Samenvatting
Behavior Change Management required readings & videos summary
This is a summary of all the required readings of Behavior Change management at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, INCLUDING all videos explained
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 55 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 55 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Behavior Change Marketing Required Readings & VideosTable of contents:
Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2010). Emotional compatibility and the effectiveness of
antidrinking messages: A defensive processing perspective on shame and guilt. Journal of
Marketing Research, 47(2), 263-273....................................................................................... 2
Agrawal, N., Menon, G., & Aaker, J. L. (2007). Getting emotional about health. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(1), 100-113........................................................................................5
Bartels, D. M., & Urminsky, O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: How the perceived
instability of identity underlies impatient consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1),
182-198.................................................................................................................................... 7
Bazerman, M., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2011). Ethical Breakdowns: Good People Often Let Bad
Things Happen. Why? Harvard Business Review, 89, 4........................................................10
Botti, S., Orfali, K., & Iyengar, S. S. (2009). Tragic choices: Autonomy and emotional
responses to medical decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 337-352................ 11
Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: why don't we choose what
makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 31-37.............................................. 15
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272-292................................................... 18
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial
intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629-650................................................21
Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be
improved?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379-383...................................... 24
Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2014). Holding the hunger games hostage at
the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management science, 60(2), 283-299........ 26
Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels and
demons: What we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can
help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4),
324-338.................................................................................................................................. 27
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
12(3), 183-206........................................................................................................................30
Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to
increase employee saving. Journal of political Economy, 112(S1), S164-S187.....................33
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Nudge: The final edition. Yale University Press.
(Chapter 1 only)..................................................................................................................... 36
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 35(35), 345-411..................................................................................................38
Videos:................................................................................................................................... 47
Daniel Kahnemann: Making smarter choices.........................................................................47
Maya Shankar: Why We Do What We Do?............................................................................47
TED Talk "The Surprising Science of Happiness"................................................................. 48
TEDx talk "Three Insights About Choice Freedom”............................................................... 49
Choiceology Podcast (2022): More than a Feeling................................................................ 49
TEDx talk Marcel Zeelenberg "The Science of Regret"......................................................... 50
TED Talk Dan Gilbert "The Psychology of Your Future Self"................................................. 51
TED Talk Daniel Goldstein "The Battle Between Your Present and Future Self"................... 52
Max Bazerman: Bounded Ethicality....................................................................................... 52
TED Talk Shlomo Benartzi "Saving for Tomorrow, Tomorrow"............................................... 54
Peter Ubel: Medical Decisions............................................................................................... 55
,Behavior Change Marketing Required Readings & Videos
Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2010). Emotional compatibility and the effectiveness of
antidrinking messages: A defensive processing perspective on shame and guilt. Journal of
Marketing Research, 47(2), 263-273.
Five studies examine how the two distinct emotional states of shame and guilt influence the
effectiveness of messages that highlight socially undesirable consequences of alcohol
consumption. Appeals that frame others as observing versus suffering the negative
consequences of binge drinking differentially activate shame and guilt. Given these
emotional consequences of message framing, the authors examine the interaction between
incidental shame or guilt and message framing on drinking intentions and behavior.
Compatible appeals (i.e. appeals that elicit the same emotion as being incidentally
experienced by the consumer) are less effective in influencing behavioral intentions and
beverage consumption because of a process in which consumers discount the notion that
they may cause the negative consequences outlined in the message. Such defensive
processing of compatible messages is driven by a desire to reduce the existing negative
emotion.
Recent research explores how negative emotions, such as shame and guilt, influence
information processing differently from general negative moods like anxiety or anger.
Specifically, consumers experiencing shame or guilt may engage in defensive processing to
protect their self-image. This theory suggests that self-conscious emotions can be powerful
tools in reducing harmful behaviors like binge drinking, as they provoke personal reflection.
The authors build on the defensive processing theory, where individuals minimize or
rationalize information that threatens their self-esteem or intensifies negative feelings.
The study focuses on shame and guilt as two distinct emotions with different effects on
message processing:
- Shame tends to relate to the self, where individuals feel fundamentally flawed, which
can lead to avoidance behaviors.
- Guilt, on the other hand, tends to focus on specific actions and is more likely to
encourage corrective behavior, as people feel capable of making amends.
The authors test conditions that foster or hinder the effectiveness of anti-drinking messages
that might affect feelings of shame and guilt. They hypothesize that shame- and
guilt-inducing frames are differentially effective as a function of the compatibility between a
person’s incidental emotional state and the emotion evoked by the ad frame. They
demonstrate that for people experiencing shame (guilt), subsequent exposure to a
shame-inducing (guilt-inducing) anti-drinking message is less persuasive, such that the
compatible message leads to significantly greater intentions to binge drink.
Message framing and feelings of shame and guilt:
- Shame-based framing emphasizes personal flaws and moral shortcomings,
suggesting that excessive drinking reflects poorly on the individual’s character, with
others judging them negatively.
- Guilt-based framing, by contrast, focuses on specific behaviors rather than the self.
Guilt may be experienced when a person realizes that he or she is responsible for
behaviors that have caused a violation such that another has been harmed.
