Abstract Differences in discretionary disclosures of quantitative product attributes often result in asymmetric information across products. For example, one brand of milk may feature its protein content on the package label, while the other does not. How do such asymmetric product claims affect consumer choices? We predict that consumers will be sensitive to the mere presence of a quantified claim, judging a product that presents attribute quantity by the valence of the disclosed attribute (positive vs. negative) regardless of the quantity communicated (e.g., high vs. low value of a low-evaluability attribute). Across eight pre-registered studies, we find a robust mere presence effect, in which consumers judge products more (less) favorably when a positive (negative) quantitative quality-relevant attribute is presented, even when the quantitative information represents a relatively low level of quality. Our findings are consistent with an overgeneralized heuristic account, in which consumers rely on the valence of an attribute when it is present, instead of the quantity conveyed. Our findings demonstrate that when a quantitative attribute is salient but not evaluable, asymmetric information disclosure may impede, rather than facilitate, consumers’ judgments of product quality.
Abstract Many organizations are adopting algorithms for evaluating various consumer applications (e.g., loans, insurance). This research explores how consumers react to this practice, with the goal of understanding what leads some consumers to react more positively or negatively to being evaluated by an algorithm than others. In the context of consumers applying for access to valued services, opportunities, or benefits, applicant strength (i.e., how strong an applicant believes their case is based on the information they have about their standing) influences their reactions toward algorithmic versus human evaluation. Algorithmic evaluation will have a greater deterrent effect on weaker than on stronger applicants. This asymmetry is explained by weaker applicants’ stronger preference for characteristics of human evaluators, such as flexibility and leniency, that they believe may improve their chances of receiving a favorable outcome. Consumers’ preferences ultimately impact willingness to apply, such that using algorithmic evaluations disproportionally discourages weaker applicants from applying. This research contributes to the literature on consumer responses to algorithms by identifying applicant strength as a novel determinant and by extending the focus from algorithms as advisors to algorithms as evaluators of consumers.
Scientists, NGOs, companies, and the press typically communicate temporal predictions about environmental threats in terms of the calendar date by which the threat is expected to occur (e.g., "Water shortage in the UK by 2040"). However, across eight online studies and a field experiment, the authors find that referring instead to the amount of time left until the threat (e.g., "Water shortage in the UK within 20 years") makes the threat feel temporally closer. Consequently, using time-left frames increases consumer engagement with environmental issues and support for pro-environmental causes. This effect arises because time-left framing makes individuals feel as though time is counting down toward the threat.
Abstract Firms can bundle material goods together in various ways, including based on their usage complementarity (i.e., the likelihood that the goods are used together). While prior research has investigated the consequences of bundling products that are high (vs. low) in usage complementarity, the current research uncovers the benefits of bundling products that are moderate in usage complementarity (e.g., a coffee mug and a folding chair). Thirteen pre-registered experiments show that bundling products that are moderate in usage complementarity offers companies a unique advantage: Bundling these products prompts consumers to view them as relatively more experiential compared to bundling products that are low or high in usage complementarity and compared to their non-bundled components. This perceptual shift occurs because bundling products with moderate usage complementarity increases contextualization—the degree to which consumers consider the setting in which the products could be used rather than the use of the products themselves. It also changes consumer behavior in ways that can benefit firms (e.g., increasing purchase likelihood when seeking an experience). This research offers theoretical contributions to the bundling and material-experiential literatures and practical implications for companies interested in different bundling approaches and obtaining the advantages of heightened experiential perceptions for material goods.
Why do consumers sometimes remain trapped in the very practices and communities that once helped them? Consumer practice research has largely emphasized the enabling outcomes of sustained practice participation, with less attention given to how those same practices can become entrapping. This article explores how consumer entrapment emerges within interconnected collective practices. Drawing on an ethnographic study of Chama, a community-based savings and support group in Kenya, it integrates practice theory with Hodder's theory of entanglement. The study identifies three mechanisms (prefiguration, socialization, and entrenchment) through which participation generates commitments, dependencies, and obligations that produce recurring practice misalignments. Consumers continually work to realign these misalignments, yet under specific conditions, these efforts reproduce the contingencies that sustain participation while progressively deepening entrapment. The findings reveal a central tension: efforts to restore practice alignment can sustain what consumers value while simultaneously reproducing the interdependencies through which consumer entrapment emerges.
