Abstract This research investigates how the method of paying a shared expense affects purchase satisfaction. When multiple consumers share an expense (e.g., a meal, Uber ride, or vacation), each consumer can pay their own share directly, or one consumer can pay the total and others can repay them. Eight preregistered studies showed that indirect payment through another consumer led to higher purchase satisfaction versus direct payment to the vendor. This effect emerged regardless of the existing relationship (friend, acquaintance, or disliked person), or whether the consumers spent different amounts. Mediation evidence showed that indirect payment increased purchase satisfaction by providing relief from resolving indebtedness. Moderation evidence further supported our proposed process as this effect disappeared when either a financial obligation was made salient, or the focal consumer initially paid the total. This research highlights the distinction between direct and indirect payment paths in shared expenses, contributing a new construct to the consumer finance area. It also has implications for consumers who should realize the effects of shared expenses on their decision satisfaction and budgeting, and marketers who could encourage shared payments to increase satisfaction at little cost.
Abstract We revisit the widely accepted finding that paying with cash is more painful than paying with card by conducting the first systematic mega-replication (including 13 large-scale preregistered replications; a total of 32,371 participants, 65 products, and 57 price points ranging from $1.09 to $400). The aggregate evidence reveals four insights: (1) leveraging a broad set of established paradigms, we replicate the finding that paying with cash is more psychologically painful than paying with card, even among today’s consumers who own multiple cards, digital wallets, and virtual currencies; (2) comparing two outcome variables—amount spent and willingness-to-pay (WTP), we find a more reliable and larger overall direct effect of payment method on amount spent than on WTP; (3) these direct effects of payment method on outcome variables are mediated by pain of paying; (4) the mode-of-payment effect on pain of paying (and thereby on outcome variables) is moderated by individual differences, particularly the relative frequency of using cash versus card. We outline actionable guidance and future directions for researchers and practitioners interested in examining mode-of-payment effects, and discuss the value of and suitable approaches for future theory-driven large-scale replications.
Abstract In the United States, spending on political campaigns has surged dramatically. This paper introduces and examines “party-defiance ads,” a novel and increasingly common type of political advertisement in which candidates criticize their own party and take a position typically associated with the opposing party. Given the importance of party loyalty, defiance ads appear counterintuitive and risky. Why would candidates air ads in which they criticize their party? Across eight main studies and eight supplemental studies (N = 11,473), including an analysis of voting outcomes in recent elections, we investigate how consumers react to the use of defiance ads. We find that though defiance ads can be risky and trigger backlash, they have the potential to provide benefits to candidates. We identify when and why consumers support, tolerate, and penalize defiance ads in the context of both general elections and primaries. Our findings examine a previously undocumented advertising strategy, contribute to debates about affective polarization by showing that consumers can occasionally set partisan loyalty aside in favor of strategic considerations like electability, introduce electability as an important construct for research on consumer behavior, and provide practical insights for managers interested in using defiance ads.
Abstract Much of the uncertainty people face is eventually resolved (e.g., a person entered in a raffle eventually learns what prize they have received). How do people evaluate goods (e.g., a prize of a $50 gift card) resulting from uncertain promotions (e.g., raffles)? Seven experiments (total N = 12,128) provide evidence for an uncertainty spillover effect: People prefer goods originating from uncertain prospects compared to those that were always known. This effect appeared both with naturalistic scenarios (study 1) and with incentive-compatible decisions (study 2). The authors propose that this effect arises because uncertainty induces a perception that the outcome is superior relative to salient downward counterfactuals (study 3). Supporting this idea, this effect: (a) weakened when downward counterfactuals were salient for certain goods (study 4), (b) weakened when the worst outcome from uncertainty was realized (study 5), and (c) reversed when uncertainty involved losses (study 6). Lastly, this effect carried over to products associated with previously uncertain goods (study 7). These findings demonstrate that the influence of uncertainty persists beyond its resolution, shaping the evaluation of goods derived from uncertain prospects.
Singularization has long been an essential element of value creation in markets for various types of goods that become prized for their uniqueness, but has only recently gained prominence in digital markets. However, very little is known about how digital goods are singularized (i.e., valorized as unique). This study enriches extant research on singularization by shifting attention from physical to digital goods and by exploring singularization as a socio-technical process shaped by varied social actors and technological forces. Inspired by Reckwitz's (2020) sociology of singularities, this multimethod qualitative study of a market for singularized digital goods uncovers four vectors of digital singularization, variable ways in which technology mediates digital singularization, and multiple tensions that mark this process. In addition to advancing nascent work on digital singularization, this study contributes to broader singularization research by theorizing singularization as a social, technology-mediated process that is inherently precarious. Moreover, this study provides new insights into digital possession and value creation in digital markets, as well as into contemporary "singularity markets" more broadly.