- Shame frames involve others as "observers," while guilt frames involve others as
"sufferers," encouraging self-reflection and responsibility.
,Behavior Change Marketing Required Readings & Videos
Because people are motivated to repair self-referential emotions like shame and guilt,
matching appeals (e.g., shame for someone already feeling shame) are less persuasive.
Those feeling shame (or guilt) may resist further exposure to the same emotion, thus
rejecting a compatible message to avoid worsening their mood. However, without an existing
negative emotional state, individuals have no motivation to defensively process a shame- or
guilt-inducing appeal, making them more open to the message content.
The authors suggest that:
- Shame-based messages tend to elicit defensive reactions, such as denial or
avoidance, because individuals may feel attacked on a personal level and perceive
little capacity for change.
- Guilt-based messages are less likely to provoke defensive responses and are more
likely to inspire a proactive mindset. Guilt is associated with the belief that actions
can be corrected, fostering a sense of agency and a willingness to change.
The defensive processing mechanism appears in three main ways:
1. Distorted Risk Perception: People may believe they are less vulnerable to drinking’s
negative consequences than others, driven by the desire to avoid further shame or
guilt. This effect occurs mainly when the message feels personally relevant.
Hypothesis H2a: For those feeling shame or guilt, compatible message frames are
more effective in judgments about others.
2. Increased Attention: Compatible messages lead to closer attention and better recall.
Hypothesis H2b: People with incidental shame or guilt process compatible messages
more deeply.
3. Emotional Repair: Defensive processing helps reduce feelings of shame or guilt.
Hypothesis H2c: Compatible messages reduce initial negative emotions more
effectively.
Agrawal and Duhachek conducted five studies to test how shame- and guilt-based
antidrinking messages impact attitudes toward drinking. Using college-aged participants,
they examined responses to ads highlighting the negative impact of drinking.
Study 1: Backfire Effect of Compatibility on Drinking Intentions
Study 1 revealed that when the message matched participants’ emotions (shame or guilt), it
backfired by increasing drinking intentions due to defensive processing. This defensive
response caused participants to minimize personal impact while projecting stronger effects
onto others, suggesting emotional compatibility led to greater resistance to the message's
influence on personal behavior.
Study 2: Effects of Compatibility on Actual Beverage Consumption.
In Study 2, they explored how emotional compatibility with ad framing influences drinking
behavior. Participants recalled either a shameful or guilty experience and then viewed an ad
framed to match either emotion. During a subsequent taste test, those who saw ads
matching their primed emotion (shame-compatible or guilt-compatible) consumed more
mixer. This increased consumption, combined with participants’ belief they could avoid
, Behavior Change Marketing Required Readings & Videos
negative drinking outcomes, showed defensive processing. The study suggests that
compatible framing can reduce perceived risks, prompting higher consumption and
reinforcing defensive attitudes.
Study 3: Manipulating Incidental Shame and Guilt Using Advertising Messages (Ecological
Validity)
In Study 3, they used real-world ads to induce shame or guilt, and then exposed participants
to an anti-drinking ad. This study measured binge drinking intentions, ad recall, and
emotional response. Results showed that participants in compatible emotion-ad conditions
(shame-compatible or guilt-compatible) reported higher intentions to binge drink and had
better recall, indicating defensive processing. They also experienced reduced feelings of the
induced emotion, suggesting emotion repair. These findings support that compatible
emotional states prompt defensive processing and emotion repair by lowering perceived
personal vulnerability.
Study 4: Testing for Emotional Repair After Compatible Messages
In Study 4, they tested the emotional repair effect of compatible emotion-inducing ads
(shame or guilt) by measuring participants’ feelings before and after ad exposure.
Participants experiencing compatible shame or guilt frames reported significantly reduced
levels of these emotions post-ad, supporting the idea that compatible messages trigger
emotional repair by alleviating negative feelings. This reduction in targeted emotions, seen
alongside defensive processing, suggests that compatibility can limit ad effectiveness by
focusing on emotional defense rather than encouraging constructive behavior change.
Study 5: Chronic Tendency to Feel Shame or Guilt and Replication of Compatibility Effects
In Study 5, they examined how chronic tendencies to feel shame or guilt affect responses to
compatible ads, using the TOSCA scale to measure participants' predispositions. Results
showed that shame-prone participants exposed to shame-compatible ads, and guilt-prone
participants exposed to guilt-compatible ads, exhibited higher drinking intentions, mirroring
the effects in previous studies. These findings further support that emotion compatibility
drives defensive processing, with those already sensitive to shame or guilt responding more
defensively to ads aligned with their dominant emotional tendencies.
Overall Findings
The article argues that guilt-framed messages are generally more effective because they
focus on actionable behavior rather than attacking the person. By reducing defensiveness,
guilt-based framing makes individuals more receptive to the message’s core content and
encourages positive behavior change, such as reducing alcohol consumption. Conversely,
shame-based framing, though initially impactful, often backfires as people avoid or
rationalize the message to protect their self-esteem. Agrawal & Duhachek advocate for
guilt-framed antidrinking messages in public health campaigns, as these are more likely to
lead to sustained behavior change by fostering a less defensive and more constructive
emotional response.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
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 sophieisabella. 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 75057 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen