Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2019

Consumer-Based Strategy and Organizational Frontlines: The Role of Socially-Induced Interactions and ACortinmne oM.s Kepllehy erics on Consumer Behavior

Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

CONSUMER-BASED STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRONTLINES: THE ROLE

OF SOCIALLY-INDUCED INTERACTIONS AND ATMOSPHERICS ON CONSUMER

BEHAVIOR

CORINNE M. KELLEY

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Marketing in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Maura L. Scott Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Martin Mende Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Lydia Hanks University Representative

Charles F. Hofacker Committee Member

Anders Gustafsson Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

With a full, happy heart, I dedicate this dissertation to my future husband, parents, and sister.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend a most gracious acknowledgement to my co-advisors, Dr. Maura L. Scott and Dr. Martin Mende. I could never thank you enough for the kindness, support, and guidance you have provided me these past five years. I look forward to continuing to learn from such inspiring and brilliant mentors as I embark on the rest of my academic career. Again, thank you for the time you have invested in my development as a scholar, and thank you for always believing in me. I would not be where I am professionally, if it were not for you.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... vii Abstract ...... viii

1. INTRODUCTION TO CONSUMER-BASED STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRONTLINES ...... 1

2. ESSAY I. THE AMBASSADOR EFFECT: HOW INDUCING AN AMBASSADOR ROLE INCREASES CONSUMERS’ PROSOCIAL MARKETPLACE BEHAVIOR AND PATRONAGE INTENTIONS ...... 3

Conceptualizing the Ambassador Effect ...... 6 Study 1: Field Experiment at a Grocery Store ...... 8 Study 2: Ruling Out the Alternative Explanation of Quantity ...... 10 The Mediating Role of Consumer Warm Glow ...... 11 Study 3: Field Experiment in a Bowling Center ...... 12 Study 4: The Two Dimensions of the Ambassador Effect and Mediation of Warm Glow ...... 15 The Mediating Role of Consumer Group Orientation ...... 18 Study 5: Mediation of Group Orientation ...... 18 Downstream Effects on Consumer Patronage Intentions...... 21 Study 6: Mediation Through Warm Glow and Group Orientation and Downstream Effects on Patronage Intentions ...... 22 The Moderating Role of Environmental Consciousness ...... 25 Study 7: Field Experiment in a Classroom ...... 26 The Moderating Role of Firm Policy: Penalty and Reward as Alternative Incentives ...... 28 Study 8: Moderation of Firm Policy ...... 31 General Discussion...... 34

3. ESSAY II. THE ROLE OF OLFACTION ON CONSUMER-BASED STRATEGY AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL FRONTLINE ...... 44

The Effects of Gender-Based Ambient Scents: How Feminine Ambient Scents Affect Male Consumers’ Spending on Status-Signaling Products ...... 45 The Effects of (Non-)appetizing Ambient Scents on Consumers’ Affinity Toward Vices and Virtues ...... 55

4. CONCLUSION ...... 68

APPENDICES ...... 70

A. THE AMBASSADOR EFFECT: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE ...... 70 B. SUMMARY OF STUDY CELL SIZES, MEANS, AND STANDARD ERRORS ...... 73

v C. RULED-OUT ALTERNATIVE PROCESS VARIABLES WITH MEASUREMENT ITEMS AND CORRESPONDING ANOVA RESULTS ...... 75 D. STIMULI FOR STUDIES 3 AND 7 ...... 76 E. SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGNS, OBJECTIVES, FINDINGS, AND HYPOTHESIS SUPPORT ...... 77 F. GENDER-BASED AMBIENT SCENTS: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE ...... 79 G. (NON-)APPETIZING AMBIENT SCENTS: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE ...... 83 H. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTERS AND CONSENT FORMS ...... 86

References ...... 106

Biographical Sketch ...... 130

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1 The Ambassador Effect: Conceptual Framework ...... 40

2 Study 3 Results: Prosocial Behavior (Reusable Bag Usage) and Warm Glow ...... 41

3 Study 4 Results: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions (Reusable Bag Usage) and Warm Glow ...42

4 Study 7 Results: Prosocial Behavior (Reusable Bottle Usage) ...... 42

5 Study 8 Results: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions (Commitment to the Policy) and Patronage Intentions...... 43

6 Gender-Based Ambient Scents: Conceptual Framework ...... 67

7 (Non-)appetizing Ambient Scents: Conceptual Framework ...... 67

vii ABSTRACT

In two essays, this dissertation contributes to the emerging fields of consumer-based strategy and organizational frontline research. I examine the influence of social and atmospheric factors on consumer behavior, providing substantive and generalizable managerial insights to enhance organizational strategies at the frontline (i.e., point where the consumer and the firm meet). In Essay I, I examine how socially-induced communications (i.e., interactions) at the organizational frontline impact consumers’ prosocial behavior and store patronage; thereby, connecting OFR to consumer social responsibility. In particular, I introduce the ambassador effect as a novel, socially-induced form of pre-commitment that influences consumers’ prosociality and patronage intentions. Three field studies and five experiments show that inducing an ambassador role (by asking consumers to both (a) engage in a prosocial behavior and (b) to involve another person in the same prosocial behavior) increases consumers’ prosocial behavioral intentions and patronage intentions, beyond what previously established question- behavior effects or mere personal pre-commitments can achieve. The ambassador effect is mediated by a consumer’s enhanced warm glow and group orientation. Additionally, this research examines the moderating role of environmental consciousness, demonstrating that inducing an ambassador role increases real prosocial behavior among consumers low (vs. high) in environmental consciousness. Finally, this research investigates the interaction of the ambassador effect with firm policy (reward-based vs. penalty-based) to examine which approach is more effective at encouraging consumer prosocial behavioral intentions and patronage intentions. The results show that, in general, penalty-based retail policies (e.g., charging a fee for using a plastic shopping bag) are inferior to reward-based retail policies (e.g., offering a discount for using a reusable shopping bag). However, inducing an ambassador role attenuates the negative sentiments associated with penalty-based policies. Indeed, under a penalty-based policy, consumers in an ambassador role (vs. not) report more prosocial behavioral intentions and higher patronage intentions, attenuating differences between penalty-based and reward-based policies. Because many organizations and governments are applying penalty- and reward-based financial incentives to encourage consumer prosociality at the organizational frontline, my research provides meaningful, practical, and timely implications for scholars, managers, and policy makers.

viii In Essay II, I conceptualize how olfactory changes to the servicescape (via ambient scenting strategies) affect behavioral, physiological, and psychological consumer outcomes at the organizational frontline; bridging the gap between OFR and sensory marketing. In the former half of this essay, I theorize the impact of gender-based ambient scents (a feminine or masculine ambient scent) on consumer spending as function of the scent’s congruence with the consumer’s gender. I suggest that gender-based ambient scents elicit distinct responses among male and female consumers. Specifically, male consumers spend more when exposed to a gender- incongruent (vs. gender-congruent) ambient scent, whereas female consumers are relatively unaffected. This increase in spending among male consumers is predicted to be mediated by a reduced sense of self-control. Moreover, this research proposes an important boundary condition: male consumers who are exposed to a gender-incongruent ambient scent increase their spending specifically on status-signaling (vs. neutral) products. By re-examining the current marketplace perspective ⸺ that gender-congruent scents are preferable ⸺ this research offers actionable and counterintuitive implications to aid retail managers in the application of ambient scents in their stores (i.e., at the organizational frontline). In the latter half of Essay II, I conceptualize the impact of pleasant, appetizing (e.g., chocolate-chip-cookie, apple-pie) and non-appetizing (e.g., fresh linen, cotton) ambient scents on consumers’ affinity toward (i.e., preference displayed via increased attitude, attention, recall, product selection, purchasing behavior, loyalty, etc.) vice and virtuous offerings. I theorize that exposure to an appetizing scent increases consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings. Whereas, exposure to a non-appetizing scent decreases consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings, and simultaneously, increases their affinity toward virtuous offerings. Furthermore, this research proposes that consumers’ state level of personal control moderates the effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents. When consumers feel a strong sense of personal control, the effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents are attenuated, causing exposure to either scent to result in a decrease (increase) in consumers’ affinity toward vice (virtuous) offerings. Thus, this research affords important implications for firms who produce vice or virtuous offerings, providing insight into the application of (non-)appetizing scenting strategies at the frontline.

ix CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO CONSUMER-BASED STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRONTLINES

Found at the crossroads of consumer behavior and strategy research, is the emerging field of consumer-based strategy (Hamilton 2016). Research that contributes to consumer-based strategy (e.g., Candi et al. 2017; Hamilton et al. 2019; Koschate-Fischer et al. 2018; Kranzbühler et al. 2019; Mende et al. 2019) is comprised of the following key characteristics: 1) it provides organizational recommendations via insights about consumers, 2) consumer insights are generalizable in that they are not restricted to one firm or context, and 3) despite the methodology, the consumer is the unit of analysis (Dahl 2016; Hamilton 2016). Heeding the call for more consumer-based strategy research (Dahl 2016), this dissertation examines social and atmospheric factors that are relevant to a variety of firms and contexts, contributes theoretically to consumer research, and provides substantive managerial insights for operations at the organizational frontline. An organization’s frontline — or the “interactions and interfaces at the point of contact between an organization and its customers” (Singh et al. 2017, 4) — plays a pivotal role in creating value, exchange, operational innovation, customer satisfaction, growth, and competitive advantage (Pugh et al. 2018; Rafaeli et al. 2017; Singh et al. 2017). Despite such importance of the frontline, the majority of existing research has examined organizational frontlines as a mere context in which a phenomenon may exist (Singh et al. 2017). As a result, phenomena that are unique to the organizational frontline are left greatly underexplored. Thus, additional research is needed to further investigate the frontline as a noun (vs. an adjective), or in other words, as a site of customer contact that warrants individual examination. Against this background, the essays in this dissertation help bridge the gap between organizational frontline research (ORF) and other research silos that play an important role in the understanding of frontline phenomenon (Singh et al. 2017). Essay I, “The Ambassador Effect: How Inducing an Ambassador Role Increases Consumers’ Prosocial Marketplace Behavior and Patronage Intentions,” helps connect the organizational frontline with consumer social responsibility (i.e., transformative consumer research; Mick et al. 2012) by examining factors

1 that encourage consumer prosociality. Whereas, Essay II, “The Role of Olfaction on Consumer- Based Strategy at the Organizational Frontline,” bridges the gap between the organizational frontline and sensory marketing (Krishna 2012) via proposing the impact of olfaction on consumer behavior in the shopping environment. Moreover, this dissertation contributes to OFR by examining the influence of different interaction and interface configurations on consumer behavior, two major components of the organizational frontline (Singh et al. 2017). Interactions constitute any process, action, or communication that occurs during customer-organization contact, whereas interfaces are considered any mode, agent (or robot), artifact, or servicescape that serves as the instrument for the contact between the customer and the organization (Singh et al. 2017). Broadly, Essay I investigates how a novel, socially-induced communication (i.e., interaction) between the frontline employee and the consumer — which I propose induces an ambassador role within a consumer — in both a free and for-sale setting (i.e., independent of the interface), influences the consumer’s prosocial marketplace behaviors and store patronage intentions. Essay II examines how olfactory changes to the servicescape (i.e., the interface) impacts customers’ behavioral, physiological, and psychological responses (i.e., interactions) to the organization and its product offerings. In the following chapters, I present each essay in more detail. In Essay I, I develop my conceptual framework and test it empirically via eight experiments. Prosocial marketplace behaviors are investigated in the context of promoting reusable shopping bags and bottles (vs. plastic shopping bags and bottles). In Essay II, I develop two theoretical frameworks, proposing the olfactory influence of two scent conceptualizations (gender-based and (non-)appetizing ambient scents) on consumer-based strategy at the organizational frontline.

2 CHAPTER 2

ESSAY I. THE AMBASSADOR EFFECT: HOW INDUCING AN AMBASSADOR ROLE INCREASES CONSUMERS’ PROSOCIAL MARKETPLACE BEHAVIOR AND PATRONAGE INTENTIONS

With a twenty-fold increase in plastic use in the past 50 years and over five trillion pieces of plastic waste in the world’s oceans (Leveille 2017), “by 2050, our oceans will hold more plastic than fish” (Roney 2016, 1). Thus, encouraging consumers to engage in prosocial marketplace behaviors at the frontline, such as using reusable (vs. plastic) shopping bags or water bottles, is gaining considerable interest among consumers, retailers, policy makers and scholars (Duclos and Barasch 2014; Karmarkar and Bollinger 2015; Kotler 2011; Mick et al. 2012; NCSL 2016; Prothero et al. 2011; Smith 2016a; Smith 2016b; Winterich and Barone 2011; Xu and Mehta 2015). For example, recognizing the positive multi-faceted (environmental, monetary, and reputational) impact of such efforts, many retailers (e.g., Target, Trader Joe’s, Stop & Shop, Whole Foods) as well as government entities (e.g., in the U.S., Belgium, China, Germany, France) have instituted ordinances and policies to encourage a reduction in the use of disposable plastic bags (e.g., Cereceda 2016; Foodland Super Market, Ltd. 2016; Goodman 2016; Larsen and Venkova 2014; NCSL 2016; Smith 2016b; Target Brands, Inc. 2016). Although research on social influence has shown that certain social norms can increase consumers’ willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors (Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008; Nolan et al. 2008; Schultz et al. 2007, 2008), new approaches are needed at the organizational frontline to increase consumers’ prosocial and sustainable behaviors (Prothero et al. 2011). Against this background, the present research introduces the ambassador effect, which proposes that consumers are more likely to engage in prosocial marketplace behaviors after they are asked to (a) engage in the prosocial behavior themselves and (b) involve another person in the same prosocial behavior. Drawing from research on question-behavior effects (Sprott et al. 2006), as well as social categorization and labeling theory (Becker 1963; Plangger et al. 2013), the ambassador effect leverages a socially-induced pre-commitment as a means to enhance consumers’ prosocial behaviors. To investigate the ambassador effect, I conducted eight experiments, including three field studies, in the context of promoting reusable (vs. plastic) shopping bags and water bottles; the results demonstrate that the ambassador role elicits a 3 systematic increase in consumers’ prosocial behavior as well as patronage intentions toward the focal store. My findings contribute to the literature in several ways. First, the promotional aspect of the ambassador role (i.e., agreeing to involve another person in the prosocial cause) distinguishes it from work on personal commitment and self-consistency motives (e.g., Baca-Motes et al. 2013; Cialdini, Trost, and Newsom 1995; Gorassini and Olson 1995; Guadagno et al. 2001; Harari, Mohr, and Hosey 1980; Kristofferson, White, and Peloza 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014; Seligman, Bush, and Kirsch 1976). Furthermore, prior research has investigated how the need to affiliate influences compliance and conformity; however, these prior studies examine how similarity to, likeability of, and reciprocation to a target drive compliance (e.g., Burger et al. 2001, 2004; Cialdini et al. 1975; Cialdini and Goldstein 2002; Strohmetz et al. 2002), or how fear of social rejection may drive consumer conformity to restore social belongingness and self- esteem (e.g., Janes and Olson 2000; Williams, Cheung, and Choi 2000). In contrast, the ambassador effect focuses on a novel aspect: the notion that inducing an exemplary social role enhances compliance. Moreover, the ambassador effect expands research on the question- behavior effect, which shows how asking consumers about a behavior increases their likelihood of engaging in that behavior (Conner et al. 2011; Dholakia 2010; Williams, Block, and Fitzsimons 2006). Responding to calls for additional research on novel question compositions (Sprott et al. 2006), I demonstrate how prompting consumers with questions of personal commitment and social engagement, thereby evoking a social role model (i.e., the ambassador role), boosts consumer response beyond the established question-behavior effect. Second, I examine the underlying (mediational) process driving the ambassador effect. I show that the ambassador role induces an increase in a consumer’s (i) warm glow (i.e., the positive emotion related to altruism; Andreoni 1995; Kahneman and Knetsch 1992), and (ii) group orientation (i.e., categorization of the self as a part of a group; Kalish and Robins 2006); these two constructs function as parallel mediators in the relationship between the ambassador role and its positive outcomes (e.g., consumer prosocial intentions, patronage intentions). Third, I examine the moderating role of environmental consciousness. Specifically, I investigate how inducing an ambassador role impacts consumers’ differently, depending on their level of trait environmental consciousness (i.e., having an orientation toward concern for the environment; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Lin and Chang 2012). I demonstrate that inducing an

4 ambassador role increases prosocial behavior for those consumers who are not already environmentally conscious (i.e., low in environmental consciousness). However, for those who are high in environmental consciousness, I show that inducing an ambassador role has no effect. This is of particular importance as my research suggest the ambassador effect impacts those consumers who are in most need of a nudge towards prosociality. Fourth, I examine how the ambassador effect interacts with two theory-derived retail policies: penalty (a fee for not engaging in the prosocial behavior) or reward (a discount for engaging in the prosocial behavior). Prior research has shown that consumer prosocial behaviors may depend on incentives, such as rewards or penalties (Ariely, Bracha, and Meier 2009; Bénabou and Tirole 2006; Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Gneezy, Meier, and Rey-Biel 2011; Lacetera, Macis, and Slonim 2012, 2014), yet consumers may be slow to respond to these incentives, and their responses may even be unfavorable, particularly for penalty-based policies (Balsam and Bondy 1983; Kim and Smith 2005; McCarthy and Fram 2000; Xia and Kukar- Kinney 2013). Although reward-based policies are often believed to be more effective in retail contexts (i.e., at the frontline; Andrews et al. 2014; Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Ryu and Feick 2007), I show that penalty-based policies become as effective as reward-based policies once the ambassador role is induced, increasing not only consumers’ commitment to the prosocial initiative but also consumers’ patronage intentions toward the focal store. Finally, this research is relevant from a managerial and policy perspective, providing insights for consumer-based strategy (Hamilton 2016). In terms of managerial relevance, I demonstrate that companies benefit from the ambassador effect through increased consumer patronage intentions. Similarly, because some firms and governments are already implementing penalty- and reward-based policies, my research provides actionable and timely implications for managers and policy makers (illustrated in the General Discussion). Next, I develop my conceptual framework (figure 1) on the positive impact of the ambassador role on consumers’ prosocial behavior (H1), the ambassador effect’s underlying processes related to consumers’ increased warm glow (H2) and group orientation (H3), as well as the effect of the consumers’ ambassador role on increased patronage intentions toward the store (H4). I also investigate the interaction between the ambassador effect and the consumer’s level of environmental consciousness (H5). Finally, I examine how the interaction between the ambassador effect and a firm’s policy incentive (penalty vs. reward) alters consumers’ prosocial

5 behavior and patronage intentions (H6). Eight experiments test my proposed effects in the context of promoting reusable shopping bags and bottles versus plastic shopping bags and bottles.

Conceptualizing the Ambassador Effect

I propose that frontline employees can easily induce an ambassador role by asking consumers (a) to engage in a prosocial behavior and (b) to involve another person in the same prosocial behavior. Conceptually, the ambassador effect leverages insights from the question- behavior effect (Dholakia 2010) and categorization theory (Becker 1963; Plangger et al. 2013); see appendix A for further positioning of the ambassador effect relative to prior research on personal commitment and other approaches that encourage prosocial behavior.

Asking Consumers to Engage in Prosocial Behavior

According to the question-behavior effect, merely asking consumers about a behavior should increase their likelihood to engage in that behavior (Conner et al. 2011; Dholakia 2010). Therefore, in the current research, asking a consumer to engage in an act of token support for a prosocial initiative (Kristofferson et al. 2014) — such as purchasing or accepting a reusable shopping bag for free — should enhance engagement in this behavior. Prior research suggests that cognitive dissonance drives the question-behavior effect (Sprott et al. 2006); thus, cognitive dissonance should simultaneously draw consumers’ attention to the prosocial behavior, and to instances when they failed to engage in the desirable prosocial behavior (Dholakia 2010; Spangenberg and Greenwald 1999; Spangenberg et. al 2016). In order to mitigate this feeling of failure, the cognitive dissonance principle of consistency suggests that consumers will change their subsequent behavior, driven by their motivation to keep attitudes, beliefs, and deeds aligned (Festinger 1957; Freedman and Fraser 1966).

Asking Consumers to Engage Others — The Social Role of Exemplar

I further predict that asking a consumer to involve another person in a prosocial behavior creates a novel and distinct question composition that goes beyond the established question- behavior effect. First, drawing on categorization theory (Ashforth and Humphrey 1997), I propose that the process of how people construct, apply, and internalize social categories helps

6 explain why involving another person activates a social exemplar role that can be combined with personal commitment to create the ambassador effect, thereby enhancing compliance with the focal behavior beyond personal commitment alone (i.e., beyond traditional question-behavior effects). Accordingly, categorization theory suggests that people construct categories in order to simplify their social environment, placing themselves and others in pre-defined groups based on focal roles or status criteria (Ashforth and Humphrey 1997; Corter and Gluck 1992; Plangger et al. 2013). The meaning of such categorization criteria is induced and shared via signifiers (e.g., symbolic acts; Ashforth and Humphrey 1997; Plangger et al. 2013). For example, symbols — a primary type of signifier — create meaning for the category they denote by highlighting an underlying convention, habit, agreement, or law (Atkin 2011; Mick 1986). I theorize that asking consumers to engage others in a prosocial behavior is a symbolic act that will give meaning to the category of social exemplar or ‘ambassador.’ Because consumers’ self-concepts emerge from the interpretations of their symbolic interactions (Mead 1934; Stryker 2001; Plangger et al. 2013), consumers should enact a self-categorization process whereby they internalize the social symbol (ambassador role) and begin to identify with the symbol (Ashforth and Humphrey 1997). Similarly, according to labeling theory, when people internalize a given social label (Plangger et al. 2013), they are more likely to engage in the corresponding prototypical behavior (Becker 1963; Lemert 1951; Liska and Messner 1999; Matsueda 1992). For example, people are more likely to engage in deviant and criminal behavior in the future, if they perceive that this is how others see them (Becker 1963; Link 1982; Link et al. 1989; Sampson and Laub 1997). Therefore, in the present research I propose that as the consumer internalizes the ambassador role, increased prosociality should result. Second, I theorize that heightened cognitive dissonance, integral to the question-behavior effect, further explains why involving another person activates a social exemplar role that supplements personal commitment, thereby strengthening the focal behavior. Questions about normative behaviors are thought to activate a social identity congruent with that behavior, which should increase the normative behavior in the future (Perkins, Smith, and Sprott 2007). Because amplifying social norms intensifies cognitive dissonance (Dholakia 2010), I propose behavioral intentions that are consistent with the prosocial initiative should be even stronger in the presence

7 of the ambassador role than when consumers are ‘merely’ asked to commit to the prosocial behavior themselves. Taken together, I predict that asking a consumer to engage in a prosocial behavior and to involve another person in the focal initiative will induce the role of a prosocial ambassador. Consumers should then align their behavior with the induced ambassador role, thereby enhancing their likelihood to engage in the prosocial behavior themselves. Formally: H1: Placing a consumer in an ambassador role (in which s/he is asked to both engage in the behavior themselves, and to ask another person to do the same) related to a prosocial initiative increases the consumer’s prosocial behavior.

Study 1: Field Experiment at a Grocery Store

The purpose of this study is to investigate how inducing an ambassador role (i.e., asking consumers to participate in a prosocial behavior, and to invite another person to do the same) affects consumers’ prosocial behavior, as compared to merely asking them to engage in that behavior themselves. That is, I aim to show that the ambassador role boosts consumers’ willingness to engage in the prosocial behavior beyond the established question-behavior effect. This study employs a field experiment at a grocery store, in which all participating shoppers were given a free reusable shopping bag in exchange for completing the study; shoppers in the ambassador role were given an additional reusable shopping bag to pass along to someone else.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (control, ambassador) between-subjects design. One hundred and sixty-two shoppers of a large grocery store chain (118 females; MAge = 43.51) volunteered to complete the study. I set up a booth outside the entrance of a grocery store where participants were asked to complete a short paper survey in exchange for a free reusable cloth shopping bag (cf., Morales, Amir, and Lee 2017). The reusable bags were a neutral beige color and did not contain any printing. Participants were informed that upon completion of the study, they would receive one reusable bag (control condition). Participants in the ambassador condition were told they would receive one reusable bag for their own use and a second bag to give to a family member to use. I asked participants in this condition to specify the family member they would give the bag to. Data collection took place on two consecutive Saturdays. On the first Saturday, I

8 began with the control condition, and alternated between the ambassador condition and control condition across four time-blocks. I followed the same schedule on the second Saturday, but began with the ambassador condition. In the survey, I measured reusable bag usage intentions, asking participants, “After receiving a free bag today [and giving away the second bag], how often do you think you will use reusable bags when shopping in the future?” (0% = never, 100% = always). Lastly, participants reported current reusable bag usage (0% = never, 100% = always), the amount they planned to spend on the current shopping trip, and their demographics.

Results

An ANCOVA with condition (control, ambassador) as the independent variable and reusable bag usage intentions as the dependent variable revealed that inducing an ambassador role increased shoppers’ reusable bag usage intentions (MControl = 63.57 vs. MAmbassador = 70.02, t(156) = 1.67, p < .05)1, providing initial support for H1. See appendix B for further details on this and all subsequent studies.

Discussion

This study provides initial evidence that asking consumers to adopt an ambassador role enhances their motivation to engage in the focal prosocial behavior; that is, consumers who were asked to involve another person in using reusable shopping bags were more likely to use reusable shopping bags compared to those who were not asked to involve another person. However, these findings could result from consumers receiving two bags in the ambassador condition, whereas those in the control condition only received one bag (i.e., a mere quantity effect). Study 2 examines this alternative explanation.

1 A one-tailed test is used in this field study because the hypothesis that the ambassador role increases prosocial behavior is unidirectional (Lukas, Tan, and Hult 2001; Motyka et al. 2016); the effect is marginally significant with a two-tailed test. I controlled for current reusable bag usage, time of day, income, and planned spending on the shopping trip. Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable (p < .001); other controls were non- significant. 9 Study 2: Ruling Out the Alternative Explanation of Quantity

The objectives of study 3 are to replicate the findings from the field study in a more controlled, lab-based context, and rule out the alternative explanation of mere quantity. To address the alternative explanation, I designed a laboratory experiment that was conceptually similar to study 1. However, I added a third condition, in which participants received two free reusable bags for their personal use. I compare this two bags for personal use condition, as well as the control condition (one bag for personal use), to the ambassador condition (one bag for personal use, and a second bag to give to someone else) to test the potentially unique impact that the ambassador role has on prosocial behavior.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 3 (control, two bags for personal use, ambassador) between- subjects design. Two hundred and eight U.S. undergraduates (84 females; MAge = 20.21) participated. Participants read a scenario that described the setting from study 1. Specifically, the scenario described a situation in which participants are about to enter a grocery store, when they notice a booth outside the store that is giving away reusable shopping bags. They were shown a photo of the bag used in study 1. In the one-bag and two-bags conditions, participants were informed they were given the corresponding number of free reusable bags for their personal use. In the ambassador condition, participants read that they received two bags, one for their personal use and a second bag to give to a family member of their choice to use. Next, participants reported their usage intentions by rating their likelihood to “use reusable bags when grocery shopping” and “purchase more reusable bags” (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). Then, they reported their current reusable bag usage and rated the attractiveness of the pictured reusable bag (unattractive/attractive; 7-point bi-polar scale). Finally, they provided demographics2.

Results

An ANCOVA with condition (control, two bags for personal use, ambassador) as the independent variable and reusable bag usage intentions (r = .64) as the dependent variable

2 All lab and Amazon Mechanical Turk studies include an instructional attention check. In this study, participants were asked to select “somewhat likely,” (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009). We excluded seventeen participants from analysis who failed the attention check; the pattern of results remains consistent when they are included. 10 revealed a significant main effect of bags (MControl = 3.20 vs. M2Bags = 3.36 vs. MAmbassador = 3.78; F(2, 186) = 4.05, p = .02)3. Contrasts revealed that the ambassador condition results in significantly greater reusable bag usage intentions relative to the control condition (MControl =

3.20 vs. MAmbassador = 3.78; F(1, 186) = 7.31, p = .008), replicating the findings from study 1 and providing further support for H1. In addition, the ambassador condition resulted in significantly greater intentions to use reusable bags compared to the two-bags condition (M2Bags = 3.36 vs.

MAmbassador = 3.78; F(1, 186) = 4.30, p = .04). Finally, there was no significant difference between the control and the two-bags conditions (MControl = 3.20 vs. M2Bags = 3.36; F < 1).

Discussion

This study replicates findings from the field in a lab-based setting, demonstrating that assigning consumers an ambassador role enhances reusable bag usage intentions. Importantly, this study shows that an increase in prosocial intentions occurs above and beyond a consumer receiving two bags for personal use, ruling out that mere quantity of the bags drives the effect. The next study further rules out the alternative explanation of bag quantity by examining the two bags for personal use condition in comparison to the ambassador condition (a conservative test of the ambassador effect). Moreover, the following study measures real prosocial behavior (vs. intentions) — after the consumer has actually engaged in the ambassador act (e.g., given away the additional reusable bag). The next study also provides some initial evidence of the ambassador role’s impact on warm glow, and via longitudinal data, tests the duration of the ambassador effect.

The Mediating Role of Consumer Warm Glow

Prosocial behavior causes consumers to feel good about themselves (experiencing a so called “warm glow”); they receive an emotional benefit from acting righteously (Andreoni 1995; Andrews et al. 2014; Giebelhausen et al. 2016; Habel et al. 2016). I theorize that this “moral satisfaction” (Kahneman and Knetsch 1992, 57) is heightened when consumers consider involving another person in the prosocial cause. That is, consumers should feel a particularly strong sense of warm glow by not only engaging in prosocial behaviors themselves, but by encouraging another person to behave in a prosocial manner as well.

3 Current reusable bag usage and attractiveness of the bag (p’s < .001) were significant control variables. 11 Moreover, extant research shows that another key component of warm glow (aside from a positive sense of self) is positive feelings associated with the prosocial initiative that a person supports (Ferguson et al. 2012). Therefore, the warm glow caused by the ambassador role should drive favorable attitudes toward the prosocial initiative itself. Because positive attitudes drive corresponding behavioral intentions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977; Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw 1988), the positive attitudes toward the initiative that surface from the consumer’s warm glow should increase engagement in that prosocial behavior. I hypothesize: H2: Placing a consumer in an ambassador role increases the consumer’s warm glow, which mediates the relationship between the ambassador role and prosocial behavior.

Study 3: Field Experiment in a Bowling Center

This study has five objectives. First, this study examines the ambassador role’s impact on actual prosocial behavior, expanding the ambassador effect beyond behavioral intentions (H1). Second, this study examines the effect of inducing an ambassador role when the consumer actually engages in the ambassador act (e.g., follows through and gives the additional reusable bag to another person of their choice). I predict effects will hold for actual behavior; specifically, that consumers who personally commit to a prosocial behavior and actually engage in an ambassador act will engage in the prosocial behavior more than those who only personally commit to the prosocial behavior. Third, this study provides additional evidence that a mere quantity effect is not driving the increase in prosocial behavior as the two bags for personal use condition is once again compared to the ambassador condition. Fourth, this study provides initial evidence of the mediating role of warm glow (H2). I predict consumers in an ambassador role will feel a stronger sense of warm glow than those who only personally commit to the prosocial behavior. Fifth, this study investigates the duration of the ambassador effect by testing it longitudinally, over four different time periods.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (ambassador role: two bags for personal use, ambassador) × 4 (time: T1, T2, T3, T4) mixed design, with ambassador role as the between-subjects factor and time as the within-subjects factor. Seventy community bowlers in a southeastern U.S. city (15

12 females; MAge = 45.11) participated for the chance to win a $50 gift card each week, and a $200 gift card at the end of the entire study. The study took place over five weeks. On day one of the study, participants were randomly assigned to one of the forty bowling lanes in the bowling center. Then, they received the ambassador role manipulation. Participants randomly assigned to the second 20 lanes were in the two bags for personal use condition and those randomly assigned to the first 20 lanes were in the ambassador condition. To manipulate the ambassador role, participants were told [manipulations in square brackets]: “Using reusable bags for your shopping, instead of disposable, plastic bags, can be a way to help reduce waste and keep our environment clean. You can help reduce plastic waste by [committing to use reusable bags / : (1) committing to use reusable bags AND (2) encouraging someone else to use reusable bags]. As part of this study, you will receive TWO reusable bags. [These bags are FOR YOU TO USE to commit to helping reduce plastic waste / One bag is FOR YOU TO USE to commit to helping reduce plastic waste. The second bag is FOR YOU TO GIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE TO USE, to encourage them to reduce plastic waste too]. [You should NOT give these bags away to anyone / The person you give the additional bag to should NOT be anyone in this bowling league].” Participants received these instructions discretely and were asked not to share their instructions with anyone else in the bowling center; this was meant to prevent cross- contamination of the conditions. The bags were a neutral, beige color and plain in design (see appendix D for a photo of the stimulus). Furthermore, on day one participants reported the number of reusable bags they currently owned (a proxy for current reusable bag usage), rated the attractiveness of the bags (unattractive/attractive; 7-point bi-polar scale), and provided their demographics. Then, one week later (T1), participants reported their reusable bag usage. I measured bag usage by asking participants, “Since you received the bags we gave you, how often have you used a reusable bag for your shopping?” (0% = never, 100% = always). To measure warm glow, I asked participants to indicate the extent to which using reusable bags makes them feel pride, self-worth, extremely good, interesting, and appealing (1= not at all, 7 = very much; Ferguson et

13 al. 2012; Giebelhausen et al. 2016)4. Those in the ambassador condition were also asked to report if they followed through and gave their additional bag to someone else (87.20% of participants in the ambassador condition complied with this instruction); this demonstrates real engagement in the symbolic ambassador act. At the following three, four, and five-week marks (T2 - T4), I measured reusable bag usage and warm glow the same way as in week two (T1) of the study5.

Results

Prosocial Behavior. A repeated measures ANOVA on reusable bag usage revealed a non-significant two-way interaction between the ambassador role and time factors (F(3, 126) = 1.16, p = .33), and the main effect for the time factor was non-significant (F(3, 126) = .35, p =

.79). As predicted, the main effect for the ambassador role factor was significant (MControl = 19.92 vs. MAmbassador = 46.11; F(1, 42) = 6.16, p = .02), demonstrating that inducing an ambassador role increased consumers’ reusable bag usage, and that the ambassador effect’s positive impact on reusable bag usage did not differ over time, further supporting H1; see figure 2, panel A6.

Warm Glow. A repeated measures ANOVA on warm glow (αT1 = .92, αT2 = .96, αT3 =

.96, αT4 =.96) revealed a non-significant two-way interaction between the ambassador role and time factors (F(3, 126) = 1.18, p = .32), and the main effect for the time factor was non- significant (F(3, 126) = .82, p = .49). As predicted, the main effect for the ambassador role factor was significant (MControl = 2.90 vs. MAmbassador = 4.05; F(1, 42) = 6.25, p = .02), demonstrating that inducing an ambassador role increased consumers’ feelings of warm glow, and that the ambassador effect’s positive impact on reusable bag usage did not differ over time, partially supporting H2; see figure 2, panel B.

4 In this study, I also have baseline measures of reusable bag usage intentions and warm glow. Because I am interested in actual behavior in this study, I do not report on these baseline measures, but the pattern of results are consistent with the other measures of reusable bag usage and warm glow. 5 At T1 four participants dropped out, resulting in an attrition rate of 5.71% and a sample of 66. At T2 nine more participants dropped out, resulting in a total attrition rate of 18.57% and a sample of 57. At T3 eight more participants dropped out, resulting in a total attrition rate of 30.00% and a sample of 49. Finally, at T4 three more participants dropped out, resulting in a total attrition rate of 34.29% and a final sample of 46. I note that this attrition rate is better than the average for longitudinal studies, which is close to 50% (Sudman and Wansink 2002; Taris 2000; Wang, Harris, and Patterson 2013). 6 As in other studies, I controlled for participants’ current reusable bag usage and attractiveness of the bag. Current reusable bag usage was a non-significant control variable in the models for reusable bag usage and warm glow (p’s > .57). Attractiveness of the bag was a non-significant control variable in the model for reusable bag usage (p = .17) and a significant control variable in the model for warm glow (p = .003). 14 Discussion

This study demonstrates that the ambassador role increases consumers’ feeling of warm glow and engagement in prosocial behaviors. The ambassador effect replicates when the participant actually engages in the ambassador act (i.e., gives the additional bag to another person), for real prosocial behavior. Moreover, this study finds that the ambassador role’s impact on prosocial behavior lasts for (at least) four weeks. The next study further investigates the psychological process underlying the ambassador effect, testing the mediation of warm glow (H2) in a more controlled, lab setting. In addition, the next study tests the two dimensions of the ambassador effect, demonstrating that both personal commitment as well as engaging in a symbolic, social exemplar act are necessary to effectively induce an ambassador role.

Study 4: The Two Dimensions of the Ambassador Effect and Mediation of Warm Glow

The objectives of study 4 are two-fold. First, this study examines the two dimensions of the ambassador effect, both (a) personal commitment to engage in a prosocial behavior as well as (b) the social exemplar role induced by asking a consumer to engage another person in the same prosocial behavior (H1). Second, this study fully examines the mediating role of warm glow (H2). Furthermore, in this scenario, participants purchased the reusable bag(s), which allowed me to examine whether the ambassador effect is robust (i.e., increases prosocial behavior even when the reusable bags are not free). The two dimensions of the ambassador effect were manipulated by varying the number of bags participants purchased; either no bag, one bag for themselves (i.e., personal commitment only), one bag for a friend (i.e., social exemplar role only), or one bag for themselves and a second bag to give to a friend (i.e., ambassador role). Importantly, this study also allows for the comparison of the ambassador condition to a baseline condition under which neither personal commitment or a social exemplar role are present (i.e., no bag condition).

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (bag for self: no, yes) × 2 (bag for other: no, yes) between- subjects design. One hundred and forty-four Amazon Mechanical Turk participants completed the study for monetary compensation (73 females; MAge = 37.10). Participants were randomly

15 assigned to one of four conditions in which they read a grocery shopping scenario where they noticed reusable bags for sale in the checkout-line. Participants were shown a photo of the bag identical to the one used in studies 1, 2, and 3. In the ‘no bags’ condition, participants did not purchase any reusable bags. In the ‘bag for self–only’ condition, they purchased one bag for themselves; in the ‘bag for other–only’ condition they purchased one bag that they gave to a friend that evening; and in the ambassador condition they purchased two bags, one bag for themselves and a second bag that they gave to a friend that evening. Participants reported their usage intentions by rating their likelihood to “bring your own bags to the grocery store,” “stop using disposable bags for your groceries,” and “bring reusable bags with you when shopping” (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). For the proposed mediator, I asked participants to indicate the extent to which the experience would make them feel a sense of warm glow (pride, self-worth; 1= not at all, 7 = very much; un-/interesting, un-/appealing, un- /attractive; 7-point bi-polar scale; Ferguson et al. 2012; Giebelhausen et al. 2016). Finally, participants reported their current reusable bag usage and rated the attractiveness of the pictured reusable bag, as in study 2. They also provided demographic information7.

Results

Prosocial Behavioral Intentions. An ANCOVA on reusable bag usage intentions (α = .81) revealed the predicted significant two-way interaction the between bag for self and bag for other factors (F(1, 124) = 4.98, p = .03), see figure 3, panel A; the main effect for bag for self was significant (MNo = 4.60 vs. MYes = 5.18; F(1, 124) = 6.89, p = .01). The main effect for bag for other was non-significant (F(1, 124) = .38, p = .54)8. I conducted planned contrasts to explain the significant two-way interaction. Contrasts revealed that those who purchased a bag for themselves, reported significantly greater prosocial behavioral intentions when they purchased a second bag to give to a friend (ambassador condition) compared to when they only purchased a bag for themselves (MBagforSelfOnly = 4.86 vs. MAmbassador = 5.49; F(1, 124) = 3.89, p = .05), consistent with studies 1, 2 and 3, supporting H1. Participants in the ambassador condition

7 I included an instructional attention check that asked participants to select “somewhat likely,” (Oppenheimer et al. 2009). I excluded fourteen participants from analysis who failed the attention check; the pattern of results remains consistent when they are included. 8 Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable in the models for reusable bag usage intentions (p < .001) and warm glow (p < .005). Attractiveness of the bag was a significant control variable in the models for reusable bag usage intentions (p < .05) and warm glow (p < .001). 16 reported significantly more reusable bag usage intentions than those who only purchased a bag to give to a friend (MBagforOtherOnly = 4.42 vs. MAmbassador = 5.49; F(1,124) = 12.55, p = .001), and those who decided not to purchase a bag at all (MNoBag = 4.78 vs. MAmbassador = 5.49; F(1, 124) = 6.05, p = .02). Warm Glow. An ANCOVA on warm glow (α = .83) revealed a two-way interaction between bag for self and bag for other (F(1, 124) = 3.37, p = .07), see figure 3, panel B; the main effects for bag for self (F(1, 124) = 1.93, p = .17) and bag for other (F(1, 124) = 2.50, p = .12) were non-significant. I conducted planned contrasts to explain the two-way interaction. Contrasts revealed that those who received a bag for themselves, reported significantly more warm glow when they purchased a second bag to give to a friend (ambassador condition) compared to when they only purchased a bag for themselves (MBagforSelfOnly = 4.65 vs. MAmbassador = 5.29; F(1, 124) = 5.59, p = .02). Participants in the ambassador condition reported significantly more warm glow than those who only purchased a bag to give to a friend (MBagforOtherOnly = 4.69 vs. MAmbassador =

5.29; F(1,124) = 5.53, p = .02), and those who decided not to purchase a bag at all (MNoBag = 4.73 vs. MAmbassador = 5.29; F(1, 124) = 5.09, p = .03). Moderated Mediation Analysis. I conducted moderated mediation analysis to examine whether warm glow mediates the effects of the bag for self × bag for other interaction on reusable bag usage intentions (Hayes 2013; Process Model 7, 5000 resamples). In the model, the independent variable was bag for other (no = 0, yes = 1), the moderator was bag for self (no = 0, yes = 1), the mediator was warm glow, and the dependent variable was reusable bag usage intentions. The bootstrapping analysis showed that warm glow mediated the effects of the bag for self × bag for other interaction on usage intentions. The indirect effects excluded zero for the overall moderated mediation path (a × b = .2942; 95% CI = .0025 to .8403) and the conditional bag for self: yes path (a × b = .2751; 95% CI = .0562 to .6384), but not the conditional bag for self: no path (a × b = -.0192; 95% CI = -.3098 to .1836), supporting H2.

Discussion

This study demonstrates once again that inducing an ambassador role increases prosocial behavior. Notably, in order to induce an ambassador role, consumers must not only personally commit to a prosocial behavior, but they must also consider engaging another person in the same prosocial behavior. That is, personal commitment or an invoked social exemplar role alone, are

17 not enough to affect prosocial behavior in the way the ambassador effect does. Moreover, for completeness, this study also demonstrates that the ambassador effect increases prosocial behavior beyond instances of when neither personal commitment nor a social exemplar role is prompted. Finally, this study provides evidence of warm glow as a mediator of the ambassador effect’s impact on prosocial behavior. To further examine the process, in the next study I extend the mediational lens and test group orientation (H3) as a second mediating variable.

The Mediating Role of Consumer Group Orientation

Self-categorization theory suggests that a consumer’s orientation (individual vs. group) is context-specific (Kalish and Robins 2006). In particular, when group salience is heightened, people are likely to shift from personal-self descriptions (individual orientation) to social-self descriptions (group orientation; Briley and Wyer 2002; Turner et al. 1987). I expect that asking consumers to involve another person in a prosocial initiative prompts them to see the initiative as a group effort, not merely an individual one, thereby making group membership salient, and causing the consumer’s orientation to shift from an individual orientation toward a group orientation. In turn, I propose that the positive impact on group orientation influences prosocial behavior. Making a person aware of their membership in a group enhances their responsibility to its members; consequently, consumers often adopt behaviors that aid the group, and avoid behaviors that hinder the group (Briley and Wyer 2002; Winterich and Barone 2011). I expect that recognition of group membership (linked to the ambassador role) will motivate consumers to engage in behaviors that benefit the prosocial initiative the group was founded upon; thus, I hypothesize: H3: Placing a consumer in an ambassador role increases the consumer’s group orientation, which mediates the relationship between the ambassador role and prosocial behavior.

Study 5: Mediation of Group Orientation

This study has three objectives. First, this study seeks to replicate the ambassador effect’s positive impact on prosocial behavior (H1). Second, this study further tests the mediational process underlying the ambassador effect, specifically in regard to group orientation (H3), while simultaneously ruling out alternative mechanisms. I expect that the ambassador role’s positive

18 impact on prosocial behavior is mediated by an increased group orientation. Third, this study expands the generalizability of the ambassador effect by inducing the ambassador role via a text messaging task. Specifically, the ambassador role was manipulated by asking participants to either create one text message to send to themselves as a reminder of the benefits of using reusable bags (control condition: personal commitment only), or to create two text messages, one to send to themselves and one to send to a friend as reminders of the benefits of using reusable bags (ambassador condition: personal commitment and engagement in a social exemplar act). This task is managerially relevant because it provides a potentially low-cost approach to inducing the ambassador effect, which does not require the use of a physical product.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (ambassador role: control, ambassador) between-subjects design. One hundred and forty-eight Amazon Mechanical Turk participants completed the study for monetary compensation (84 females; MAge = 40.05). Participants were randomly assigned to either the control condition or the ambassador condition. To manipulate the ambassador role, participants read the corresponding version of the text messaging task below [manipulations in square brackets]: “Using reusable shopping bags instead of disposable, plastic bags, is becoming increasingly important. You can make a difference in your community by [committing to use reusable bags / committing to use reusable bags AND encouraging someone else to use reusable bags]. Below, please draft [a text message to send to yourself, representing your commitment to use reusable bags / two text messages: 1) one to send to yourself, representing your commitment to use reusable bags AND 2) one to send to a friend, encouraging them to use reusable bags]. For instance, in your [message / messages] you can remind [yourself / yourself and your friend] of the benefits of using reusable shopping bags.” Participants proceeded to create the text messages for their intended recipients. Next, participants reported their prosocial behavioral intentions and current group orientation (i.e., the extent to which a person is situationally more group- or individually- oriented; Briley and Wyer 2002; Kalish and Robins 2006). To measure usage intentions, participants rated their likelihood to, “bring your own bags to the grocery store,” “purchase more

19 reusable bags,” and “bring reusable bags with you when shopping,” (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). To measure group orientation, participants rated how much they agreed with the following statements when considering using reusable bags: “I identify strongly with people because they are in one or more of my social groups,” “the social groups I belong to are an important reflection of who I am,” “I feel I don't have much to offer the social groups I belong to,” and “I am a cooperative participant in the social groups I belong to,” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Kalish and Robins 2006; Luhtanen and Crocker 1992; Shang, Reed II, and Croson 2008)9. Finally, participants reported their current reusable bag usage and answered demographic questions10.

Results

Prosocial Behavioral Intentions. An ANCOVA on reusable bag usage intentions (α = .83) revealed that inducing an ambassador role increased participants’ reusable bag usage 11 intentions (MControl = 5.41 vs. MAmbassador = 5.80; F(1, 131) = 3.86, p = .05) , supporting H1. Group Orientation. An ANCOVA on group orientation (α = .69) revealed that inducing the ambassador role increased participants’ group orientation (MControl = 4.53 vs. MAmbassador = 4.99; F(1, 131) = 5.71, p = .02)12. Mediation Analysis. I conducted a mediation analysis to examine whether the relationship between the ambassador role and reusable bag usage intentions is mediated by group orientation (Hayes 2018; Process Model 4, 5000 resamples). Ambassador role (control = 0, ambassador = 1) was the independent variable, group orientation was the mediator, and reusable bag usage intentions was the dependent variable. The bootstrapping analysis showed that group orientation mediated the effects of the ambassador role on reusable bag usage intentions. The indirect effects excluded zero for the indirect path from the ambassador role to group orientation to reusable bag usage intentions (a × b = .1294; 95% CI = .0124 to .3170), supporting H3.

9 Three other dimensions of group orientation (e.g., team effort, enhanced responsibility, citizenship) as well as self- consistency motives, perceived impact, and positive affect were also measured. Measurement order was randomized. 10 I included an instructional attention check that asked participants to select “somewhat likely,” (Oppenheimer et al. 2009). I excluded fourteen participants from the analysis who failed the attention check; the pattern of results remains consistent when included. 11 Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable in the model for reusable bag usage intentions (p < .001). 12 The three other dimensions of group orientation (e.g., team effort, enhanced responsibility, citizenship), self- consistency motives, and perceived impact were ruled out as alternative mediators (see appendix C for the measurement items and ANOVA results). 20 Discussion

This study provides a deeper theoretical understanding of the ambassador effect. The results demonstrate that the ambassador role increases consumers’ group orientation, which motivates them to fulfill their duty to the group by aligning their behavior with the prosocial cause; resulting in an increased intention to use reusable bags. Moreover, this study demonstrates that an ambassador role can be induced within a consumer without providing another person with a tangible cue of the behavior; in order words, a consumer can take on an ambassador role, encouraging others to be prosocial, simply via written communication. Further examining the process of the ambassador effect, in the next study I test mediation of warm glow and group orientation in one, comprehensive model, while also investigating the downstream impact of prosocial behavior on consumer patronage intentions.

Downstream Effects on Consumer Patronage Intentions

As figure 1 displays, I expect that changes in prosocial behavior will spillover onto patronage intentions toward the store that encourages the involvement of the consumer in the prosocial behavior. Such a spillover effect is consistent with attribution theory (Kelley 1967), which suggests that consumers’ causal inferences can impact their attitudes and behaviors (Bettman 1979; Weiner 2000). Analogous to how people attribute blame to firms (Pick et al. 2016; Whelan and Dawar 2016), I predict that consumers attribute credit to firms for the good deeds they engage in. In the present research, when consumers’ experience an increase in their prosocial behavior, I expect they will partially attribute their prosocial engagement to the firm that provided the opportunity for it; thus, they should credit the store. Because corporate social responsibility positively affects consumer patronage (Mandhachitara and Poolthong 2011), I hypothesize a carry-over onto patronage intentions. Formally: H4: Placing a consumer in an ambassador role increases the consumer’s prosocial behavior, which mediates the relationship between the ambassador role and patronage intentions toward the store.

21 Study 6: Mediation Through Warm Glow and Group Orientation and Downstream Effects on Patronage Intentions

The objective of study 6 is three-fold. First, it seeks to replicate the ambassador effect in terms of prosocial behavior (H1). Second, it tests the parallel mediational process underlying the ambassador effect (H2, H3). Third, it investigates how an ambassador role affects patronage intentions (H4). I expect that the ambassador role’s positive impact on store patronage is mediated by two paths: (1) a warm glow experience that drives prosocial behavior, which drives store patronage intentions; and (2) an increased group orientation that drives prosocial behavior, which drives store patronage intentions. The ambassador role was manipulated by asking participants to read a scenario in which they purchased either one reusable bag for themselves (control condition), or they purchased two reusable bags, one for themselves and one to give to a friend to use (ambassador condition).

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (ambassador role: control, ambassador) between-subjects design. Ninety-six U.S. undergraduates (48 females; MAge = 20.38) participated for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to either the control condition or the ambassador condition. To manipulate the ambassador role, participants read the corresponding version of the scenario below [manipulations in square brackets]: “Imagine you are at the grocery store. After making your selections, you head to the checkout line. In the checkout line, you notice a sign that says ‘Reusable shopping bags, [$0.50 each / two for $1.00]. [Buy one for yourself today! / Buy one for yourself and one for a friend today!]’ The bags look attractive and durable so you decide to [purchase a reusable shopping bag for yourself / you decide to purchase two reusable shopping bags, one for yourself, and the other to give to a friend]. You use the reusable bag for your groceries that day. [Then you leave the store and head home / Then you leave the store and head home. That evening, you give the other reusable bag to a friend].” Dependent measures were reusable bag usage intentions and patronage intentions. To measure usage intentions, participants were asked, “After receiving a free bag today [and giving away the second bag], how often do you think you will use reusable bags when shopping in the future?” (0% = never, 100% = always). I measured consumer patronage intentions toward the

22 store, asking participants how likely they would be to “return to this store in the future,” and “buy from this store in the future,” (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). Process measures were warm glow (i.e., moral self-satisfaction; Kahneman and Knetsch 1992) and group orientation (i.e., the extent to which a person is situationally more group- or individually-oriented; Briley and Wyer 2002; Kalish and Robins 2006). I measured participants’ warm glow experience as in study 4. I measured group orientation using an index comprised of: group welfare is important to me when thinking about others, and my membership in social groups is not central to how I feel about myself (second item reverse-coded; 7-point scales; Choi and Geistfeld 2004; Kalish and Robins 2006). Finally, participants reported current reusable bag usage and answered demographic questions13.

Results

Using condition (control, ambassador) as the independent variable, I conducted ANCOVAs on each of the outcome and process variables (reusable bag usage intentions, patronage intentions, warm glow, group orientation). I also conducted serial mediation analyses to test the process leading from the ambassador role to consumer patronage intentions. Outcome Variables. An ANCOVA on reusable bag usage intentions revealed that inducing an ambassador role increased participants’ reusable bag usage intentions (MControl =

38.56 vs. MAmbassador = 48.70; F(1, 86) = 4.00, p < .05), supporting H1. An ANCOVA on patronage intentions toward the store (r = .91) revealed that inducing an ambassador role marginally increased participants’ patronage intentions (MControl = 5.12 vs. MAmbassador = 5.52; F(1, 86) = 2.89, p = .09). Process Variables. An ANCOVA on warm glow (α = .83) revealed that inducing an ambassador role increased participants’ feelings of warm glow (MControl = 3.92 vs. MAmbassador = 4.42; F(1, 86) = 3.86, p = .05)14. An ANCOVA on group orientation revealed that inducing the ambassador role increased participants’ group orientation (MControl = 4.09 vs. MAmbassador = 4.56; F(1, 86) = 6.53, p = .01).

13 I included an instructional attention check that asked participants to select “strongly disagree,” (Oppenheimer et al. 2009). I excluded seven participants from the analysis who failed the attention check; the pattern of results remains consistent when included. 14 Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable in the models for warm glow (p < .05) and reusable bag usage intentions (p < .001). 23 Serial Mediation Analysis. I conducted a serial mediation analysis to examine whether the relationship between the ambassador role and patronage intentions is mediated by warm glow and group orientation, as well as reusable bag usage intentions (Hayes 2013; Process Model 6, 5000 resamples). I hypothesized and tested two parallel paths in one model. In the first path, ambassador role (control = 0, ambassador = 1) was the independent variable, warm glow was the first mediator, reusable bag usage intentions was the second mediator, and patronage intentions toward the store was the dependent variable. The bootstrapping analysis showed that warm glow and reusable bag usage intentions mediated the effects of the ambassador role on store patronage intentions. The indirect effects excluded zero for the serial indirect path from the ambassador role to warm glow to reusable bag usage intentions to store patronage intentions (a × b = .0412; 95% CI = .0024 to .1470), supporting H2 and H4. In the second path, ambassador role (control = 0, ambassador = 1) was the independent variable, group orientation was the first mediator, reusable bag usage intentions was the second mediator, and patronage intentions toward the store was the dependent variable. The bootstrapping analysis showed that group orientation and reusable bag usage intentions mediated the effects of the ambassador role on store patronage intentions. The indirect effects excluded zero for the serial indirect path from the ambassador role to group orientation to reusable bag usage intentions to store patronage (a × b = .0229; 95% CI = .0021 to .0964), supporting H3 and H4.

Discussion

This study provides a deeper theoretical understanding of the ambassador effect two-fold. First, replicating insights from studies 3 and 4, the results demonstrate that involving another person in a prosocial initiative causes consumers to feel better about themselves (i.e., warm glow; Andreoni 1995; Andrews et al. 2014; Giebelhausen et al. 2016; Habel et al. 2016), which increases their intention to use reusable bags in the future. This path also positively influences patronage intentions toward the store from which consumers purchased the reusable bags. Second, replicating insights from study 5, the ambassador role increases consumers’ group orientation, which motivates them to fulfill their duty to the group by aligning their behavior with the prosocial cause; resulting in an increased intention to use reusable bags.

24 Consistent with my theorizing, the results also show a positive spillover, which increases patronage intentions toward the store. Next, I investigate the moderating role of consumers’ level of trait environmental consciousness. Moreover, I replicate the ambassador effect’s positive impact on actual prosocial behavior, in a new prosocial context of using reusable (vs. plastic) bottles.

The Moderating Role of Environmental Consciousness

Prior research suggests consumers vary in their level of environmental consciousness (i.e., orientation of concern for the environment; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Dunlap and Van Liere; Garvey and Bolton 2017; Lin and Chang 2012; Moon et al. 2016). Consumers who have a preexisting pro-environmental orientation (i.e., are high in environmental consciousness) tend to already engage in prosocial behaviors (Kaiser et al. 1999; Lin and Chang 2012; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996). As a result, asking an environmentally conscious consumer to commit to a prosocial behavior that they already engage in should not result in a feeling of cognitive dissonance. This lack of cognitive dissonance would suggest that a subsequent boost in behavior would not occur (Dholakia 2010; Festinger 1957; Freedman and Fraser 1966; Spangenberg and Greenwald 1999; Spangenberg et. al 2016). Moreover, consumers high in environmental consciousness tend to already identify with the prosocial behavior (Garvey and Bolton 2017). Due to this identification, I predict they should also already feel like a representative of the cause attached to the behavior, internalizing the role of exemplar whether or not an ambassador role was induced. Thus, for consumers high in environmental consciousness, I do not except that inducing an ambassador role will add to their engagement in the prosocial behavior; prosocial behavior should be high in either condition. In contrast, those low in environmental consciousness tend to be more at risk of engaging in socially irresponsible behaviors and do not naturally identify with environmental prosocial causes (Garvey and Bolton 2017). As a result, I predict that those who are not already environmentally consciousness will benefit the most from the ambassador effect. Non- environmentally conscious consumers have room for improvement in their engagement in prosocial behaviors as inducing an ambassador role can 1) enhance commitment to the prosocial cause via enacting cognitive dissonance (Dholakia 2010; Festinger 1957; Freedman and Fraser 1966; Spangenberg and Greenwald 1999; Spangenberg et. al 2016) and 2) increase identification

25 with the prosocial cause via internalizing the role of social exemplar (Ashforth and Humphrey 1997; Becker 1963; Lemert 1951; Liska and Messner 1999; Matsueda 1992; Mead 1934; Plangger et al. 2013; Stryker 2001). In summary, I theorize that those who are low in environmental consciousness will see an increase in their prosocial behavior when an ambassador role is induced, but those high in environmental consciousness will not. Formally, I hypothesize: H5: Placing a consumer in an ambassador role who is low in environmental consciousness, increases the consumer’s prosocial behavior; this effect on prosocial behavior is attenuated for consumers high in environmental consciousness.

Study 7: Field Experiment in a Classroom

This study has three objectives. First, this study replicates the ambassador role’s impact on actual prosocial behavior (vs. intentions). Second, this study investigates the moderating role of environmental consciousness on the relationship between the ambassador effect and prosocial behavior (H5). I expect that inducing an ambassador role will increase prosocial behavior, specifically for consumers who are low in environmental consciousness, but not for those high in environmental consciousness. Third, this study expands the generalizability of the ambassador effect by examining it in a new context. Specifically, I test the ambassador role’s impact on reusable bottle usage. The ambassador role was manipulated by giving all participants a reusable bottle; participants in the ambassador condition were given an additional reusable bottle to give to someone else to use.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (ambassador role: control, ambassador) between-subjects × (measured: environmental consciousness) design. Seventy-two U.S. undergraduates participated 15 (48 females; MAge = 21.03) . On day one of the study, participants reported their environmental consciousness, indicating agreement with the following statements: “humans have the right to

15 Participants were from two sections of a course with the same instructor. Both classes met on Tuesdays and Thursdays; one class began at 9:30 a.m. (control condition), the other at 11:00 a.m. (ambassador role). Participants received course credit, as well as the chance to win a $25 gift card. 26 modify the natural environment to suit their needs (R)” and “humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs (R),” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; r = .30; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Lin and Chang 2012). To manipulate the ambassador role, participants were told [manipulations in square brackets]: “Using reusable bottles for your drinks, instead of disposable, plastic bottles, can be a way to help reduce waste and keep our environment clean. You can help reduce plastic waste by [committing to use reusable bottles / committing to use reusable bottles AND encouraging someone else to use reusable bottles]. As part of this study, you will receive [ONE reusable bottle. This bottle is FOR YOU TO USE to help reduce plastic waste. / TWO reusable bottles. One bottle is FOR YOU TO USE to help reduce plastic waste. The second bottle is FOR YOU TO GIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE TO USE, to encourage them to reduce plastic waste too.]” Participants then received the specified number of reusable bottles. The bottles were silver and plain in design (see appendix D for a photo of the stimulus). Furthermore, on day one participants reported their current reusable bottle usage, rated the attractiveness of the bottle[s] they received (unattractive/attractive; 7-point bi-polar scale), and provided their demographics. Then, participants were given a two-week span to report their reusable bottle usage. I measured bottle usage, asking participants, “Since you received the bottle[s] we gave you, how often have you used a reusable bottle for your drinks?” (0% = never, 100% = always)16. Those in the ambassador condition were also asked to report if they followed through and gave their additional bottle to someone else (86.70% of participants in the ambassador condition complied with this instruction)17. This demonstrates real engagement in the symbolic ambassador act. Lastly, some participants missed the pre-announced start date, causing them to start the study a few days later; I controlled for this delay.

16 I included an instructional attention check that asked participants to select “agree,” (Oppenheimer et al. 2009). I excluded one participant from the analysis who failed the attention check; the pattern of results remains consistent when included. 17 To strengthen the manipulation, those who confirmed that they gave away the additional bottle also reported their relationship to the person that received this bottle. 27 Results

An ANOVA on reusable bottle usage revealed the predicted two-way interaction the between the ambassador role and environmental consciousness factors (F(1, 64) = 4.53, p = .04), 18 see figure 4, supporting H5. The main effect for the ambassador role factor (MControl = 44.07 vs.

MAmbassador = 60.20; F(1, 64) = 7.51, p = .008) was also significant, supporting H1. The environmental consciousness factor (F(1, 64) = 6.85, p = .01) was significant as well. I conducted a floodlight analysis to explain the significant two-way interaction. The Johnson- Neyman (J-N) point reveals that participants with lower levels of environmental consciousness reported significantly greater prosocial behavior when in the ambassador condition (vs. control condition; J-NEnvironmentalConsciousness = 5.00; ß = 12.74, SE = 6.38, p = .05). For those with higher levels of environmental consciousness, there was no significant J-N point, meaning there was no difference in prosocial behavior as a function of the ambassador role.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that the ambassador role increases consumers’ prosocial behavior. Moreover, this study demonstrates that for consumers who are lower on the environmental consciousness scale, the ambassador role increases consumers’ prosocial behavior. However, for consumers who are already quite environmentally conscious, the ambassador role does not influence prosocial behavior. Additionally, this study shows that inducing an ambassador role increases other forms of prosocial behavior (e.g., using reusable drink containers) beyond increasing the use of reusable bags. In my final study, I examine a second moderator of the ambassador effect, a firm’s frontline policy incentive: either penalty- (e.g., charging a fee for using disposable bags) or reward-based (e.g., offering a discount for using reusable bags).

The Moderating Role of Firm Policy: Penalty and Reward as Alternative Incentives

Although both, penalty- and reward-based incentives are used to motivate consumers to engage in prosocial behavior, it is not clear whether positive or negative reinforcement is more

18 As in other studies, I controlled for participants’ current reusable bag usage and attractiveness of the bottle. I also controlled for when participants started the study (0 = late; 1 = on schedule). Eleven participants missed the official start date; five from the control condition and six from the ambassador condition. Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable (p < .001); other controls were non-significant. 28 effective at the organizational frontline (e.g., Ariely et al. 2009; Bénabou and Tirole 2006; Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Gneezy et al. 2011; Lacetera et al. 2012, 2014). While reward- based retail policies often elicit positive responses (Ryu and Feick 2007), penalty-based policies may trigger consumer opposition and unfavorable attitudes (Kim and Smith 2005; McCarthy and Fram 2000; Xia and Kukar-Kinney 2013). This is particularly likely for initiatives that discourage plastic use via fees. For example, in the context of shopping bags, consumers have become accustomed to receiving disposable bags free of charge, and are apt to be taken aback when fined for this traditionally free service. A second conceptual insight also suggests that penalties linked to plastic use have shortcomings. The effectiveness and the negative response triggered by penalties are often a function of the financial incentive’s size; specifically, larger penalties are more likely to alter behavior than smaller penalties (Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Solomon 1964). Because the retail policies I investigate only apply small fees (e.g., a few cents per plastic bag), I expect penalty- based policies to be largely ineffective at influencing consumer behavior; rather, I anticipate a penalty (vs. a reward) will merely cause consumers to be more opposed to the policy, which should result in lower levels of policy commitment (i.e., prosocial behavioral intentions), and a negative spillover into patronage intentions toward the store. Given these risks of penalty-based incentives, I next consider whether the ambassador role can function as a remedy. I propose that the ambassador role will mitigate the negative response to a penalty-based policy. As discussed above, the consumers’ motivation to align their behavior with the induced role of a prosocial ambassador (Ashforth and Humphrey 1997; Becker 1963; Plangger et al. 2013), their warm glow experience, and their enhanced group orientation, should help override the negative response that would otherwise occur with the penalty-based policy. Notably, I also expect that consumers in an ambassador role (vs. not) should be more willing to commit to a penalty-based prosocial policy because compliance with the policy further bolsters their prosocial reputation. More specifically, prior research has shown that costly prosocial behavior can build social reputation and prestige (e.g., Kafashan et al. 2014). Costly signaling theory conceptualizes costly prosocial acts as a communicative signal that not only indicates a person’s altruism, but also the willingness to incur costs related to prosociality; in other words, incidents of public self-sacrifice build status because such acts demonstrate one’s willingness “to incur costs of self-sacrifice for public welfare,” (Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van

29 den Bergh 2010, 394). Therefore, I believe that this reputation-bolstering signal — linked to the ambassador’s willingness to incur the effort and expense of acquiring reusable shopping bags (or drink containers) for themselves and the recipient (thereby shielding the recipient from paying the penalty) — is a powerful influence that further supports the ambassador effect. Accordingly, consumers in an ambassador role should be more motivated to commit to a penalty-based prosocial policy because compliance with the policy offers social reputational rewards (relative to consumers under a penalty-based policy who are not in an ambassador role). In summary, when consumers are not in an ambassador role, they focus on the losses associated with the penalty-based policy, causing opposition (Kim and Smith 2005; McCarthy and Fram 2000; Xia and Kukar-Kinney 2013) and inferiority relative to reward-based policies. However, when consumers are in an ambassador role, the reputational rewards associated with the costly signal mitigates the opposition to the penalty-based policy, causing the differences in commitment (i.e., prosocial behavioral intentions) between penalty- and reward-based policies to be attenuated. For reward-based policies, I do not expect differences in commitment as a function of whether or not a consumer is in an ambassador role because both conditions provide benefits. Because behavior often does not differ as a function of benefit (reward) size, likely due to a ceiling effect (Ryu and Feick 2007), I do not expect one condition to increase commitment (i.e., prosocial intentions) more than the other. In conclusion, I predict that inducing an ambassador role (vs. not) will elicit increased prosocial behavioral intentions (i.e., commitment to the policy) under a penalty-based policy; I do not hypothesize such a difference under a reward-based policy as consumers should be receptive to a positive policy, whether they are in an ambassador role or not. H6: Under a penalty-based policy, placing a consumer in an ambassador role increases the consumer’s prosocial behavioral intentions; this effect on prosocial behavior is attenuated under a reward-based policy. Based on the aforementioned spillover effect from prosocial behavioral intentions onto patronage intentions (cf., H4), I also predict a corresponding effect on patronage intentions in this case. Consumer’s perceptions of store characteristics (e.g., prices, service, atmosphere, facilities, products) influence patronage intentions (Yoo, Park, and MacInnis 1998); specifically, price changes can impact purchase intentions (Homburg, Hoyer, and Koschate 2005). Because a

30 penalty- or reward-based policy is a store characteristic that impacts a consumer’s bill, I expect that a consumer’s response to this policy will spillover onto the store. Thus, patronage intentions should be lower for penalty-based policies, relative to reward-based policies; however, this negative effect should be attenuated when an ambassador role is induced (corollary to H6).

Study 8: Moderation of Firm Policy

Study 8 investigates how a penalty-based retail policy (e.g., a fee for plastic bag use) and reward-based policy (e.g., a discount for reusable bag use) moderates the ambassador effect. I predict that in general, consumers will be less receptive to penalty-based policies in comparison to reward-based policies. More importantly, placing a consumer in an ambassador role should mitigate the negative sentiments associated with the penalty-based policy, increasing commitment to the policy (i.e., prosocial behavioral intentions) and patronage intentions toward the store. Finally, the enhanced commitment to the policy should mediate the relationship between the ambassador role × policy incentive interaction on store patronage intentions. The control and ambassador conditions are manipulated by asking participants to read a scenario in which they received either one reusable bag for themselves (control condition), or they received two reusable bags, one for themselves and one to give to a family member to use (ambassador condition). The penalty-based policy was operationalized via a 5-cent fee added to the consumer’s shopping bill, while the reward-based policy was operationalized via a 5-cent discount on the consumer’s shopping bill.

Design, Participants, and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (ambassador role: control, ambassador) × 2 (policy: penalty, reward) between-subjects design. One hundred and sixty-nine U.S. undergraduates (62 females;

MAge = 20.67) participated in exchange for course credit. The participants were given information about a policy, recently enacted in another city, but likely to spread nationwide soon. They were also informed that the purpose of this policy is to encourage reusable bag usage. Participants were randomly assigned to the [penalty / reward] condition and read19:

19 In a pretest of the policies (N = 70, 19 females; MAge = 20.84), participants were randomly assigned to read the penalty or reward policy and indicate how it motivated consumers (punishment/reward, cost/benefit, loss/gain, disadvantage/advantage, penalty/award; 7-point bi-polar scale). ANOVA (α = .96) revealed that the policies are perceived as intended (MPenalty = 2.87 vs. MReward = 5.91; F(1, 68) = 94.97, p < .001). 31 “In order to encourage the use of reusable bags, this policy states that retail customers will be [charged / offered] a 5-cent [fee / discount] for each [plastic / reusable] bag they use during check-out.” Next, I manipulated two levels of the ambassador role factor in a manner similar to study 2. Participants were randomly assigned to the control condition or the ambassador condition, and read a scenario in which they received the corresponding number of reusable bag(s) outside of a store. Then, I measured participants’ commitment to the policy (i.e., prosocial behavioral intentions), asking them how likely they would be to “promote this policy to others,” and “be committed to the initiative of this policy,” if instituted in their city (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). I measured store patronage intentions with the same items as in study 6. Finally, participants reported current reusable bag usage and answered demographic questions.20

Results

Prosocial Behavioral Intentions. An ANCOVA on commitment to the policy (r = .77) revealed the predicted significant two-way interaction between the ambassador role and policy factors (F(1, 157) = 4.82, p = .03), see figure 5, panel A; the main effects for ambassador role (F(1, 157) = 1.52, p = .22) and policy (F(1, 157) = .23, p = .63) were non-significant21. I conducted planned contrasts to explain the significant two-way interaction. Contrasts revealed that under the penalty-based policy, participants in the ambassador condition were significantly more committed to the policy than those in the control condition (MControl = 3.84 vs. MAmbassador = 4.70; F(1, 157) = 5.17, p = .02). Under the reward-based policy, commitment to the policy did not significantly differ between the ambassador role conditions (MControl = 4.52 vs. MAmbassador = 4.27; F < 1), supporting H6. Patronage Intentions. An ANCOVA on patronage intentions toward the store (r = .95) revealed the predicted significant two-way interaction between the ambassador role and policy factors (F(1, 157) = 6.55, p = .01), see figure 5, panel B; the main effects for ambassador role

20 I included an instructional attention check that asked participants to select “very unlikely,” (Oppenheimer et al. 2009). I excluded seven participants from the analysis, six who failed the attention check and one who indicated s/he already owned 100 reusable bags; the pattern of results remains consistent when they are included. 21 Current reusable bag usage was a significant control variable in the models for commitment to the policy (p < .001) and patronage intentions toward the store (p < .05). 32 (MControl = 4.92 vs. MAmbassador = 5.47; F(1, 157) = 6.18, p = .01) and policy (MPenalty = 4.94 vs.

MReward = 5.45; F(1, 157) = 5.11, p = .03) were also significant. I conducted planned contrasts to explain the significant two-way interaction. Contrasts revealed that under the penalty-based policy, participants in the ambassador condition reported significantly greater store patronage intentions than those in the control condition (MControl = 4.38 vs. MAmbassador = 5.50; F(1, 157) = 11.24, p = .001). Under the reward-based policy, patronage intentions did not significantly differ between the ambassador role conditions (MControl = 5.46 vs. MAmbassador = 5.44; F < 1). Moderated Mediation Analysis. I conducted moderated mediation analysis to examine whether commitment to the policy mediates the effects of the ambassador role × policy interaction on store patronage intentions (Hayes 2013; Process Model 7, 5000 resamples). In the model, the independent variable was ambassador role (control = 0, ambassador = 1), the moderator was policy (penalty = 0, reward = 1), the mediator was commitment to the policy, and the dependent variable was store patronage intentions. The bootstrapping analysis showed that commitment to the policy mediated the effects of the ambassador role × policy interaction on store patronage intentions. The indirect effects excluded zero for the overall moderated mediation path (a × b = -.7050; 95% CI = -1.3866 to -.0472) and the conditional penalty path (a × b = .5502; 95% CI = .0640 to 1.0722), but not the conditional reward path (a × b = -.1547; 95% CI = -.5679 to .2487), supporting H4.

Discussion

This study indicates that consumers report high commitment to reward-based policies, whether an ambassador role is present or not. However, for penalty-based policies, consumers not in an ambassador role report lower commitment to the policy. Interestingly, for consumers in an ambassador role, commitment to a penalty-based policy increases to the level of a reward- based policy, attenuating the difference between penalty- and reward-based policies. The same moderating effects were found for store patronage intentions. Finally, as expected, commitment to the policy (i.e., prosocial behavioral intentions) mediates the ambassador roles’ impact on patronage intentions. These findings are particularly important for firms that are required to use penalty-based policies (due to enforcement by governmental legislation), as I demonstrate that placing a consumer in a prosocial ambassador role mitigates negative sentiments associated with penalty-based policies.

33 General Discussion

Eight experiments (see appendix E for study summaries) examine the ambassador effect, the process driving this effect, its interaction with environmental consciousness, and its influence on penalty- and reward-based retail policies. Study 1 established the ambassador effect, showing that prompting a consumer to personally commit to a prosocial behavior and involve another person in a prosocial initiative increases that consumer’s prosocial behavior. In study 2, I replicated the ambassador effect in a lab-based setting and ruled out the alternative explanation that merely receiving an additional bag could increase willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors. Study 3 replicated the ambassador effect longitudinally, with real prosocial behavior (in comparison to intentions), and real behavior in the social exemplar act (e.g., actually giving away the additional reusable bag). This study also provided initial evidence that the ambassador role enhances consumers’ warm glow. Study 4 examined the two dimensions of the ambassador effect (personal commitment and induced role of social exemplar), demonstrating that both dimensions together boost consumer prosocial behavior, beyond the effects of either dimension alone. Moreover, this study provided additional evidence that warm glow mediates the ambassador role’s influence on prosocial behavior. Study 5 demonstrated a new manipulation of the ambassador effect (e.g., via text messages) and provided initial evidence of group orientation as a second mediator of the ambassador role’s impact on prosocial behavior. Study 6 not only showed that the increase in prosocial behavior from the ambassador role drives consumer patronage intentions, but it also provided deeper insight into the process underlying the ambassador effect, reaffirming the parallel mediators of warm glow and group orientation. Study 7 examined the moderating role of environmental consciousness, demonstrating that inducing an ambassador role increases real prosocial behavior among consumers low (vs. high) in environmental consciousness. Furthermore, this study tested the ambassador effect in a new prosocial context (using reusable bottles), enhancing the effect’s generalizability. Finally, study 8 investigated the moderating role of penalty- versus reward-based policy incentives, demonstrating that under a penalty-based policy, consumers have stronger prosocial behavioral intentions when they are in an ambassador role (vs. not). This change in prosocial behavioral intentions directly influences consumer patronage intentions and mitigates the difference between penalty- and reward-based policies for both consumers’ prosocial behavioral intentions and patronage intentions.

34 Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to consumer-based strategy research and OFR in several ways. First, it introduces the ambassador effect, a novel means to encourage consumer adoption of prosocial marketplace behaviors, and to enhance consumer patronage intentions. Although some prior work has shown that committing to a smaller behavior can enhance larger prosocial behaviors (e.g., towel reuse in hotels, charity donations, volunteering) and healthy food purchases (e.g., Baca-Motes et al. 2013; Kristofferson et al. 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014), my work expands consumer research because it boosts prosocial intentions beyond the capabilities of personal commitment alone. In other words, the ambassador effect’s success is reliant on the evoked role of social exemplar (linked to involving another in a prosocial cause) in addition to personal commitment. Conceptually, traditional personal commitment can be explained by the question-behavior effect, such that asking consumers about a behavior can increase their likelihood to engage in that behavior (Conner et al. 2011; Dholakia 2010). By combining personal commitment with the social role of exemplar, I extend prior work on the question- behavior effect, uncovering a novel question composition that enhances prosocial intentions beyond the traditional question-behavior effect. Second, my research establishes that placing a consumer in an ambassador role causes an increase in the consumer’s warm glow and group-orientation. Extending prior work on prosocial behavior and warm glow (Andreoni 1995; Andrews et al. 2014; Giebelhausen et al. 2016; Habel et al. 2016), I demonstrate that consumers feel a heightened sense of warm glow related to the ambassador role, beyond what they would feel by only engaging in the prosocial behavior themselves. Moreover, I leverage findings from self-categorization theory (Kalish and Robins 2006; Turner et al. 1987) to demonstrate that asking consumers to involve another person in a prosocial behavior can shift consumers’ orientation from individually- to group-oriented. Third, I show that both an increase in (a) warm glow and (b) group-orientation causes prosocial behavior to increase, which boosts consumer patronage intentions. I theorize that consumers partially attribute credit to firms for engaging them in prosocial marketplace behaviors, which increases their patronage intentions toward the focal store. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first work to establish such serial mediation from ambassador role to consumer patronage intentions.

35 Fourth, I contribute to the work on environmental consciousness. Prior work suggests that those high in environmental consciousness identify with, reinforce, and engage in prosocial behaviors (Garvey and Bolton 2017; Kaiser et al. 1999; Lin and Chang 2012; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996). However, this leaves the other end of the spectrum (i.e., those low in environmental consciousness) behaving socially irresponsibly (Garvey and Bolton 2017). Thus, it is of particular importance to better understand how to engage consumers who are not inherently environmentally conscious, as they are in most need of a positive, prosocial influence. In my research I contribute to the understanding of non-environmentally conscious consumers by conceptualizing a unique way to encourage their engagement in prosocial behaviors. I demonstrate that inducing an ambassador role increases prosocial behavior, specifically for those consumers who are not already oriented toward concern for the environment. Fifth, my research contributes to the understanding of behavioral reinforcement theory (Andreasen 2002; Meyer-Waarden and Benavent 2008; Skinner 1953), by specifying conditions under which penalty-based and reward-based financial incentives are most useful, particularly when the goal is to influence prosocial marketplace behaviors. This is important as prior findings on financial incentives’ impact on prosocial behavior remain mixed. For example, research in behavioral economics finds that financial incentives effectively prompt behavioral change (Lacetera et al. 2012, 2014; Meier 2007), whereas findings in psychology suggest that financial incentives can actually reduce prosocial behavior (Ariely et al. 2009; Bénabou and Tirole 2006; Gneezy and Rustichini 2000; Gneezy et al. 2011). I help reconcile this issue by demonstrating that in retail settings (i.e., at the frontline), where penalty-based incentives are often small, reward-based incentives are, in general, more effective. Yet, penalty-based incentives can be just as powerful when consumers are in an ambassador role; that is, the ambassador role mitigates negative responses that otherwise occur with penalty-based incentives.

Managerial Implications

Over the years, plastic production and waste has grown exponentially (Nace 2017); such plastic production and waste can negatively impact firms, not only reputationally, but operationally as well. For example, on average, consumers in the U.S. use approximately 100 billion plastic bags per year (Gamerman 2008), accounting for an estimated annual cost to retailers of four billion U.S. dollars (Szaky 2009). Thus, encouraging consumers to engage in

36 prosocial behaviors, like using reusable bags or reusable containers for their drinks, not only helps protect the environment, but can also benefit firms via cost savings, reputational rewards (Harrison 2019), and new revenue from selling reusable packaging (e.g., bags, bottles; Tice 2013). My research highlights several implications for marketers who are interested in these benefits. First, important to retailers, this research provides a novel form of social influence that frontline employees can easily induce to prompt consumer prosociality, while also supporting cost savings and the firm’s positive reputation among consumers (demonstrated via increased patronage). Providing consumers with a potentially more favorable retail experience, via the positive spillover from enhanced prosocial intentions, will improve reputational capital (Lee and Böttger 2017). Moreover, according to my findings, placing consumers in an ambassador role increases prosocial behavior even without assurance that the consumer followed through with involving another person in the prosocial initiative. This is important for managers to understand, as enacting an ambassador role has no additional costs; it merely requires that a frontline employee encourage consumers to involve another person in a prosocial initiative. Furthermore, this encouragement can come in several, easy to implement different forms. For instance, the consumer can be encouraged to involve another person in a prosocial initiative by 1) giving them something reusable to give to another person, 2) selling them something reusable to give to another person, or 3) asking them to simply communicate with (e.g., text) another person about the benefits of using reusable products. Second, my research gives insight into the types of consumers retailers should target when implementing the ambassador effect. Findings from my research suggests efforts to induce an ambassador role should be spent on consumers who are not already environmentally conscious. Ottman (2010) proposes targeting such consumers can be done by tracking the types of products customers buy as well as the types of eco-labels that are, or are not, on these products. By examining customer purchase data (a practice that a retailer could realistically conduct), a retailer could determine which consumers are less environmentally conscious. Once this step is complete, my research recommends that the retailer implement one of the various strategies to induce an ambassador role among those consumers (e.g., encouraging them to give something reusable to another person or encouraging them to text another person about the

37 benefits of using reusable products). The result should yield increased prosocial behavior among those consumers, which then spills over onto the different firm benefits discussed above. Third, this research highlights two competing forms of reinforcement many retailers already use to encourage prosocial behavior at the frontline: reward- and penalty-based policies in the form of customer discounts (for using reusable bags) and fees (for using plastic bags). My research provides novel insights in this regard because many managers and policies makers are still unclear as to which form of reinforcement is preferable and why. For example, the deputy commissioner of sanitation for recycling and waste reduction in New York exemplifies this uncertainty by questioning whether firms and policy makers should “use a carrot or a stick to change behavior?” (Rosenthal 2013, 1). My findings help answer this question: if firms are able to incur the costs of customer discounts associated with reward-based policies, this form of reinforcement is recommended over penalty-based policies. However, for those retailers that are impacted by government ordinances and are required to implement penalty-based policies, my research suggests that the ambassador effect can help mitigate negative sentiments associated with penalty-based policies. Inducing an ambassador role not only enhances commitment to these penalty-based prosocial policies, but also promises enhanced store patronage.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

My research examined prosocial behavior in the context of reusable shopping bags and bottles, but other types of prosocial behaviors should also be investigated to test the generalizability of the ambassador effect. One such approach is to examine how an ambassador role influences prosocial behaviors that are less tangible than using reusable shopping bags or reusable bottles. For instance, would the ambassador effect enhance donation behavior? With this type of prosocial behavior, upholding the ambassador role may not be as contingent on continuing with the focal behavior, as the consumer in the ambassador role is not required to carry a visual cue (as is the case with a reusable bag or reusable bottle). That is, it is not easy for others to tell if consumers are aligning their behavior with the ambassador role, as giving donations is not as publicly visible as using reusable bags or bottles. Additional research could also examine other boundary conditions of the ambassador effect. For instance, would the effect change if the consumer’s ambassador role was made more apparent to others (e.g., a prosocial ambassador logo is printed on the bag or bottle)? This

38 approach could strengthen the effect by making the ambassador role more salient. Or, it could hinder the effect as Ariely et al. (2009) suggest a highly public display of righteousness could have adversely impact consumers’ prosocial behaviors. Lastly, my work focused on patronage intentions. Future research could broaden the analytical lens and examine how the ambassador effect influences other managerially relevant dependent variables such as satisfaction, quality perceptions, overall spending, evaluation of frontline employees, loyalty, and, most importantly, patronage behavior. Overall, insights from the above proposed future research would help better understand and leverage this novel effect. In the next chapter, I shift my discussion from the impact of socially-induced interactions (i.e., inducing an ambassador role) on consumer behavior at the frontline, to the role of atmospherics (as they relate to olfaction) at the frontline.

Consumer Firm’s Policy Environmental Incentive Consciousness (Penalty/Reward) (E7) (E8)

Consumer H2 H5 H6 Warm Glow (E3, E4, E6) Consumer Ambassador Role Consumer Patronage (Not Present/ H1 Prosocial H4 Intentions Toward Present) Behavior Store (E1 – E8) (E1 – E8) (E6, E8)

Consumer Group Orientation (E5, E6) H3

Note: E1–E8 refer to the experiments that examine the corresponding effects.

Figure 1. The Ambassador Effect: Conceptual Framework

Panel A: Prosocial Behavior (Reusable Bag Usage) 60 50.26 52.14 40.68 41.35 40 27.62 23.58 20 15.88

12.61 Reusable Bag Usage Bag Reusable

0 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Two Bags for Personal Use Ambassador

Panel B: Warm Glow 4.5 4.23 4.18 3.99 4.0 3.82

3.5

3.01 3.00 Warm Glow Warm 3.0 2.89 2.69

2.5 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Two Bags for Personal Use Ambassador

Figure 2. Study 3 Results: Prosocial Behavior (Reusable Bag Usage) and Warm Glow

41 Panel A: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions Panel B: Warm Glow (Reusable Bag Usage)

5.49 5.5 5.5 5.29

5.0 4.86 5.0 4.78 4.73

4.69 4.65 Warm Glow Warm

4.5 4.42 4.5 Reusable Intentions Reusable UsageBag

4.0 4.0 Bag for Self: No Bag for Self: Yes Bag for Self: No Bag for Self: Yes

Bag for Other: No Bag for Other: Yes Bag for Other: No Bag for Other: Yes

Figure 3. Study 4 Results: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions (Reusable Bag Usage) and Warm Glow

20 Reusable Bottle Usage Bottle Reusable

JN = 5.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Environmental Consciousness Control Ambassador

Figure 4. Study 7 Results: Prosocial Behavior (Reusable Bottle Usage)

42 Panel A: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions Panel B: Patronage Intentions (Commitment to the Policy)

5.50 5.46 5.44 5.5 5.5

5.0 5.0 4.70 4.52 4.38 4.5 4.27 4.5

4.0 3.84 Intentions Patronage 4.0 Commitment to to Policy Commitment the 3.5 3.5 Penalty Reward Penalty Reward

Control Ambassador Control Ambassador

Figure 5. Study 8 Results: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions (Commitment to the Policy) and Patronage Intentions

43 CHAPTER 3

ESSAY II. THE ROLE OF OLFACTION ON CONSUMER-BASED STRATEGY AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL FRONTLINE

Considered to be “branding’s final frontier,” (Klara 2012, 1), ambient scenting is an increasingly popular marketing tool for retailers to use at the organizational frontline (e.g., AromaTech 2017; Biswas 2016; Biswas and Szocs 2019) as it is difficult for customers to avoid; scent is present in any environment and retailers can control which scents customers are exposed to. Furthermore, ambient scenting benefits firms as the procedure is highly influential in terms of affecting customers’ emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (e.g., Aggleton and Waskett 1999; Biswas and Szocs 2019; Bitner 1992; Bone and Ellen 1999; Gulas and Bloch 1995; Mattila and Wirtz 2001; Morrin and Ratneshwar 2000, 2003; Orvis 2016; Rimkute et al. 2016). Importantly, scent has also proven to be an effective marketing tool to improve sales. For example, mini- marts that diffused the scent of coffee in their stores saw an increase in coffee sales of 300% (White 2011), and Dunkin’ Donuts managed to increase sales by 29% by dispersing coffee scent on public busses (Annear 2012). Although ambient scents’ influence on consumer behavior can be beneficial to the firm, all scents are not created equal. In other words, effects on consumer behavior differ depending on the type of scents retailers disperse in their store (illustrated in appendices F and G). For instance, prior research suggests the perceived temperature of the scent (Madzharov et al. 2015), the type of food the scent is related to (Biswas and Szocs 2019), and the congruence of the scent with the focal product (Bosmans 2006; Mitchell et al. 1995; Morrin and Ratneshwar 2003), retail setting (Doucé et al. 2016), haptics of the focal product (Krishna et al. 2010), nature of the consumer (Morrin and Chebat 2005), and other atmospherics (Mattila and Wirtz 2001; Spangenberg et al. 2005) differentially impact consumer behavior in various managerially relevant domains (e.g., information search, product evaluations, product choice, variety seeking spending, impulse buying, lingering, evaluations of the store, information search; Madzharov et al. 2015; Mattila and Wirtz 2001; Mitchell et al. 1995; Morrin and Chebat 2005). My research seeks to understand the impact of two scent conceptualizations on consumer-based strategy at the organizational frontline. Specifically, I theorize (1) gender-based

44 ambient scents’ (feminine vs. masculine) and (2) (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ (e.g., chocolate-chip-cookie vs. cotton) impact on consumer behavior, and what that might mean for firms’ frontline strategies. In the rest of this chapter, I present two theoretical frameworks. Framework one, theorizes the moderating effect of consumer gender on gender-based ambient scents’ impact on consumer spending and self-control, the mediating role of self-control, and the moderating effect of product type. Framework two, hypothesizes the impact of (non-)appetizing ambient scents on consumers’ affinity toward vice/virtuous frontline offerings and the moderating role of personal control.

