We show how motivation affects reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes. We manipulate the level of brand preference experimentally and expose subjects to a message that is either consistent or inconsistent with their manipulated preference. Further, the message contains either strong or weak arguments. In two experiments, we find that preference-inconsistent information is processed more systematically and is counterargued more than preference-consistent information. In addition, experiment 2 shows that strong arguments are more persuasive than weak arguments in the preference-inconsistent condition. We employ the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion and its sufficiency principle as a framework to understand the psychological mechanism that underlies the biased processing of preference-inconsistent information.

Four studies, using chronic and situational self-construal, supported the proposition that individualists (collectivists) focus on within-category richness (between-category differentiation). Collectivists judged paired products as less similar than individualists did, but only at the higher level of a category hierarchy (studies 1 and 2). Further, collectivists were more context driven in product ratings in a categorization task (study 3). Study 4 focused on high-level pairs and found that under high involvement, chronic self-construal dominated judgments. Under low involvement, chronic and situational construals interacted: individualists (collectivists) were less (more) amenable to the situational construal. Implications for self-construal and categorization research are discussed.

Given curiosity’s characterization as a motivational drive for knowledge, prior research has primarily focused on curiosity’s positive effects on knowledge exploration, information acquisition, and learning. Once the desired knowledge has been acquired, curiosity is said to be satisfied. But what happens if curiosity is left unsatisfied? Across five experiments, spanning four domains of indulgence-related decisions and relying on different methods of curiosity elicitation, the present research sheds light on an unexpected yet crucial consequence of curiosity—that unsatisfied curiosity tempts indulgent consumption in domains unrelated to the source of the curiosity. This effect is explained by a generalized desire for rewards. Experiments 1–3 establish and replicate the proposed mediation model of curiosity —› desire for rewards —› indulgence, employing manipulation-of-process, moderation-of-process, and measurement-of-process experimental designs. Experiment 4 utilizes neurophysiological data to indicate brain activation in the insular cortex for unsatisfied (vs. satisfied) curiosity. Experiment 5 addresses the role of cognitive depletion as a possible alternative mechanism. In summary, this article demonstrates that the hunger for information that accompanies unsatisfied curiosity is converted into a generalized desire for rewards, which in turn tempts indulgence.

We examined the consequences of regulatory focus on exposure to two types of comparative advertising frames—a maximal claim (“brand A is superior to brand B”) and a minimal claim (“brand A is equivalent or similar to brand B”)—in three experiments. In experiment 1, we manipulated these frames, basing the sponsor brand's claim on comparison with an existing brand. In experiment 2, we operationalized the frames using a comparison featuring a sponsor brand targeting an established standard (Food and Drug Administration guidelines). A third experiment provided convergent evidence for the process underlying these effects. Consistent with theoretical reasoning, we found that promotion-focused individuals were more persuaded by maximal comparisons while prevention-focused individuals were either equally persuaded by the two frames or more persuaded by minimal frames. For prevention-focused individuals, maximal frames represented either a “no loss” or a “deviation from the norm.” The no loss representation led to maximal and minimal frames being equally persuasive. The deviation from the norm representation led to greater negative elaboration on maximal frames, making them less persuasive than minimal frames. For promotion-focused people, a maximal frame simply represented a gain over a minimal frame, and hence it induced more favorable elaboration and greater persuasion.

Three experiments examine how prevention-focused and promotion-focused consumers evaluate the comparison brand and what information they anchor on in direct comparative ads framed positively or negatively. Negative (vs. positive) frames lead prevention-focused respondents to exhibit higher evaluations for the advertised brand and lower evaluations for the comparison brand. Under promotion focus, positive (vs. negative) frames lead to more favorable attitudes toward the advertised brand with no difference in attitudes for the comparison brand. Preference for consistency is posited as a possible process explanation. We also find an evaluation order effect: prevention-focused (promotion-focused) individuals evaluate the comparison (advertised) brand first.

Consumers frequently use lists that were created by marketers, experts, or media platforms, such as a list of favorite restaurants. The authors refer to such lists as curated lists because they include items that appear to be endorsed or recommended by the list maker. Although these lists are typically ranked and numbered, marketers sometimes create lists that are not numbered, making it unclear whether the items have been ranked. Twelve studies (N = 5,530) reveal that when presented with an unnumbered curated list, consumers regularly assume that a fundamental characteristic of numbered lists—best-to-worst ordinality—applies. Specifically, the authors find that when a list contains an endorsement cue (e.g., superlative adjectives, markers of exclusivity, list qualification criteria), consumers rely on the conversational norm of best-to-worst ordinality. This inferential process leads consumers to prefer and choose items that are located vertically higher on the list. However, consumers are less likely to assume best-to-worst ordinality when an unnumbered list does not resemble a typical list: when endorsement cues are absent or conversational norms governing lists are weakened in other ways. This research advances knowledge of how consumers process curated lists in everyday consumption contexts, while also providing actionable recommendations for list makers.