Samenvatting
Consumer Marketing E_MKT_CM Summary all articles 23/24
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
this is a summary of all the articles you are supposed to read for the course Consumer Marketing (MSc Marketing) at the VU.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 24 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 24 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
2 beoordelingen
Door: sophiadehaas • 1 jaar geleden
Door: judithfarla44 • 1 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Consumer Marketing ReadingsWeek 1:
Article 1: Dueling with desire (Bitterly et al., 2014)
In our daily lives we frequently face a tension between what we want to do and what we
believe we should do. Bazerman et al. (1998) refer to the common struggle between
choosing what we desire in the heat of the moment and what would be best for us in the
long term as ‘’want/should’’ conflict. According to their conceptualization, we each face
frequent conflicts between ‘’multiple selves’’ – our want self, who desires immediate
gratification, and our should self, who argues for our long-term interests.
Milkman and coauthors (2008) define options as relative wants and should based on the
following criteria:
1. The instantaneous utility obtained from the want option is greater than the
instantaneous utility obtained from the should option.
2. The sum of the utility that will be derived from the want option in all future periods is
less than the sum of the utility that will be derived from the should options in all
future periods.
This definition does not account for the affect and or feelings evoked. Also, this definition
does not indicate which type of option is optimal and thus rational.
Over-indulging in want options typically has a greater cost than overindulging in should
options.
Psychologists have proposed a model wherein individuals’ decision making processes are
guided by two models of thought or ‘’systems’’, which are referred to as System 1 and System
2. System 1 is an intuitive, automatic system, which relies on emotions and makes quick
judgments (wants). System 2 engages in slower and more logical, effortful reasoning
(should).
The construal level theory (CLT) explains that events and choices can be represented in two
fundamental and distinct ways – abstractly or concretely. The proximity of an event impacts
how it is mentally represented.
Another body of research suggests that the limited self-regulatory capacity shapes the
outcomes of our internal struggles between wants and shoulds. According to this stream of
research, self-control is conceptualized as resembling a muscle that can be weakened
through repeated use. The idea is that after resisting something we desire or more generally,
after engaging in activities that require the use of our executive function, we have less self-
control ‘’strength’’ available for subsequent choices, causing us to give in to our short term
desires more readily.
What factors shift whether we choose wants or should?
Choosing for now or later – people prefer should options at a higher rate when
making decisions for the more distant future, but prefer want options more often the
sooner choices will take effect.
Cognitive load – the relative strengths of System 1 reactions (characterized by
emotions and instincts) and System 2 reactions (characterized by deliberative,
controlled thinking) influence the outcomes of want/should conflicts.
, Construal level – suggests that we prefer should over wants more often when we are
thinking abstractly and thus focusing on the global and goal-relevant features of
options rather than when we are thinking concretely and thus focusing on the
contextualized, surface-level and goal-irrelevant features of options.
Depletion – the process of reigning in our short-term desires and choosing should
over wants requires exercising willpower or self-regulation. As discussed previously, a
growing body of research suggests that exerting willpower comes at a cost, and that
cost is a reduction in available self-control resources for use in future choices.
Joint vs separate evaluations – although want options tend to be preferred at a
higher rate than should options in isolation, we are more likely to think about the cost
and benefit of each option and make farsighted should choices when multiple options
are evaluated at the same time.
Mood effects – emotions can shift the outcomes of want/should conflicts.
Licensing effects – past research has shown that people feel ‘’licensed’’ to make (or
justified in making) want choices if they believe they have previously engaged in
should behaviors or if they anticipate having opportunities to engage in should
behaviors in the future.
Closeness to your future self – when we do not feel psychologically connected to our
future self, we should be less interested in taking actions to benefit this self and thus
should shy away from should options.
Fresh starts – there are naturally-arising points in time when people are particularly
motivated to pursue their long-term interests or in other words, to prefer shoulds.
Past research highlights that our choices over wants and should are malleable and depend on
the context where we make a decision. Here we review a series of different ‘’nudges’’ that
have been shown to successfully increase the rate at which we choose should over wants:
Prompt plan-making – prompting people to stipulate when, where and how they will
enact their goals. Plan-making has been shown to improve our likelihood of achieving
goals in a diverse array of domains, including exercise, dieting, smoking cessation,
academic performance, test preparation, recycling and voting.
Commitment devices – providing individuals with access to commitment devices – or
a means of voluntarily (a) enforcing restrictions on themselves until they have done
what they know they should or (b) imposing penalties for failing to do what they
should.
Temptation bundling – seeks to increase should behaviors by bundling them with
tempting wants.
Week 2:
Article 2: Thin Slice Impressions: How Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure
Duration (Elsen et al., 2016)
Industries trend more towards shorter advertising units and consumers’ increased time
pressures and reduced attention spans contribute to ever-shorter exposure durations to ads.
A study reports average exposure durations to web pages of only about 4 sec, another study
, observes average exposure durations to be merely 2 sec. Such brief exposure durations
provide thin slices of information about ads.
Knowing an ad’s identity is functional for customers because it helps them determine
whether the ad is personally relevant and, thus, whether it requires more attention to its
message.
In this paper three controlled experiments: two behavioral, one field. First to conceptualize
and compare three common ways in which ads convey their basic identity – namely, what we
will call ‘’upfront’’, ‘’mystery’’, and ‘’false front’’, - and to test hypotheses about the effects of
these ad types on evaluation after brief and longer exposure durations.
Upfront ads are typical for the category that they advertise. They are similar to other ads in
the same category. Therefore, they immediately convey their identity.
Mystery ads are atypical for the category that they advertise. They are dissimilar from other
ads in the same category, but also dissimilar from ads in other categories. They contain
indirect or delayed signals of their true identity, which prevents customers from immediately
matching the ad with preexisting ad schemas or memory templates.
False front ads are also atypical for the category that they advertise. They are atypical in that
they are similar to ads in a different category than their own. False front ads make use of
mimicry to initially convey a different identity than their true one.
Evidence accumulation is faster when the stimulus is similar to prototypes or exemplars of
the category that consumers hold in memory. This feeling of knowing is a form of subjective
knowledge. After brief exposures, the feeling and accuracy of knowing the true identity of
upfront ads is already high. Longer exposure durations help confirm that the initial feeling of
knowing the identity of upfront ads was accurate. The paper predicts that subjective
knowledge about the identity of upfront ads is high and calibrated, after both brief and
longer exposures.
Long exposure durations help improve the feeling and accuracy of knowing the identity of
mystery ads, and these eventually converge to the same high levels as for upfront ads. The
paper predicts that subjective knowledge about the identity of mystery ads is calibrated but
low after brief exposures and calibrated and high after long exposures.
Subjective knowledge is initially miscalibrated for false front ads. After long exposures, the
initial identity is revealed to be false when the ads convey their true identity, and subjective
knowledge becomes calibrated.
As upfront ads are typical and similar to other ads, such ads and other stimuli ‘’that are
simple and one dimensional are less likely to be sources of pleasure.’’ This should thus lead
to less positive evaluation of upfront ads after brief exposure durations and to further
declining evaluation after longer exposure durations.
Mystery and false front ads are more distinctive, contain different ideas in their message,
shift between ideas or are uncommon in another way; such characteristics can lead to more
positive ad and brand attitudes. Support for this account comes from research in which
people rely on thick slices of information about the detailed message content of ads after
long exposures, and this support is a likely reason that mystery and false front ads are
popular in advertising practice.
Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:
Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews
Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!
In een paar klikken geregeld
Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.
Direct to-the-point
Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper liekegroskamp. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 66184 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen