Association for Consumer Research

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 If It’S Similar, It’S More Likely… But Can It Be Worth It? Perceived Similarity, Probability and Outcome Value Hui-Yun Chen, Virginia Tech, USA Elise Chandon Ince, Virginia Tech, USA Assessment of precise probabilities is difficult, and research has pointed to various cues people use to form probability judgments. In this research we investigate the effect of enhancing perceived proximity on probability judgments. Furthermore, we propose that inflated probability judgments could in turn abate perceived impact level of the event. [to cite]: Hui-Yun Chen and Elise Chandon Ince (2011) ,"If It’S Similar, It’S More Likely… But Can It Be Worth It? Perceived Similarity, Probability and Outcome Value", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 38, eds. Darren W. Dahl, Gita V. Johar, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/16111/volumes/v38/NA-38 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. 568 / Top 10 or #10?: How Positional Inferences Influence the Effectiveness of Category Membership Claims to social judgments, which may be somewhat more motivational Liberman, Nira, Michael D. Sagristano, and Yaacov Trope and less cognitive in nature. (2002), “The Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Mental Construal,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 REFERENCES (6), 523-34. Agrawal, Nidhi and Echo Wen Wan (2009), “Regulating Risk or Meyer, Wulf-Uwe, Michael Niperl, Udo Rudolph, and Achim Risking Regulation? Construal Levels and Depletion Effects Schützwohl (1991), “An Experimental Analysis of Surprise,” in the Processing of Health Messages,” Journal of Consumer Cognition and Emotion, 5, 295-311. Research, 36 (3), 448-62. Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Bergreen, Laurence (1994), Capone: The Man and the Era, New Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of York: Simon and Schuster. Consumer Research, 16 (1), 39-54. Dehaene, Stanislas and Jacques Mehler (1992), “Cross-linguistic Moyer, Robert S. and Thomas K. Landauer (1967), “Time Re- Regularities in the Frequency of Number Words,” Cognition, quired for Judgments of Numerical Inequality,” Nature, 215 43 (1), 1-29. (5109), 1519-20. Dijkstra, Majorie, Heidi E. J. J. M. Buijtels, and W. Fred van Nisbett, Robert E. and Lee Ross (1980), Human Inference: Raaij (2005), “Separate and joint effects of medium type on Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Englewood consumer responses: a comparison of television, print, and Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. the Internet,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (3), 377-86. Rosch, Eleanor (1978), “Principles of Categorization,” in Cogni- Fazio, Russell H. (1995), “Attitudes as Object-Evaluation As- tion and categorization, ed. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. sociations: Determinants, Consequences, and Correlates of Lloyd, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27-47. Attitude Accessibility,” in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Schindler, Robert M. and Patrick N. Kirby (1997), “Patterns of Consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Rightmost Digits Used in Advertised Prices: Implications for Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 247-82. Nine-Ending Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), Fazio, Russell H., Martha C. Powell, and Paul M. Herr (1983), 192-201. “Toward a Process Model of the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Schützwohl, Achim (1988), “Surprise and Schema Strength,” Accessing One’s Attitude upon Mere Observation of the At- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and titude Object,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Cognition, 24, 1182-99. 44 (4), 723-35. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Inten- (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for tion, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Generalized Causal Inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Smith, Pamela K. and Yaacov Trope (2006), “You Focus on the Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), “Category-Based Forest When You’re in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming versus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses: Developments and Abstract Information Processing,” Journal of Personality in Schema-Triggered Affect,” in Handbook of Motivation and and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 578-96. Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Vol. 1, ed. Rich- Sperber, Dan and Dierdre Wilson (1986), Relevance: Communi- ard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford cation and Cognition, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Press, 167-203. Thomas, Manoj and Vicki G. Morwitz (2005), “Penny Wise and Freitas, Antonio L., Peter Gollwitzer, and Yaacov Trope (2004), Pound Foolish: The Left Digit Effect in Price Cognition,” “The Influence of Abstract and Concrete Mindsets on Antici- Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 154-64. pating and Guiding Others’ Self-Regulatory Efforts,” Journal (2009), “Heuristics in Numerical Cognition: Implica- of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (6), 739-52. tions for Pricing,” in Handbook of Research in Pricing, ed. Freitas, Antonio L., Peter Salovey, and Nira Liberman (2001), Vithala Rao: Edward Elgar Publishing, 132-49. “Abstract and Concrete Self-Evaluative Goals,” Journal of Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), “Temporal Construal,” Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 410-24. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403-21. Fujita, Kentaro, Yaacov Trope, Nira Liberman, and Maya Levin- Tybout, Alice M. and Nancy Artz (1994), “Consumer Psychol- Sagi (2006), “Construal Levels and Self-Control,” Journal of ogy,” Annual Review of Psychology, 45 (1), 131. Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351-67. Vallacher, Robin R. and Daniel M. Wegner (1989), “Levels of Gioia, Dennis A. and Kevin G. Corley (2002), “Being Good Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identifica- Versus Looking Good: Business School Rankings and the tion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), Circean Transformation From Substance to Image,” Academy of 660-71. Management Learning and Education, 1 (1), 107-20. Wegener, Duane T., John Downing, Jon A. Krosnick, and Grice, H. Paul (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Richard E. Petty (1995), “Measures and Manipulations of Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Mor- Strength-Related Properties of Attitudes: Current Practice gan, New York: Academic Press. and Future Directions,” in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Hatschek, Keith (2002), How to Get a Job in the Music Industry, Consequences, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Vol. 2, Boston, MA: Berklee Press. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kahneman, Daniel and Dale T. Miller (1986), “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives,” Psychological Re- view, 93 (2), 136-53. Kim, Hakkyun and Deborah Roedder John (2008), “Consumer Response to Brand Extensions: Construal Level as a Modera- tor of the Importance of Perceived Fit,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (2), 116-26. When Seeing Many Types of Wine Makes You More Sensitive to Technological Threats: Unrelated, Prior Categorizations and Reactions to Change Amitav Chakravarti, New York University, USA Christina Fang, New York University, USA Zur Shapira, New York University, USA EXTENDED Abstract Across four different studies, we find that unrelated, prior Detecting change is a fundamental, all-pervasive cognitive exposure to narrow (vs. broad) categorizations improves decision activity. It forms the core of many cognitive activities, such as makers’ ability to detect a visual change (study 1) and leads to visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile discrimination tasks, simi- stronger reactions to a given change (studies 2-4). These differential larity judgments, and categorization. Naturally then, the ability to reactions occur because the prior categorizations, albeit unrelated, detect a change, to accurately assess the magnitude of the change, alter the extent to which the subsequently presented change is per- and to react to the change in a commensurate fashion, is of critical ceived as either a relatively large change or a relatively small one. importance in many substantive domains (Massey and Wu 2005, Each experiment comprised two, ostensibly unrelated stud- Rensink 2002), ranging from medical decisions, business invest- ies. The first task was used to administer the prior categorization ment decisions, and face recognition, to air traffic control. Thus, it manipulation and the second task was used to record reactions to a is important to understand factors that systematically affect people’s presented change (Figure 1). We began by looking at how these prior ability to detect change. To that end, we document a simple, yet categorizations affect a person’s ability to detect a presented visual novel effect: people’s reactions to a change (e.g., visual change, or change, using well-established stimuli from the “change-blindness” technology change), are systematically affected by the categoriza- paradigm (study 1). We then went on to looking at judgments that tions they encounter in an unrelated, prior task (e.g., how a wine are contingent on people’s subjective reactions to a presented store categorizes its wines). change (studies

Load more