The Effects of Gender-Based Ambient Scents: How Feminine Ambient Scents Affect Male Consumers’ Spending on Status-Signaling Products

Recently, in order to further improve the impact of ambient scenting at the organizational frontline, retailers are striving to employ ambient scents in coordination with another common marketing strategy: segmenting consumers by gender (Berman 2011; Stafford 1996). Specifically, retailers are dispersing scents that are perceived as feminine (e.g., sweet, warm, floral-like) to target female customers, and scents that are perceived as masculine (e.g., earthy, musky, leathery, peppery, tobacco-like) to target male customers (e.g., Air-Scent 2016, 2017; Aluru 2014: Fahmy 2010; Fleming 2015: Networld Media Group 2009; Osborn 2017; Synnott 1991; Wilson 2016). For example, Sony diffused vanilla scent (thought to be feminine; Air-Scent 2016; Spangenberg et al. 2006) in its electronic stores to make female customers feel more at ease, in what might be an intimidating environment, while the smell of bourbon (thought to be masculine; Synnott 1991) was used to attract male customers (Fahmy 2010). Notably, in order to execute this scenting approach on an individual consumer level, companies can use increasingly sophisticated diffusion technologies that dispense fragrances in congruence with a focal customer’s gender (i.e., a male customer would be exposed to a masculine scent and a female customer to a feminine scent; Networld Media Group 2009). These gender-based scenting innovations suggest that retailers rely on the principle of congruence (between a customer’s gender and the scent’s presumed gender) when implementing their ambient scenting strategies (Air-Scent 2016, 2017; Fahmy 2010; Networld Media Group 2009; Ravn 2007; Wilson 2016). Surprisingly little scholarly research has investigated this congruence between the gender of the consumer and the gender of the scent, as appendix F illustrates. Prior research that has

45 specifically examined gender-based ambient scents, tests the effects of ambient scents when they were (in)congruent with the gender of the retail setting (i.e., when the gender-based scent is (in)congruent with the feminine or masculine products of the store; Doucé et al. 2016; Krishna et al. 2010; Spangenberg et al. 2006). However, I am not aware of any research that has investigated the impact of gender-based ambient scents when these scents are (in)congruent with the gender of the consumer. Because retailers are already implementing gender-based scenting strategies, there is an urgent need for marketing research to examine the impact of the congruence between gender-based scents and consumer gender on relevant behavioral marketing outcomes (e.g., customer spending behavior). Against this background, the present research conceptualizes how gender-based ambient scents (i.e., feminine vs. masculine scents) influence consumer behavior at the frontline differently among men and women, particularly as it relates to spending behavior on different product types. Counter to some retailers’ current practice of dispersing gender-based ambient scents that are congruent to the customer’s gender, I propose that male consumers will increase their spending when they are exposed to an incongruent (i.e., feminine) versus a congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scent. In contrast, I predict spending among female consumers will be unaffected by gender-based ambient scents. To further develop this effect, I also hypothesize the mediating role of self-control and the moderating role of product type (status-signaling vs. neutral products). Conceptually grounded in research on mate attraction (e.g., Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Griskevicius et al. 2007; Janssens et al. 2011; Maner et al. 2007; Roney 2003; Saad 2007) and compensatory consumer behavior (e.g., Kenrick 2011; Mandel et al. 2017; Otterbring et al. 2018), my work offers multiple contributions to the consumer-based strategy, OFR, retailing, and marketing literature. First, my research proposes the interplay between gender-based ambient scents and the consumer’s gender. Specifically, I predict that gender-based ambient scents elicit distinct responses among male and female consumers with differing downstream effects on their spending behavior. As such, I theorize a novel moderating effect of consumer gender, which (i) allows for a more nuanced (re-)assessment of the current marketplace perspective that congruent scents are preferable to incongruent scents, and (ii) expands prior gender-based olfaction literature (e.g., Doucé et al. 2016; Krishna et al. 2010; Spangenberg et al. 2006) by revealing the effect of (in)congruence beyond scent-store-congruence or scent-product-congruence.

46 Second, I conceptualize the underlying (mediational) process driving the aforementioned differences in spending among male and female consumers who have been exposed to gender- based ambient scents. I predict that increases in spending among male consumers who are exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scent are driven by reduced feelings of self-control; I suggest that it is the need to reduce the self-discrepancy resulting from a loss of self-control (Mandel et al. 2017) that increases spending among male consumers. This theorizing contributes to the literature on self-control by identifying incongruent gender-based ambient scents as a novel sensory cue that can undermine male self-control, with systematic consequences for subsequent consumption behavior. Third, further demonstrating the nuances of the related psychological process, I theorize the effect across different product types, highlighting an important boundary condition. I hypothesize that male consumers who are exposed to gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) versus gender-congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scents, increase their spending specifically on status- signaling products (vs. neutral products). As such, I contribute to the understanding of compensatory consumption (e.g., Mandel et al. 2017) by suggesting that gender-incongruent ambient scents can cause male consumers to engage in status-oriented consumption. Finally, consistent with the notion of consumer-based strategy (Hamilton 2016), my research links the understanding of ambient scenting and consumer behavior with managerially relevant outcomes (e.g., consumer spending), resulting in substantive and counter-intuitive implications for marketers (further elaboration in the General Discussion). In the remainder of this chapter I develop my conceptual framework (figure 6), which highlights the proposed moderating effect of consumer gender on gender-based ambient scents’ impact on consumer spending (H1) and self-control (H2a), the mediating role of self-control (H2b), and the moderating effect of product type (H3).

The Distinct Impact of Gender-Based Ambient Scents on Male and Female Spending

I propose that male and female consumers will react differently, in terms of their shopping (i.e., spending) behavior, when they are exposed to gender-based ambient scents that are (in)congruent to their gender. Furthermore, I theorize that this distinct effect can be explained by insights related to mate attraction (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Griskevicius et al. 2007;

47 Janssens et al. 2011; Maner et al. 2007; Roney 2003; Saad 2007) and compensatory consumer behavior (Kenrick 2011; Mandel et al. 2017; Otterbring et al. 2018). According to research on mate attraction, gender-based ambient scents can be a means of sexual communication; in other words, gender-based ambient scents can be used as a subtle mating cue (Capparuccini et al. 2010; Doucé et al. 2016; Milinski and Wedekind 2001). Among heterosexual men, exposure to a mating cue of the opposite sex (e.g., feminine scent) can activate a mating goal (Doucé et al. 2016; Maner et al. 2007). Notably, a key aspect of the mating goal is to establish mate attraction (Janssens et al. 2011). Because women tend to prefer mates who are wealthy (i.e., financially prosperous) and ambitious (i.e., have high social status; Buss 1988, 1989; Griskevicius et al. 2007; Kenrick et al. 2001; Otterbring et al. 2018; Saad 2007; Sundie et al. 2011; Wang and Griskevicius 2014), enacting a mate attraction goal often causes men to signal their financial resources and their status (Doucé et al. 2016; Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Roney 2003). Therefore, I theorize that for male consumers, a feminine ambient scent will activate a mating goal, causing them to increase their in-store spending as a means to signal financial wealth and status (Griskevicius et al. 2007; Sundie et al. 2011). In contrast, I do not expect that exposure to gender-based ambient scents will affect spending among female consumers because their mating signals are not typically focused on communicating financial success or status (Buss 1988, 1989; Doucé et al. 2016; Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Roney 2003; Saad 2007). Formally, I hypothesize: H1: When exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) versus gender-congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scent, male consumers will increase their spending behavior; spending behavior among female consumers will be unaffected by the gender of the ambient scent.

The Mediating Role of Self-Control

Research in biology has demonstrated that the presence of an attractive woman can shift men’s focus from long-term consequences to immediate outcomes (Wilson and Daly 2004); in other words, the presence of an attractive woman can undermine self-control among men. This is due to triggering a focus on mate acquisition (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013). Conceptually expanding this insight beyond the physical presence of a woman, I propose that the presence of a

48 pleasant feminine olfactory cue can have a similar effect on self-control among male consumers in a retail environment. Research on mate attraction supports my proposition, suggesting that simply imagining a romantic encounter or partner can trigger a mate acquisition motive (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013). Accordingly, I posit that a feminine ambient scent can play an important role in imagining such a romantic situation as feminine scents elicit feelings of attraction among men (Janssen et al. 2008; Miller and Maner 2010; Singh and Bronstad 2001; Thornhill et al. 2003). In turn, these feelings of attraction should activate a mate acquisition motive, which can alter rational decision making among men (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013). For example, when men are motivated to acquire a mate, they tend to report lower loss aversion (Li et al. 2012), and they increase their risk-seeking as well as their impulsiveness (Baker and Maner 2008; Fisher 2006; Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Knutson et al. 2008; Ronay and Hippel 2010; Wilson and Daly 2004). Because impulsivity and increased risky behavior are believed to be caused by undermined self- control (Freeman and Muraven 2010), I predict feelings of reduced self-control are also driving the specific form of impulsive and risky behavior I suggest: increased spending. Research related to compensatory consumer behavior (Mandel et al. 2017) further supports my proposition that reduced feelings of self-control can lead to increased spending; specifically, insights from this literature suggest negative self-discrepancies (e.g., feelings of reduced self-control) can cause an increase in spending behavior in order to cope with this discrepancy (Madzharov et al. 2015; Mandel et al 2017). In summary, I propose that among male consumers, exposure to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scent will cause a reduction of self-control. This reduction of self-control will then enhance their spending as a compensatory response. In parallel, I do not expect differences in self-control (or spending) among female consumers when they are exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scent because activating a mate acquisition motive among women does not enhance risk-taking as it does among men (Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013). Thereby, the self-control of female consumers should not waver when they are exposed to a masculine ambient scent. I formally predict: H2a: When exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) versus gender-congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scent, male consumers will report lower feelings of self-

49 control; feelings of self-control among female consumers will be unaffected by the gender of the ambient scent. H2b: Lower feelings of self-control will mediate the relationship between consumer gender and gender-based ambient scents’ impact on spending behavior (i.e., self- control mediates this effect for male consumers, but not for female consumers).

The Moderating Role of Product Type: Status-Signaling Products

Status-oriented consumption has received considerable attention in marketing and consumer research (e.g., Bagwell and Bernheim 1996; Chaudhuri and Majumdar 2006; Han et al. 2010; Ordabayeva and Chandon 2010). This literature provides support, twofold, for my prediction that male consumers who are exposed to gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scents will increase their spending specifically on status-signaling (vs. neutral) products. First, consuming status-signaling products is consistent with men’s motive to attract a mate as purchasing these products emphasizes their financial resources and status (Griskevicius et al. 2007; Sundie et al. 2011), which are two major characteristics men seek to display to a potential mate (Buss 1988, 1989; Doucé et al. 2016; Griskevicius et al. 2007; Janssens et al. 2011; Nunes et al. 2011; Otterbring et al. 2018; Roney 2003). Second, research on compensatory consumption suggests that one way to cope with a self-discrepancy is via goal-directed behavior, such that consumers purchase products that directly resolve the focal inconsistency (Mandel et al. 2017). In the context of the present research, I predict a self-discrepancy to occur among male consumers who are exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scent and experience feelings of reduced self- control. Because consuming status-signaling products is one path toward restoring power, which is closely related to self-control (Madzharov et al. 2015; Mandel et al. 2017; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009), increasing spending on status-signaling products might be an effective way to reduce a self-discrepancy related to perceived loss of control. Accordingly, I predict that male consumers will increase their spending on status-signaling (vs. neutral) products in particular, as my theory would suggest such consumption should restore feelings of self-control. Formally, I hypothesize: H3: Spending among male consumers that are exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) versus gender-congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scent will increase, 50 particularly when purchasing status-signaling (vs. neutral) products; spending among female consumers will be unaffected by the gender of the ambient scent and product type.

General Discussion

Retailers are increasingly experiencing competitive pressure to provide (more) engaging shopping experiences (Accenture 2015; Lemon and Verhoef 2016). As a result, retailers and marketers are striving to enhance multi-sensory and atmospheric experiences for their customers in order to differentiate themselves from their competition (e.g., Annear 2012; Biswas et al. 2019; Biswas et al. 2017; Broniarczyk and Hoyer 2006; Carroll 2012; Elliott 2007; Gordon 2006; McGregor 2008; Pfanner 2007; Weitz and Whitfield 2006). Gender-based ambient scents are one emerging tool that retailers can use to manage their atmospherics and servicescape (i.e., the frontline interface; AromaTech 2017; Bitner 1992; Bone and Ellen 1999; Gulas and Bloch 1995; Singh et al. 2017; Spangenberg et al. 1996). This research conceptualizes why and when gender-based ambient scents differentially affect spending behaviors among male (vs. female) consumers. This research offers new theoretical and managerial implications as well as avenues for future research. Theoretical Contributions. Prior literature on gender-based ambient scents in retail has examined the (in)congruence of gender-based ambient scents with the retail setting (i.e., product offerings in the retail environment), but has found mixed effects (e.g., Doucé et al. 2016; Spangenberg et al. 2006). For instance, Spangenberg et al. (2006) found that gender-based ambient scents should be applied to a retail environment congruent with product offerings in order to enhance customer approach behaviors, whereas Doucé et al. (2016) suggest gender- based scents that are incongruent with the retail environment’s product offerings enhance customer-perceived value. Importantly, neither one of these studies focuses on the (in)congruence of gender-based ambient scents with the consumer’s gender. Contributing to this valuable prior work on gender-based ambient scents, the present research suggests that when male consumers encounter a feminine (i.e., gender-incongruent) versus a masculine (i.e., gender-congruent) ambient scent, they tend to spend more, as a means to establish status and signal financial wealth. I also suggest that male consumers report a greater intention to spend money on status-signaling products in the presence of a feminine ambient 51 scent, but this effect is attenuated for neutral products. This further supports the notion that male consumers are engaging in increased spending as a means to establish status. As such, I also contribute to research on compensatory consumption (Mandel et al. 2017) by proposing that exposure to gender-based ambient scents can enhance men’s status-oriented consumption to signal their financial resources. On a related note, the present research also theorizes the mediating role of self-control as a driver for male consumers to spend more at retail when exposed to a gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scent. I suggest that male consumers experience a lower level of self-control in the presence of a feminine (vs. masculine) ambient scent, which results in their spending increase. This insight contributes to the literature on self-control by illustrating the effects of a novel type of sensory cue (i.e., gender-based ambient scents) on self-control. Taken together, my propositions contribute to the literature on the influence of mate attraction/acquisition on consumer behavior (e.g., Buss 1988, 1989; Doucé et al. 2016; Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Roney 2003; Saad 2007). This literature stream suggests that male consumers may engage in behaviors that tend to be more impulsive, risk-taking, and conspicuous in nature when a mate acquisition goal has been activated; in contrast, female consumers’ impulsivity, risk-taking, and conspicuous consumption are relatively unaffected by activation of a mate acquisition goal. Consistent with these insights, my research suggests that gender-based ambient scents can function as a unique catalyst for male consumers’ mate attraction goal in retail settings. On a theoretical level, such conceptualization is noteworthy because prior research suggests that female consumers are more sensitive to olfactory cues than male consumers, as women are believed to rely on environmental olfactory cues to a higher degree than men (Biswas 2016). These prior insights notwithstanding, my predictions suggest that it might be fruitful for marketing scholars to more carefully (re-)consider when, why, and how male consumers might be more sensitive than female consumers to olfactory cues in consumption settings. Moreover, I note that olfactory cues have received relatively less attention (e.g., compared to visual cues) from marketing scholars and managers alike. However, recent scientific studies show that the human olfactory sense can differentiate up to one trillion olfactory stimuli (Bushdid et al. 2014) and that humans might detect gender-specific and age-specific olfactory cues, albeit not necessarily on a conscious level (Zhou et al. 2014). Against the background of

