Index
Week 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Bi#erly et al. 2014 - Dueling with desire: a synthesis of past research on want/should conflict ........................ 2
Week 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Elsen, Pieters, and Wedel (2016) - Thin Slice Impressions: How AdverNsing EvaluaNon Depends on Exposure
DuraNon.............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Verhellen, et al. (2016) - The short-and long-term impact of brand placement in an adverNser-funded TV
program on viewers' aTtudes toward the sponsor brand and its main compeNtor. ......................................... 8
Anik, L., Hauser, R., & Gibson, M. (2020) - To understand consumer behavior, think like a marketplace
scienNst ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Week 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Chernev, et al. (2015) - Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis ........................................... 13
Madan et al. (2020) - The paradoxical consequences of choice: O`en good for the individual, perhaps less so
for society? ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Week 4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Shampanier et al. (2007) - Zero as a special price: The true value of free products ........................................ 19
Palmeira et al. (2013) - Free offer≠ cheap product: A selecNve accessibility account on the valuaNon of free
offers................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Levav, et al. (2010) - Physical contact and financial risk taking ........................................................................ 25
McFerran, et al. (2010) - I’ll have what she’s having: Effects of social influence and body type on the food
choices of others ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Week 5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Parker-Pope, T., & Peachman, R. R. (2016) - EpiPen price rise sparks concern for allergy sufferers. ................ 31
Eelen et al (2017) - The differenNal impact of brand loyalty on tradiNonal and online word of mouth: The
moderaNng roles of self-brand connecNon and the desire to help the brand .................................................. 32
Watson et al. (2015) - Building, measuring, and profiNng from customer loyalty ........................................... 34
Week 6 ......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Barasch et al. (2018) - How the intenNon to share can undermine enjoyment: Photo-taking goals and
evaluaNon of experiences ................................................................................................................................. 36
Ar/cles from the tutorial .............................................................................................................................. 39
MacInnis, et al. (2019) - CreaNng cultural meaning in products and brands: A psychological perspecNve...... 39
Li, et al. (2019) - ParenNng moNvaNon and consumer decision-making .......................................................... 40
Garcia-Rada, et al. (2022) - Consumers value effort over ease when caring for close others Download
Consumers value effort over ease when caring for close others....................................................................... 41
Garcia-Rada, et al. (2019) - Rituals and nupNals: The emoNonal and relaNonal consequences of relaNonship
rituals................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Brick, et al. (2022) - Be#er to decide together: Shared consumer decision making, perceived power, and
relaNonship saNsfacNon ................................................................................................................................... 43
,Week 1
Bi#erly et al. 2014 - Dueling with desire: a synthesis of past research
on want/should conflict
Aim and goal
The ar0cle reviews and synthesizes past research on the conflict between immediate desires
(wants) and long-term interests (shoulds), known as "want/should conflict." It aims to
provide a comprehensive understanding of this conflict and offer insights into interven0ons
that can help individuals and policymakers promote long-term, should-based decisions.
Conceptual model/framework
§ Want/Should Conflict = The tension between the immediate gra0fica0on provided by
wants and the long-term benefits offered by shoulds.
§ System 1 thinking = the intui0ve, automa0c thought process that favors immediate
gra0fica0on.
§ System 2 thinking = is the slower, more logical process that considers long-term
consequences.
§ Construal Level Theory (CLT) = This theory posits that people think about distant
events abstractly (favoring shoulds) and near-term events concretely (favoring
wants).
Framework:
The conflict between wants and shoulds is framed through dual-process models of cogni0on
(System 1 vs. System 2) and Construal Level Theory. The ar0cle explores how cogni0ve load,
0me distance, and other factors influence whether individuals choose wants or shoulds.
Results of the study
Overall Main Findings:
This paper synthesizes research on the “want/should” conflict, which refers to the tension
individuals experience between immediate desires (wants) and long-term goals (shoulds).
The authors review the cogni0ve processes that produce this conflict and examine strategies
for promo0ng should choices, which align with long-term interests.
Study 1: DefiniGon and CogniGve Processes of Want/Should Conflict
This review defines want/should conflict using u0lity theory, where wants provide more
immediate gra0fica0on but less overall u0lity over 0me compared to shoulds. Cogni0ve
models such as dual-system theory and construal level theory are discussed as underlying
mechanisms that drive the conflict.
2
,Study 2: Factors Influencing Want/Should Choices
This sec0on reviews empirical research on the factors that 0p the balance between want and
should choices. The study highlights that factors like cogni0ve load, construal level, and 0me
horizon all influence whether individuals choose immediate gra0fica0on (want) or long-term
benefits (should).
Study 3: IntervenGons to Promote Should Choices
The authors review interven0ons designed to promote should choices, such as seTng long-
term goals, using commitment devices, and framing choices in ways that highlight long-term
consequences. The study demonstrates how organiza0ons and policymakers can use these
tools to encourage individuals to make more future-oriented decisions.
Managerial implica0ons
1. Design Commitment Devices: Marketers can offer products or services that help
consumers commit to should decisions (e.g., subscrip0on services for healthy
products).
2. Frame Choices for Long-Term Benefits: Highligh0ng the long-term benefits of
products (e.g., financial savings or health improvements) can help nudge consumers
toward should choices.
3. Use Time Horizons to Influence Decision Making: Marketers can offer promo0ons
that encourage planning for the future, such as discounts for long-term
commitments.
Limita0ons of the study
As a review ar0cle, its limita0ons may include reliance on the quality and scope of exis0ng
research, poten0al biases in interpre0ng past studies, and the challenge of applying
theore0cal models universally across different contexts and popula0ons.
Main Research Ques0on(s):
The primary research ques0on is: What are the factors and cogni0ve processes that drive the
conflict between short-term desires ("wants") and long-term interests ("shoulds"), and how
can these be influenced to promote more future-oriented decision-making?
Variables
§ Independent Variable(s):
Program liking: How much viewers enjoy the adver0ser-funded TV program (AFP).
The study inves0gates how the liking of a TV show impacts brand aTtudes.
§ Dependent Variable:
o ATtude toward the sponsor brand: The key outcome variable, measuring the
effect of program liking on viewers' aTtudes toward the brand sponsoring the
program.
o ATtude toward the compe0tor brand: Another dependent variable that
assesses the effect of the AFP on the main compe0tor of the sponsor brand.
3
, § Possible Moderator(s):
o Program-sponsor brand fit: This refers to the perceived congruence between
the TV program and the sponsor brand. The study explores how this fit
moderates the effect of program liking on brand aTtude.
o Time: The effect of 0me is considered as a moderator for both brand
aTtudes, with aTtudes measured one week and one month a^er the
program's finale.
§ Possible Mediator(s):
Affect transfer: The emo0onal connec0on that viewers form with the program might
mediate the effect of program liking on their aTtudes toward the brand (both
sponsor and compe0tor).
Rela0onship Framework
The ar0cle proposes several hypotheses to describe the rela0onship between these
variables:
• Program liking → ATtude toward sponsor brand: The more viewers like the program,
the more posi0ve their aTtude is toward the sponsor brand.
• Program liking → ATtude toward compe0tor brand: In the long term, program liking
also posi0vely affects aTtudes toward the sponsor's main compe0tor.
• Program-sponsor brand fit moderates the rela0onship between program liking and
aTtudes, strengthening the effect when fit is high.
• Time weakens the effect of program liking on the sponsor brand, but higher brand fit
retains the effect for longer.
4
