Summary
Summary Readings for Advanced Consumer Science
- Course
- Institution
Summary of all the readings for Advanced Consumer Science. See the first page of the document to view which articles are included
[Show more]
2 reviews
By: Mathias • 4 year ago
By: Odi_S • 6 year ago
Seller
Follow
ehm
Reviews received
Content preview
Readings Advanced Consumer ScienceReferences of all readings included in this summary
, Readings Advanced Consumer Science
Lecture 2 – Huangs
Abstract
Selfish Goal model = a person’s behavior is driven by psychological processes called goals, that guide his or her behavior, at
times in contradictory directions. Only thinking and acting for your goal end-states. Conscious goals evolve from unconscious and
selfish forms of pursuit (evolutionary basis). Thus, a person’s behavior is indirectly selected at the goal level but expressed (and
comprehended) at the individual level.
1. Introduction
People behave contradictory, but we want others to see us as stable and predictable. We perform behavior to pursuing a goal, but
we can’t express all these goals simultaneously. Thus we might be contradictory because of more than one influence.
They conceptualize each individual as comprised of multiple, oftentimes conflicting goals, each of which influences that person in a
systematic, “selfish” manner. Goals can be conflicting and therefore may show inconsistent behavior.
1. An unconscious, less integrated system coordinated organism-level behavior prior to the evolution of conscious
processing capabilities.
2. We should find evidence that unconscious processes guide behavior and judgment independently of conscious guidance
(thus automaticity).
2. Who – or what – is in control of an individual’s behavior?
We think we do everything consciously and research firstly only looked at that. But, the situation (external influences) has a big
influence, we are unaware of the reasons behind our actions, and there are automatic processes. E.g. priming is unconscious but
does influence our mental processes.
2.1 The selfish goal
1. Automaticity principle proposes the existence of unconscious processes tied to individual judgment and behavior.
2. The reconfiguration principle holds that changes in a person’s judgments and behaviors during goal operation occur in
order to optimize that person’s chances of completing the goal. This can also be unconscious, because they are unaware
of the goal (this might even maximizes the likelihood of completing the goal) (e.g. inattentional blindness).
3. The similarity principle holds that conscious goal pursuit should resemble its unconscious counterpart in these regards
(they have similarities). Even if your goal is conscious, you might not be controlling or being aware of how it transforms
your experience in the world.
4. The inconsistency principle proposes that as multiple goals within a single individual become active, operate, and turn off,
the person pursuing those goals may appear to be acting inconsistently, or in a manner that seems contrary to his or her
interests.
2.2 Terminology
Goals are mental representations of desired end-states (more focus on the short-term and higher-level end-states and actions).
They can be reached in different ways. Conscious vs unconscious (unintentional and not aware of underlying causes and
processes).
3. The primacy of the unconscious
3.1 Prior to the evolution of consciousness
Conscious processes are a phylogenetically later adaptation of the brain. It is not needed to have flexible, goal-driven movements
in response to environmental stimuli. Animals try to survive and reproduce (goals), behavior is designed by natural selection for a
purpose. How are these multiple, competing influences integrated into overt behavior?
3.2 The selfish gene and the selfish goal
Genes are selfish because their only concern is their own replication (and not the welfare of their host organism).
3.3 After the evolution of consciousness
Evolution modifies existing structures in a gradual, incremental fashion (thus not creating new ones from the scratch). Traces of
the original structures often remain. Conscious processes are probably shaped by the preexisting unconscious behavioral control
system, thus we can still see this in the design.
3.4 Summary
Thus, less integrated unconscious goal processes lay down the landscape upon which their conscious counterparts operate today.
,4. The active goal as proximal cause of human behavior
A person will have inconsistencies in their behavior if there are multiple conscious and unconscious goals. Most of the time, goals
are quite similar, but there is now focus if two interests are inconsistent. Sometimes there are trade-offs between what is good for
the goal versus good for the individual (e.g. addicts). The Selfish Goal perspective is in line with other motivational models (e.g.
amount of influence from the individual and context; conflict between goals (GST)).
4.1 Predictions from the present model
1. The automaticity principle. Unconscious processes can influence behavior in the absence of individual awareness or
guidance.
2. The reconfiguration principle. The most motivating or “active” goal should constrain the individual’s information
processing and behavioral possibilities in a way that encourages achievement of the goal’s end-state.
3. The similarity principle. Conscious goal pursuit should recruit similar processes and produce similar outcomes as
unconscious goals.
4. The inconsistency principle. Temporarily active goals can produce outcomes for the individual that appear inconsistent
over time or contrary to the individual’s interests.
4.2 The automaticity principle
There is a relation between automatic evaluation and muscular readiness. Research shows that participants can be primed
unconsciously, thus having a goal without knowing. Or associating a goal with positive or negative affect influences the effort.
Situations and affective processes can also influence the goal. Research and damages in the brain shows that the mechanisms
guiding individual behavior evolved separately from the mechanisms furnishing conscious awareness of their operation.
There can be goal conflict and this can be unconscious. Participants didn’t experience conflict but did show implicit markers. This
goal conflict can also be solved unconsciously.
4.3 The reconfiguration principle
An active (conscious and unconscious) goal directs attention to stimuli (inattentional blindness). E.g. partijdige referees, liking
consisting evidence more than contradicting evidence. Judgment of others, objects, events, etc., are influenced by your active
goals. E.g. two groups working together to gain a shared goal. An active goal can even override otherwise chronic, automatic
encoding tendencies. Implementation intentions work and give control over future (automatic) events. Many automatic effects are
in fact goal-dependent, e.g. driving a car (you only brake with your foot if you have the goal to drive somewhere, not if you are
walking).
4.4 Similarity principle
Unconsciously and consciously operating goals produce the same outcome and the same processes are used. Also, unconscious
and conscious rewards both led to more effort. Unconscious and conscious goals both use executive control and working memory
functions, and thus have the same flexibility of responding to a given set of stimuli. What you like in people depends on your
currently active goal, even if you didn’t focus on that person (e.g. polite (waiter), rude (crime reporter)).
4.5 Inconsistency principle
If a goal is completed, it gets deactivated and other goals can be pursued. This means the influence on cognition and behavior
disappears for a time, and this can lead to contrary behavior. Sometimes people do not know the actual reasons for their behavior
(probably unconscious goal) and thus misattribute the reason. Also, if the goal is unconscious, you can lie about it without
showing.
5. Conclusions
Multiple goals, all having a selfish influence, because it is best for the current goal but not necessarily for the individual. There is
automaticity of higher mental processes, reconfiguration of a person’s perceptual and behavioral processes according to the
current goal, there are similarities between conscious and unconscious goals, and inconsistencies can arise if goals are completed
and new goals begin.
Discussion
Doesn’t explain the selfish genes very well. How do these goals arrive from these genes? Why are goals selfish? Automaticity
principle: smelling popcorn in the cinema. Inconsistently: buy a big mac with a diet coke.
,Lecture 2 – Pham
Consumer psychology research lacks relevance and impact for both our external constituents and internal constituents. There is
made progress but this doesn’t appear. Also, some say the information is only theoretical and not usable in the real world. But, the
information is used in business schools, we speak of relevance rather than implications, and if it can’t be used in the real world, it
also can’t be used theoretical.
Also, the research doesn’t have that much scientific impact, because only a few articles are well-cited. Most research isn’t even
interesting to ourselves and to other social scientists. Thus, internal and external issues of relevance. This can be increased, but
focusing on the seven shortcomings.
1. Narrow scope: limited scope of what we choose to study as consumer behavior. It starts with a desire, then acquisitions, then
use/consumption and ends with disposal/divestment, but we mostly focus on the acquisition (search, shopping, select, etc.). It
is also important to look at what consumers need and want (desire), because not everyone needs or wants a camera. Why
does someone wants to renovate their kitchen? How do we promote the need for safe-sex? Etc. Also important is the usage
and consumption, because the customer’s experience has to be good, but sharing, possession, rituals etc. are also interesting.
There are also more forms of acquisition than only purchasing, such as sharing, stealing, giving gifts, etc. Lastly, disposal and
divestment is important for the environment and for addictions.
2. Narrow lenses: the lenses that we put on to examine the limited topics are very narrow.
We only use constructs and have a mechanistic view of the consumer (do X process outcome). Information processing
and judgment machinery has been studied extensively. Emotions, mood etc. are made salient and significant, and influence
the mechanical core. Next are the goals, motives, needs etc. (again influencing what is more internal). Next is the self: socio-
relational context and cultural background.
Also, we are obsessed with unique theoretical explanations. Articles only get published if it has one single best explanation and
therefore isolating some theoretical explanations. But, most phenomena are multiply determined and phenomena with only one
determination are not so important. Theories must be seen as complementary instead of competing. And lastly, theories are
just theories.
3. Narrow epistemology: the definition of consumer knowledge is too narrow. It is mostly uses theoretical relations, namely
hypothetico-deductive and inductive. Hypotheses are tested with empirical data, but this is not actual consumer behavior. Or
phenomena are identified and then gradually conceptualized with induction (fine if phenomenon are robust, generalizable and
meaningful). But, we should also be descriptive and use external theory validation. Research without theoretical relations is not
well received, but it can be very interesting and useful, especially for retailers. Also, most hypotheses are logical and
theoretical (researchers), or they are important (marketing industry), but almost never both. We should take their hypotheses
and empirically test them.
4. Disregard for content: we only look at psychological processes (universal), but the real content of a consumer’s thoughts,
beliefs, feelings, etc. (more particular/variable), doesn’t seem to matter. We have to focus more on the content to make the
research more relevant and more influential.
5. Overgeneralization: evidence is overgeneralized. We put a lot of effort in the study and if it works, we see the results as more
general and robust than it probably is. We don’t replicate, and overstate the replicability and generalizability. Also, we have the
same tendency for published papers. E.g. some new findings are disputed because it is opposite from earlier research. E.g.
jam study with too much choice. Thus, more replications (altering one variable), more nuance and precision.
6. Research by convenience: most research is based on student samples, especially from North America (WEIRD: Western
Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic people). Nowadays Mechanical Turks are used a lot as experimental respondents,
but they are low paid and probably not very motivated. Also, most studies are imaginary and not actual consumer behavior
(vignette studies). We need real consumers and real behavior!
7. Confusing theories of studies with studies of theories: studies of theories are empirical studies testing novel theoretical
propositions, but theories of studies (conceptualization of phenomena) appear most in journals. They are hard to reject on
methodological and theoretical grounds, but it is not interesting or relevant.
Discussion
Theories of studies: sometimes research isn’t interested or useful. They do a research and find a significant result, but they didn’t
use theories to make hypotheses.
Another sin could be p-hacking (playing with your data just to find a significant result)
,Lecture 3 – Kristofferson: the dark side of scarcity promotions
When and why can scarcity promotions lead to aggressive outcomes? It is not due to survival, could it be the social norms for
appropriate behavior (others are pushing etc.)? Poorer decision making? An aggressive association?
Scarcity can also be found in resource-rich environments, e.g. a scarcity promotion (mostly at high-profile shopping-oriented
events (large discount, limited time and quantity). It makes products more valuable, but only more positive if it due to market
circumstances (popularity) (underlying cause). Most valuable products are also more scarce.
They purpose that when quantities are limited, scarcity promotions prompt consumers to perceive other shoppers as competitive
threats to obtaining the highly attractive products. They also purpose an increase in testosterone.
H1: Consumers exposed to a scarcity promotion highlighting limited quantity (vs. a promotion that does not highlight limited
quantity) will behave more aggressively.
H2: Exposure to a scarcity promotion highlighting limited quantity (vs. a promotion that does not highlight limited quantity) leads
consumers to perceive other consumers as potential competitive threats to obtaining the focal product. Perceived threat
will mediate the relationship between limited-quantity scarcity promotion exposure and increased aggression.
H3: Consumers exposed to a scarcity promotion highlighting limited quantity (vs. a promotion that does not highlight limited
quantity) will exhibit higher testosterone levels.
They propose that there will be no/less aggression if there are cues that directly minimize competition. Also, there will only be
aggression if there is limited in products available, not in time.
H4: The type of scarcity promotion will moderate the relationship between scarcity promotions and aggression, such that
exposure to scarcity promotions will lead to increased aggressive behavior when the promotion limits available product
quantity, but not when the promotion limits available time to obtain the product.
Study 1
Scarcity manipulation by iPhone only for $50, but only 3 or 3000 available. Answering some questions. Measurement of
aggression by playing a videogame (# bullets). Participants who were exposed to the scarcity promotion (3 available) fired
significantly more bullets than participants exposed to the control promotion. Thus, induce aggressive behavior with a
nonnecessity product in a resource-rich environment.
Study 2
Same as study 1, but extra condition (no quantity). Next purchase and sample a product from the vending machine, but the
product didn’t fall into the bottom. How do they interact with the machine? Participants exposed to the scarcity promotion behaved
more aggressively. Presenting no or a large quantity doesn’t matter for the aggression.
Study 3
Testosterone levels were measured (baseline). Next same scarcity manipulation as in study 1. Again, measurement testosterone.
Questionnaire about health and demographics. Watch neutral video. Again, measurement baseline testosterone. Participants
exposed to the scarcity promotion exhibited significantly higher testosterone levels than participants exposed to the control
promotion.