Abstract In recent years, firms’ depictions of some historically underrepresented identities (HUIs) in marketing communications have elicited backlash, while depictions of other HUIs have been more broadly accepted. The present work develops a framework to explain when and why these divergent responses occur. We propose that, while liberals respond positively to the depiction of all HUIs due to their prioritization of the Fairness moral foundation, conservatives’ responses are more nuanced and depend on how a focal identity is perceived on two dimensions: agency and normativity with respect to descriptive norms related to bodily purity. These dimensions produce a four-quadrant typology whereby, due to their greater emphasis on the Purity/Sanctity moral foundation, conservatives respond negatively only to HUIs perceived as high on both dimensions (e.g., an obese model, a transgender model, or a model who wears a hijab). We validate this framework by showing that conservatives’ negative responses are attenuated when an identity is perceived as low on either dimension. We further identify a managerially relevant boundary condition, wherein conservatives’ negative reactions are also attenuated when the focal identity appears as a numerical minority within a broader campaign featuring primarily non-HUIs.
Abstract Consumers frequently use lists, such as a list of favorite restaurants, that were created by marketers, experts, or media platforms. 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.
Consumer researchers often compare a proposed process across contexts (i.e., moderated mediation) or across mediators (e.g., ruling out an alternative process in parallel mediation). This article aims to help researchers in mapping process-related theoretical hypotheses onto statistical coefficients and in reporting their results. Researchers can formulate a variety of hypotheses about the conditional indirect effect (CIE) of a predictor X on an outcome Y through a mediator M, such as: (A) the CIE is greater for moderator condition W0 than W1, (B) the CIE is only positive for W0, (C) the CIE is positive for W0 and negative for W1. For example, if a researcher's hypotheses align with case A, they must test and report the difference between the two conditional indirect effects (i.e., the index of moderated mediation). Reporting that the indirect effect is significant for W0 and non-significant for W1 would be insufficient for case A, but appropriate for case B. We generalize these examples in two tutorials-for moderated mediation and for parallel mediation-to help researchers (1) connect theory to testable predictions, (2) select the appropriate statistical model, and (3) report results transparently and consistently. We provide concrete examples of pre-registrations, data analyses, and manuscript reports.
Over the past several decades, there has been a shift toward disposable consumption resulting in a "throwaway society," which includes replacing rather than repairing broken durable goods. Third-party repair services exist even as consumers choose to replace over repair, but more brands are offering repair services directly or supporting repair services through certifications. If consumers simply prefer newer products, brand repair services should not deter replacement through promoting repair. However, this research proposes that unlike third-party repair services, brand and brand-certified repair services signal unused utility in non-fully functioning products, increasing repair. This effect is demonstrated across two field studies and four lab experiments. Drawing upon the role of unused utility, the findings show that the signal from brand repair services is not needed to drive repair when consumers have domain expertise or products hold sentimental value as repair occurs in such cases without an unused utility signal from the brand. However, when product upgrades are salient, consumers' motivation to upgrade attenuates the effect of brand repair services on unused utility, decreasing repair likelihood. This research makes substantive contributions to sustainability efforts to mitigate overconsumption, offers implications for brand and third-party managers, and contributes to signaling theory and unused utility literature.
When consumers see someone else's experience shared on social media, they often infer whether the sharer had relatively intrinsic or extrinsic motives for originally engaging in this experience. While prior research has documented how these inferred motives affect viewers' social evaluations of the sharer, the present research demonstrates these inferences can shift viewer beliefs about the experience itself. The findings from six studies show that when viewers infer a sharer originally had either relatively intrinsic or extrinsic motives for consuming an experience they shared about, these inferences increase viewer beliefs that the experience is well suited to satisfy that same type of motive. This shift in the expected motive-based value of the experience, in turn, influences viewers' behavior during and after their own engagement in a similar experience. However, when viewers are highly familiar with the experience that was shared, the expected motive-based value of the shared experience is not influenced by viewers' inferences about the sharer's original motives. Altogether, this research documents a new social influence phenomenon on social media and discusses managerial implications of these findings.
In the era of big data, an increasing amount of information is becoming available to business analysts and scientists. Statistical correlations between consumption patterns and individual conditions (e.g., health conditions) are frequently uncovered and reported in the media. However, many correlations are spurious, prompting the question of when consumers perceive them as reflecting causal relationships. Across eight preregistered studies, a correlation (e.g., between drinking tea and bone health) is perceived as more likely to reflect a causal relationship (i.e., drinking tea makes bones healthier) when the plausible cause reportedly correlates with additional outcomes (e.g., heart conditions). The correlational scope effect is attenuated when the additional outcomes are perceived as weakly related to the focal outcome, mitigated under a cause-last framing (in which the plausible cause in a correlation is presented after the target outcome), and can influence product choices. Category-based induction may contribute to the correlational scope effect: perceived susceptibility to a cause is projected from additional outcomes onto the focal outcome. These findings have implications for understanding causal judgment and for consumers' well-being.
An increasing number of companies offer take-back programs, collecting used products or materials from consumers to sustainably process them through recycling or reusing. Prior research examines how to bolster company sustainability perceptions and initially engage customers in take-back programs, but are there additional actions companies can take to enhance their sustainability image and encourage repeat customer participation? This research theorizes that when a company simply acknowledges customers' participation in its take-back program, it increases customers' emotional attachment and partnership with the company. Subsequently, customers perceive the company as more sustainable and are also more likely to participate in the company's take-back program again. These effects are demonstrated in seven studies, including a field study with actual repeat participation. Results indicate that the acknowledgment effect is stronger for take-back programs than for company-beneficial programs and operates through distinct mechanisms within the take-back context. The consumer characteristic of self-brand connection dilutes the acknowledgment effect, and the industry characteristic of greenwashing attenuates the benefits of acknowledgment, consistent with the emotional attachment and partnership mechanisms. This research provides theoretical insights into partnerships and offers substantive implications for managers as more companies launch take-back programs.
People with disabilities constitute 15% of the world's population with a total disposable income of more than $2.6 trillion. However, few companies offer products tailored to the needs of this segment, making it important to understand how mass-market consumers react to innovations that target people with disabilities. Nine studies and six supplementary studies (twelve preregistered) reveal that innovations targeting consumers with disabilities are subject to comparatively greater scrutiny by mass-market consumers. Specifically, consumers find charging price premiums for innovative products less acceptable when they are targeted at people with disabilities. The aversion to targeting this segment occurs only when firms charge a price premium and persists even when firms provide cost justifications for the relatively higher prices. Drawing on research on disability stereotypes, we identify pity for people with disabilities as a critical driver of these reactions. Variations in pity across disabilities are related to the acceptability of a price premium for adaptive innovations. These findings are suggestive of a novel form of paternalism against consumers with disabilities. Paradoxically, this view may render the marketplace less inclusive for consumers with disabilities, as it could penalize companies that provide more options for this underserved segment.
This study explores how consumers respond to the ambivalence sparked by conflicting institutional norms in contexts such as the United States market for donor conception (i.e., egg, sperm, embryo). While prior research has framed responses to ambivalence as "coping," we theorize these responses as consumer-led institutional work-that is, active efforts to adapt to or challenge institutional norms. Drawing on interviews, archival narratives, and case profiles, we develop a typology distinguishing between adaptation work (efforts to reconcile contradictions in existing institutional arrangements) and disruption work (efforts to transform institutional arrangements), with individual and collaborative variants of each. Theoretically, we argue that structured ambivalence is both the experience through which institutional contradictions become salient and the catalyst that motivates institutional work. Our contributions are twofold. First, we demonstrate that adaptive work, which facilitates individual participation, paradoxically reinforces the very market system that produces ambivalence. Second, we identify structured ambivalence as a micro-level emotional catalyst driving the full spectrum of consumer-led action, ranging from quiet adaptation to the creation of new, market-changing organizations. This provides a more nuanced understanding of why consumers engage in institutional work, contributing to the microfoundations of institutions perspective by specifying the emotional and reflexive underpinnings of institutional continuity and change within markets.
Although higher prices generally lead to lower demand, research on the price divisibility effect suggests that consumers are sometimes willing to pay more for a multipack if its price is divisible by the number of units it contains. For instance, a seven-pack of shoelaces might be more appealing at the divisible price of $14 than at the lower, but non-divisible, price of $13. The original Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) article documenting this phenomenon presented a total of 15 studies, one of which was preregistered and all of which yielded strong evidence. In this article, we report four preregistered replications of three key studies from the original article. Despite our replications' considerably larger sample sizes, none replicated the original results, and one yielded a marginally significant effect in the opposite direction. We consider several possible reasons for the discrepancies (e.g., selective reporting, data anomalies, time-related or context-related moderators) and discuss their theoretical and practical implications. Altogether, our findings imply that the price divisibility effect may not exist; if it does exist, it is not as robust or generalizable as originally claimed. Researchers and marketers should exercise caution before attempting to extend or apply research on the price divisibility effect.
