Knowledge that Transforms

Leisure is desirable and beneficial, yet consumers frequently forgo leisure in favor of other activities—namely, work. Why? We propose that goal conflict plays an important role. Seven experiments demonstrate that perceiving greater goal conflict shapes how consumers allocate time to work and leisure—even when those activities are unrelated to the conflicting goals. This occurs because goal conflict increases reliance on salient justifications, influencing how much time people spend on subsequent, unrelated activities. Because work tends to be easier to justify and leisure harder to justify, goal conflict increases time spent on work and decreases time spent on leisure. Thus, despite the conflicting goals being independent of the specific work and leisure activities considered (i.e., despite goal conflict being “incidental”), perceiving greater goal conflict encourages work and discourages leisure. The findings further understanding of how consumers allocate time to work and leisure, incidental effects of goal conflict on decision-making, and the role of justification in consumer choice. They also have implications for the use of “time-saving” technologies and the marketing of leisure activities.

Journal Article A Word of Thanks Get access Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 47, Issue 6, April 2021, Pages 829–830, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab013 Published: 10 April 2020

Consumers often try to visually identify a previously encountered product among a sequence of similar items, guided only by their memory and a few general search terms. What determines their success at correctly identifying the target product in such “product lineups”? The current research finds that the longer consumers search sequentially, the more conservative and—ironically—inaccurate judges they become. Consequently, the more consumers search, the more likely they are to erroneously reject the correct target when it finally appears in the lineup. This happens because each time consumers evaluate a similar item in the lineup, and determine that it is not the option for which they have been looking, they draw an implicit inference that the correct target should feel more familiar than the similar items rejected up to that point. This causes the subjective feeling of familiarity consumers expect to experience with the true target to progressively escalate, making them more conservative but also less accurate judges. The findings have practical implications for consumers and marketers, and make theoretical contributions to research on inference-making, online search, and product recognition.

Four studies, across a range of domains, find a dragging-down effect in which consumers purchase fewer units of a product when a discount applies to more units. For example, consumers buy fewer peaches when each customer can buy up to three peaches at a discount than when each customer can buy only one peach at a discount or when there is no discount at all. In contrast to basic economic principles, this dragging-down effect implies that consumers purchase less (more) when the per-unit price is lower (higher). We propose and our results support an acceptability account: consumers will adopt the price-increase point (i.e., maximum discounted quantity) as their purchase quantity if that point falls within an acceptable range, and will ignore that point and purchase their initially preferred quantity instead if the price-increase point falls below the acceptable range. The current work enriches existing research on anchoring and pricing and carries implications for consumers, marketers, and policy-makers.

The Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) is not only the premier outlet for the best scholarship in consumer research. It is also the intellectual home of the global consumer research community. In sustaining that home, the ideals of the journal include publishing insights gained from a variety of perspectives on critical consumer-relevant issues, from diverse theories and methodologies to substantive domains. As a team of editors, we see our role as nurturing, building, protecting, and further strengthening our intellectual home. And we want to build up JCR as a platform of insights to the world by better translating our research and showing how it is important to others; we want to invite the broader world into our home, to share the insights created within our walls. To become the stewards of JCR during a pandemic unlike any we’ve known in our lifetime demands that we think about how community is fostered, even in a socially distanced world. Does JCR—as our intellectual home—connect us? Is our digital space compelling enough? Do community members find it easy and exciting to stay connected to the new ideas we work hard to develop? Does our intellectual home feel equally welcoming and transparent to all members of our community? COVID-19 has shown us the power and importance of home. In 2020, home renovation has been popular, and we, too, have been thinking it might be the ideal time for a little updating.

We propose that individual differences in the value placed on the principle of moderation exist and influence many aspects of consumer decision-making. The idea that moderation is an important guiding norm of human behavior is prevalent throughout history and an explicit theme in many philosophies, religions, and cultures. Yet, moderation has not been studied as an individual-level determinant of consumer behavior. We develop a scale that measures the degree to which individuals have a Preference for Moderation (PFM). The PFM scale predicts consequential behavior in many decision contexts. We first report on scale development, including the generation and selection of items. We then report analyses showing that PFM is distinct from several popular individual-difference variables. Related to cultural background, PFM reliably predicts the use of compromise (study 1) and balancing (vs. highlighting) strategies (study 2), as well as various decision-making behaviors, including reliance on the representativeness heuristic (study 3), self-reported financial habits and outcomes (studies 4–5), real-world online-reviewing behavior (study 6), and split-ticket voting behavior in the 2018 US midterm elections (study 7).

Consumers monitor their goal progress to know how much effort they need to invest to achieve their goals. However, the factors influencing consumers’ goal progress monitoring are largely unexamined. Seven studies (N = 8,409) identified categorization as a novel factor that influences goal progress perceptions, with consequences for motivation. When pursuing a goal, categorization cues lead consumers to perceive that their goal-relevant actions are in separate categories; as a result, consumers anchor their estimates of goal progress on the proportion of categories completed and are less affected by the absolute amount of progress made than when categorization cues are not present. As a result, depending on the proportion of categories completed, categorization can lead consumers to infer greater progress when they are actually farther from their goal, and to infer less progress when they are closer to their goal. We demonstrate consequences of this effect for consumers’ motivation and goal attainment in incentive compatible contexts.

Consumers often form calorie estimates. How consumers estimate calories can systematically bias their calorie assessments. We distinguish between magnitude estimates—when consumers judge whether something has “very few” to “many” calories—and numeric estimates—when consumers estimate a number of calories. These two estimation modes lead to calorie estimate reversals when assessing calories in stimuli that trade off type and quantity, such as when assessing calories in a smaller portion of unhealthy food versus a larger portion of healthier food. When forming a “magnitude estimate,” people judge the larger, healthier food portion as containing fewer calories than the smaller, unhealthy food portion. However, when forming a “numeric estimate,” people often come to the opposite conclusion—judging the larger, healthier food portion as having more calories. This reversal occurs because these two estimation modes are differentially sensitive to information regarding a stimulus’ type (e.g., food healthiness), which is processed first, and quantity (e.g., food portion size), which is processed secondarily. Specifically, magnitude estimates are more sensitive to type, whereas numeric estimates attend to both type and quantity. Accordingly, this divergence between calorie estimation modes attenuates when: (1) quantity information is made primary or (2) in an intuitive (vs. deliberative) mindset.