persuasion, determining the conditions under which the effectiveness of the linguistic devices can be maximized, and reconciling inconsistencies in prior research.

Loss aversion, the principle that losses loom larger than gains, is among the most widely accepted ideas in the social sciences. The first part of this article introduces and discusses the construct of loss aversion. The second part of this article reviews evidence in support of loss aversion. The upshot of this review is that current evidence does not support that losses, on balance, tend to be any more impactful than gains. The third part of this article aims to address the question of why acceptance of loss aversion as a general principle remains pervasive and persistent among social scientists, including consumer psychologists, despite evidence to the contrary. This analysis aims to connect the persistence of a belief in loss aversion to more general ideas about belief acceptance and persistence in science. The final part of the article discusses how a more contextualized perspective of the relative impact of losses versus gains can open new areas of inquiry that are squarely in the domain of consumer psychology.

While there is an ample amount of consumer behavior research that recruits processing fluency as an explanatory construct, the question how to best measure the fluency experience has received little attention. Therefore, there is a lack of consistency in measuring the construct, particularly with regard to the use of single‐item versus multi‐item measures. The current research, thus, aims to investigate how processing fluency can be consistently measured across different experimental fluency manipulations and which type of measure has the highest validity. Based on classic scale development procedures, we propose a reliable and valid multi‐item measure and compare this measure against a single‐item measure in terms of predictive validity. We show that both measures mediate the effect of five established fluency manipulations and that the single‐item measure is sufficient. In addition to providing a measure for future research that can be adapted to different empirical settings, we provide empirical evidence on the replicability of fluency effects and on the theoretical conjecture that people have a uniform fluency experience across different manipulations of fluency.

Symbols can exert an influence on how we think, feel, and even behave. Here we examine whether symbolic markings serve as primes and influence how people make judgments. We propose that making either a check or an X mark to indicate an opinion can lead people to process the same information differently, thereby influencing the judgment people make. Across four experiments, we find that the check and X marks carry different symbolic associations; people associate check with good and X with bad. We also find downstream consequences of these mental associations. People who make positively connoted check marks (as opposed to negatively connoted X marks) to indicate their judgments are more agreeable toward familiar, controversial social policies as well as market research survey items on values and life styles. Differential symbolic markings with check and X marks seem to shape how people think and make judgments.

Online social networks have become extremely popular, but what drives sharing through these channels? We demonstrate that one of the most popular features of online social networks, microblogging (e.g., tweeting or sharing Facebook status updates), is driven in part by its undirected nature. Microblogging allows people to simultaneously express themselves to a large number of potential communication partners without having to address anyone in particular. As a result, this communication channel is particularly valued when people feel socially apprehensive; it allows them to reach out without having to impose communication and potentially bother anyone in particular. These findings shed light on one reason why people use online social networks and provide insight into the value of undirected communication.