Online shopping cart abandonment is widespread, causing major losses in potential revenues for e-commerce companies. We expand efforts to mitigate cart abandonment by investigating how the cart's product composition affects abandonment and testing easy-to-implement interventions. We hypothesize that consumers are more likely to abandon carts containing a higher proportion of hedonic relative to utilitarian products. This cart composition effect arises because carts containing higher hedonic-to-utilitarian product ratios are perceived as more hedonic overall, increasing consumer guilt regarding cart purchase and the likelihood of cart abandonment. Analyses of two large-scale field datasets and four controlled experiments provide converging evidence for the cart composition effect (studies 1A to 3) and the mediating role of perceived hedonism and consumer guilt (studies 2, 4A and 4B). Substantively, we offer empirical support for a practical and easily implemented intervention: using e-commerce recommendation systems to reduce cart abandonment by suggesting utilitarian items (studies 4A and 4B). Our findings suggest that recommendation systems may serve as an effective tool for reducing cart abandonment and underscore the importance of incorporating hedonic value considerations into recommendation algorithms. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of our findings for the development of more effective marketing strategies and improving online conversion rates.
Online behavioral research assumes survey responses come from humans, yet vision-enabled AI agents can now autonomously complete surveys by capturing screenshots, processing questions, and submitting responses. Because these agents perceive the same rendered visual content that humans see, traditional detection methods are ineffective. This article introduces the Cognitive Trap Framework: researchers can transform architectural constraints of vision-language models into survey questions where the correct answers are simultaneously difficult for AI agents but easily processed by humans. Six traps derived from computer science benchmarks demonstrate the framework. Against 1,007 human participants (Prolific) and 526 researcher-deployed AI agents (e.g., ChatGPT Agent, Google Project Mariner), cognitive traps detected 97.1% of agents (vs. 2.3% with traditional attention checks), while flagging only 4.1% of humans. Pre-registered replications on Amazon Mechanical Turk and CloudResearch Connect demonstrate cross-platform effectiveness, and validation against 34 frontier models spanning two years reveals that model improvement is non-monotonic because each new architecture reconfigures which constraints it resolves and which it introduces. The framework can thus generate new cognitive traps as AI agent models evolve, and a public repository provides researchers with validated traps ready for deployment.
Prior research documents the role of the misalignment of practice elements in practice habituation and change. We extend this literature by demonstrating the understudied role of practice relationality. Locating our empirical work in veganism, a context that encompasses a bundle of interrelated practices, we show how people who adopt veganism manage the relationality of their food-related practices (e.g., eating, cooking, and shopping for food) during shared moments. Building on interview, secondary, and netnographic data on people who pursue veganism, we demonstrate that changes in shared practice performances cause relational fractures. We pinpoint relational fractures that hinder practitioners from smoothly performing shared practices in three contexts: co-performance, co-learning, and the marketplace. To repair practice relationality, vegan consumers enact four relational competences: decoding, decoupling, divesting, and chameleoning. These competences can repair some relational fractures while aggravating others. When vegan consumers fail to acquire any competence, however, they revert to their old omnivorous performances. Our article contributes to practice theory by conceptualizing the role of practice relationality in practices, introducing the concept of relational competence as a necessary element for performance (re)rehabituation, and demonstrating the role of practice intelligibility in the co-performance of shared practices.
When conducting studies in which the dependent variable is choice, researchers must decide whether to require participants to select one of the available alternatives or to provide a no-choice option. Prior research by Dhar and Simonson (2003) proposed that no-choice options can disproportionately reduce the share of certain alternatives, particularly all-average or compromise options. In this commentary, I reexamine the propositions and findings of Dhar and Simonson. I report the results of nine well-powered, pre-registered replications of their studies, which support only a subset of the authors’ hypotheses. Importantly, across the replication studies, no-choice options do not systematically draw share from specific alternatives. These findings suggest that no-choice effects may be more nuanced than previously thought and that the conditions under which previously documented effects occur reliably remain unclear. I discuss the implications of these results for theories of decision-making, context effects, and choice deferral. This work aims to update the literature and inform marketing researchers about the consequences of forcing choice versus allowing a no-choice option in experimental designs.
Consumer researchers often prize relevance but overlook how narrow assumptions about good theory limit it. Much of the work focuses on construct-to-construct theorizing, which involves introducing new constructs or new links among them. Far less valued is phenomenon-to-construct theorizing, which begins with real-world patterns and seeks to explain them by identifying the underlying active ingredient constructs. Examples include why GMO labels reduce demand, or why drip pricing leads people to choose higher-cost options. Our survey of authors in four leading journals shows that most believe only construct-to-construct work counts as theory. We argue this view is too narrow. Drawing on a Bayesian framework for updating beliefs within a theoretical network, we show that phenomenon-to-construct theorizing follows the same logic of scientific inference. Both approaches rely on established links in the nomological network to draw stronger conclusions about the focal link of interest. Using well-supported construct-to-construct mechanisms to explain real-world phenomena is therefore a strength, not a weakness. We clarify how phenomenon-to-construct theorizing differs from both “mere application” and “empirics-first” research. Embracing this form of theorizing can broaden the reach of consumer research by connecting abstract ideas to meaningful, actionable phenomena that matter to scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.