Study 4
Same scarcity manipulation as in study 1. Next, do a boxing game on the Wii (now no score or performance feedback was given).
Lastly, fill in questionnaire about competitive threat. Participants threw more punches at the defenseless opponent after exposure
to the scarcity promotion. Also, the indirect effect of scarcity promotion on aggressive behavior through perceived threat was
significant, thus exposure to limited-quantity scarcity promotions leads consumers to view other consumers as potential threats to
obtaining the target product.
Study 5
First complete the perceived threat manipulation (write about being similar (low threat) or being different (high threat) from other
consumers) and next the scarcity manipulation. Read about lining up to participate in this sale. Next select games they want to
play right now (differed in amount of violence). Participants in the scarcity-high-threat condition expressed a significantly higher
preference for violent games than participants in the control-high-threat condition. There are no differences in the low-threat
condition.
, Study 6
Promotion ad with a luxury watch (3 or 3000) for only $50 with a high threat (Walmart) or a low threat (Nordstrom). Again, first-
person shooting game and counting the number of shots fired. Participants exposed to the scarcity promotion fired significantly
more bullets than participants exposed to the control condition, but only if the perceived threat was high.
Study 7
Same as study 1, but now with a difference in scarcity type (quantity (# 3/3000) or time (1/30 days)). They also added an online
world search game to look for a nonaggressive competitive goal. Participants exposed to the limited-quantity promotional ad fired
significantly more bullets than participants exposed to the control-quantity promotional ad. The limited time condition didn’t elicit
the same aggressive outcome. These effects are specific to aggressive competitive behavior, because they do not find more
words than in other conditions.
General discussion
Exposure to limited-quantity scarcity promotion advertising can lead consumers to perceive others as potential competitive threats
to obtaining the focal product, and prepares consumers to aggress by increasing testosterone levels.
Discussion
The measurement with testosterone wasn’t significant but they said it was. There was only a small difference between persons.
Creative ways to measure aggression.
They didn’t explore all data, e.g. gender differences. In real life there is some time between seeing the ad and going to the store.
The manipulation is always the same (ad of iPhone) and not real life or convincing.
Nice idea and there probably is a relationship, but this paper could have measured it better.
Lecture 3 – Wu et al. (2017): Too pretty to use
Can a product be too aesthetically appealing to use or hurt the consumption experience? They examine how the aesthetic
qualities of a product shape both (1) the likelihood of consuming that product, and (2) the emotional consequences of such
consumption, or how one feels once consumption has taken place. Aesthetics products have a higher effort and thus are less
likely to be consumed. If the product is damaged through use, there is a negative affect if consumed.
People often rely on product aesthetics. If people spend more effort, they will also evaluate the outcome more positively. They
examine if aesthetic products can elicit greater perceptions of effort. A small pretest showed that the more aesthetically appealing
a product was rated, the higher the perceived degree of design and production effort. They predict that people are less likely to
consume a product that has higher aesthetic appeal.
H1: Consumers will be less likely to use/consume a nondurable product that has higher (vs. lower) aesthetic appeal.
H2: The drop in consumption likelihood for nondurable products with higher (vs. lower) aesthetic appeal will be mediated in serial
by design and/or production effort inferences and concerns about the destruction of such effort.
They predict that the steeper drops in beauty, experienced in response to the consumption of a higher aesthetic product, will lead
to more negative responses than smaller changes in aesthetic appeal from a lower starting point with the consumption of a less
aesthetic product. More specifically, we contend that because consuming a highly aesthetic product inherently turns something
beautiful, which is pleasurable, into something unattractive, which is unpleasant, the accompanying reductions in beauty will lead
to reduced consumption enjoyment and greater negative affect.
H3: Consumption of a higher (vs. lower) aesthetic nondurable product will negatively affect emotional outcomes (enjoyment and
affect).
H4a: The effect of consuming a higher (vs. lower) aesthetic nondurable product on emotional outcomes will be mediated in serial
by design and/or production effort inferences and concerns over having destroyed such effort as a result of consumption.
H4b: The effect of consuming a higher (vs. lower) aesthetic nondurable product on emotional outcomes will be mediated by
changes in beauty occurring as a result of consumption.
Study 1
They used white toilet paper or toilet paper with motives in a fitness study. Clients used less of the aesthetic toilet paper. Thus,
enhanced product aesthetics can reduce usage behavior.
Study 2
The level of hunger was indicated and they could eat a cupcake (high or low aesthetic) while they were watching a video.
Participants had to rate how much they liked the cupcake and how expensive it was. Participants in the higher aesthetic condition
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ehm. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.85. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now