52 these discoveries, my theorizing not only points to numerous fruitful avenues for marketing theory but also to an increasingly nuanced management approach (i.e., consumer-based strategy) of olfactory cues in the retail sector and at the organizational frontline. Managerial Implications. Although the diffusion of gender-based ambient scents is increasingly prevalent in the retail space, current strategies of implementation are diverse. For instance, some retailers implement scenting strategies based on the (in)congruence of gender- based ambient scents with customer gender (e.g., Air-Scent 2016, 2017; Fahmy 2010; Networld Media Group 2009; Wilson 2016), while other retailers are opting for unisex ambient scents instead (e.g., Ambercrombie & Fitch; Ackerman 2017; Minton 2017; Mychaskiw 2017). Helping address this diversity of implementation, the present research offers meaningful and actionable implications to aid retail managers in the application of gender-based ambient scents at the organizational frontline. My theorizing suggests gender-based ambient scents can be a useful instrument to influence consumer spending, as gender-incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scents increase spending among male consumers, particularly on status-signaling products. This insight suggests that retailers can strategically diffuse feminine ambient scents in the retail space, or even on a customer-by-customer basis, to male consumers individually. In parallel, it is important for managers to carefully consider potential outcomes (both positive and negative) of each gender-based ambient scent on multiple performance metrics. Retailers may need to take caution by examining how implementing gender-based ambient scenting could affect their relationship with their customers in the long-term. For example, relying on one particular gender-based ambient scent (e.g., feminine scent) could risk controversy and gender discrimination as has been experienced by some retailers in the past (e.g., Ambercrombie & Fitch; Ackerman 2017; Minton 2017; Mychaskiw 2017). Additionally, the strategy to expose male customers to feminine scents could have unintended consequences as impulse purchases (resulting from feelings of reduced self-control) can result in subsequent regret (Baumeister 2002), which may undermine customer re-patronage (Tsiros and Mittal 2000). As this notion requires (longitudinal) empirical research, retailers that use gender-based ambient scents seem well-advised to monitor customer responses over time. Nevertheless, despite these cautionary reflections, gender-based ambient scenting strategies offer an opportunity to increase spending among male customers in the short-term.

53 Avenues for Future Research. My research theorizes the effect of gender-based ambient scents on (male) consumers’ spending; besides its theoretical and managerial implications, it offers avenues for future research. A natural first step would be to test my hypotheses empirically. Second, my research conceptualizes the positive effect of incongruent (i.e., feminine) ambient scents on male consumers’ consumption behavior, but it did not focus on the potentially positive effects of congruent (i.e., masculine) ambient scents on male consumers’ consumption behavior. Future research might examine whether diffusing a specific type of masculine scent may effectively restore (or boost) self-control among male consumers, resulting in lower relative spending, but potentially a stronger customer relationship with the retailer and its brand (Baumeister 2002; Tsiros and Mittal 2000). Third, another avenue for future research is to uncover the impact of gender-based ambient scents on affect, cognition, and behavior of female consumers. Although I did not theorize that gender-based ambient scents impact spending on status-signaling products among women, there could be other relevant consumption outcomes that gender-based scents do impact. For instance, among women masculine scents may specifically increase consumption of appearance enhancing products (e.g., make-up, fitness, skin care, or teeth whitening products) as a means to appeal to men’s attraction needs (Buss 1988, 1989; Doucé et al. 2016; Durante et al. 2011; Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Roney 2003; Saad 2007). Fourth, recognizing limitations of an evolutionary approach toward consumer behavior (e.g., Cohen and Bernard 2013), I note that the notion of gender and mate attraction deserves a more nuanced consideration. In my research, I theorize the impact of self-reported gender (male or female). However, gender identity and sexual orientation are not dichotomous variables (Epstein et al. 2012; Westbrook and Saperstein 2015), they are fluid. Rather, consumers may have a gender identity that is different than their biological sex, and consumers may have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. As a result, research could examine the effect of gender-based ambient scents on varying levels of consumers’ gender identity and sexual orientation (e.g., see Palan 2001; Palan et al. 1999; Stern 1988). For example, gender identity might moderate the effects of gender-based ambient scents (Palan et al. 1999), in that gender- based ambient scents may influence spending as proposed above, specifically for those consumers whose biological sex is consistent with their gender identity.

54 Finally, additional research could further integrate the existing literature on gender-based ambient scents by examining which congruence effects are most powerful at the organizational frontline. For example, Doucé et al. (2016) and Spangenberg et al. (2006) highlight the importance of matching (vs. not matching) the retailer’s ambient scent to the gender of the retail setting; in contrast, I suggest the importance of not matching the ambient scent to the gender of the customer. However, if a retailer can only choose one strategy, which is more beneficial overall? Certainly, such insights from future research would help to better understand and leverage effects of gender-based ambient scents. In the latter half of this chapter, I develop my theoretical framework for (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ impact on consumers’ affinity toward firms’ vice and virtuous offerings.

The Effects of (Non-)appetizing Ambient Scents on Consumers’ Affinity Toward Vices and Virtues

Leveraging the benefits of ambient scenting, some firms disperse appetizing ambient scents (i.e., scents that are pleasant and stimulating to the appetite in that they are physiologically arousing and can initiate instinctual, spontaneously driven approach behaviors; Li 2008) at their frontline (e.g., Brissette 2018; CBS News 2011; Hoppough 2006; Mui 2006; Vlahos 2007). The hospitality and grocery industries for instance, utilizes appetizing scenting strategies as the Hard Rock Hotel in Orlando diffuses waffle-cone and sugar-cookie scent in their establishment, the Doubletree Hotels diffuse chocolate-chip-cookie scent at their locations, and several grocers, such as the NetCost supermarket in Brooklyn, NY, expose their customers to apple-pie or chocolate-chip-cookie scent (Brissette 2018; CBS News 2011; Hoppough 2006). Retailers’ hopes are that implementing such a scenting strategy will increase consumer lingering, indulgence, and spending at the organizational frontline (Air-Scent 2017; Hoppough 2006) as appetizing ambient scents (e.g., vanilla, chocolate, cookie, etc.), are thought to cause shoppers to engage in consumption impatience (i.e., tendency to prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards) and unplanned purchases (Li 2008). In other words, appetizing scents can enhance consumers’ affinity toward vice options (i.e., ‘wants,’ that are tempting because they provide immediate, short-term gratification and pleasure, but may have negative long-term effects; Chernev and Gal 2010; Milkman et al. 2008; Mishra and Mishra 2011; Okada 2005; Wertenbroch 1998).

55 However, the literature on the effects of appetizing ambient scents has mixed findings. For instance, some research supports the notion that appetizing scents enhance consumer indulgence (e.g., Doucé, et al. 2013; Li 2008; Moore 2014), whereas other research suggests the opposite, that appetizing scents reduce consumer indulgence (e.g., Coelho et al. 2009). Recent work from Biswas and Szocs (2019) has begun rectifying these discrepancies, demonstrating that indulgent appetizing ambient scents (e.g., cookie scent), versus no scent or non-indulgent appetizing scents (e.g., strawberry scent) increase vice consumption when exposure to the scent is short, but reduce vice consumption when exposure to the scent is extended. Still, more work is needed to reconcile this literature on the effects of appetizing ambient scents in the retail space. Moreover, as appendix G illustrates, little scholarly research has examined the effects of appetizing scents’ conceptual opposite, non-appetizing ambient scents (defined in this research as scents that are still pleasant, but not stimulating to the appetite in that they are not physiologically arousing and instead, initiate deliberate, consciously driven approach behaviors). For example, a scent such as fresh linen or cotton could be considered non-appetizing; these scents are pleasant and peaceful (i.e., physiologically calming; Heffernan 2015), and thereby can provide a consumer with the cognitive capacity to engage in deliberate decision making. Because some firms like Aaron’s (a furniture store) and Thomas Pink (an upscale British retailer), are currently utilizing non-appetizing scents in their retail space (Elejalde-Ruiz 2014; Vlahos 2007), and scent marketing experts are recommending the use of non-appetizing scents to industries that are known to use appetizing scents (e.g., the hospitality industry; Air-Scent 2016), there is also an urgent need for marketing research to examine the impact of non-appetizing ambient scents on consumer behavior. Insights from such research can inform marketers when to use non- appetizing scents over appetizing scents. Although Mitchell et al. (1995) test what I would deem to be pleasant, appetizing and non-appetizing scents in their research, these authors do not conceptualize the scents as so. In this work, the authors compare how (in)congruence between the scents and the product class impact consumer behavior. As such, they do not compare the effects of the scents based on their appetizing (vs. non-appetizing) nature. Currently, I am not aware of any research that conceptualizes what a non-appetizing ambient scent is, nor any work that compares the effects of appetizing ambient scents with those of non-appetizing ambient scents.

56 Against this background, the present research further hypothesizes the impact of pleasant, appetizing ambient scents, theorizing their influence on consumers’ affinity (i.e., preference displayed via increased attitude, attention, recall, product selection, purchasing behavior, loyalty, etc.) toward vice offerings and virtuous offerings (i.e., ‘shoulds,’ that are a responsible, sensible choice, may have positive long-term effects, and are good for the consumer, but may not provide immediate pleasure; Chernev and Gal 2010; Milkman et al. 2008; Mishra and Mishra 2011; Okada 2005; Wertenbroch 1998). In addition, the current research proposes that pleasant, non- appetizing scents can counteract the effects of appetizing scents, not only by reducing vice product preferences, but by also increasing virtuous product preferences. Finally, this research suggests that personal control (i.e., consumers’ perceived ability to have influence over the outcomes in their life; Burger 1989; Cutright 2011; Scott and Nenkov 2016; Skinner et al. 1988) moderates (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ impact on affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings. In particular, I suggest that the impact of (non-)appetizing ambient scents on consumers’ affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings is attenuated when consumers’ feel a strong sense of personal control. That is, when consumers are primed to be in a state of high personal control, their desires for vice offerings should be low in either scent condition (i.e., no differences) and their desire for virtuous offerings should be high in either scent condition, suggesting that personal control negates the effects of appetizing ambient scents on indulgence, causing appetizing scents to operate the same as non-appetizing scents. Grounded conceptually in the hot-cool system (a dual systems model; Metcalfe and Mischel 1999) and the literature on personal control (Burger 1989; Cutright 2011; Scott and Nenkov 2016; Skinner et al. 1988), my work offers multiple contributions to consumer-based strategy, OFR, and the retailing and marketing literature. First, this research adds to work on olfactory marketing at the organizational frontline by further examining appetizing scents’ impact on vice consumption, helping reconcile the conflicting findings of prior work (Doucé, et al. 2013; Coelho et al. 2009; Li 2008; Moore 2014). Furthermore, this research proposes a novel (non-appetizing) scent conceptualization that can not only combat the effects of appetizing scents, but reverse them so that consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings shifts to virtuous offerings. Although prior work (Biswas and Szocs 2019; Doucé, et al. 2013; Li 2008; Moore 2014) suggests appetizing scents can influence consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings, my

57 work would be the first to propose that the conceptual opposite, non-appetizing ambient scents, can attenuate this effect as well as drive desires for virtuous offerings. Second, my research contributes to the olfaction (e.g., Krishna 2012; Mitchell et al. 1995; Rimkute et al. 2016; Spangenberg et al. 1996) and personal control (e.g., Burger 1989; Cutright 2011; Scott and Nenkov 2016; Skinner et al. 1988) literature by proposing that priming personal control can render the differences in affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings — caused by (non-)appetizing ambient scents — obsolete; thus, I highlight a unique boundary condition that can attenuate effects of olfaction. Specifically, my work suggests that priming personal control overrides effects of ambient scent altogether, causing exposure to either appetizing or non- appetizing scents to decrease (increase) consumer desires for vice (virtuous) offerings. Finally, in support of consumer-based strategy (Hamilton 2016), my research provides marketers with a way to adapt the frontline interface (via olfactory inputs) and marketing communications (via promoting personal control) to influence consumers’ interactions with vice and virtuous offerings. Depending on a retailer’s product offerings, or the products they are motivated to sell during a particular time of year/day, influencing consumer affinity toward vices or virtues via altering ambient scent and priming personal control can benefit firm outcomes. As a result, my work provides substantive implications for marketers (to be elaborated upon in the General Discussion). Next, I develop my conceptual framework (figure 7), highlighting (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ proposed impact on affinity toward vice/virtuous offerings (H1) and the moderating role of personal control (H2).

The Hot-Cool System

Broadly, research on dual systems theory suggests that consumers engage in two types of processing that inform their behavior (e.g., Evans 2006, 2008; Kahneman and Frederick 2002; Klaczynski 2000, 2001; Stanovich 1999). The hot-cool system is specific type of parallel, dual system model that delineates between two processing states (hot and cool) as a way to explain when willpower is likely to be enabled or undermined (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999; Yang et al. 2012). A hot state is driven by visceral urges that often arise from sensory inputs (e.g., ambient scents) and is characterized by processing that is unconscious, emotional, automatic, associative, and fast (Li 2008; Zajonc 1980). As a result, hot states tend to undermine willpower. A cool state

58 is free of visceral urges and characterized by processing that is conscious, deliberative, slow, rational, and reflective (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999). As a result, activating a cool state can cause consumers to weigh short-term and long-term consequences of their behaviors (Li 2008; Yang et al. 2012), thereby enabling willpower and improving decision making. Hot Spots and Cool Nodes. These dual states are activated via stimuli that are characterized by hot (i.e., hot spots) and cool (i.e., cool nodes) qualities (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999). A hot spot is defined as the visceral “feelings” attached to a stimulus, whereas a cool node is connected to the informational, contextual, and consequential characteristics of a stimulus (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999). In contrast to hot spots, the cool nodes of a stimulus provide the consumer with objective knowledge about the state (hot or cool) of the stimulus, without putting the consumer in that particular state. Any stimulus (whether hot or cool overall) simultaneously has both hot spots and cool nodes. In other words, hot spots and cool nodes represent different fragments or features of a stimulus. For example, the varying levels (from low to high) of pleasure, excitement, or appetitive feelings that are associated with both vice and virtuous offerings would be considered the offerings’ hot spots. In contrast, the objective information in relation to nutritional value, size, shape, color, or price attached to a vice or virtuous offering would be considered its cool nodes. I make the argument that vice offerings have superior (i.e., more desirable) hot spots to virtuous offerings as vice offerings are associated with short-term hedonic feelings of indulgence and impulse, whereas virtuous offerings lack hedonic feelings of indulgence and are instinctively less emotionally gratifying or appealing (Milkman et al. 2008; Okada 2005; Wertenbroch 1998). In contrast, virtuous offerings should have superior cool nodes as they are often associated with self-regulation (Kivetz and Zheng 2006; Wertenbroch 1998), health benefits, high nutritional value, positive long-term outcomes, and considered a more reasoned, cognitively preferred choice; in opposition, vice offerings are characterized by poor health benefits, low nutritional value, and negative long-term consequences (Milkman et al. 2008; Okada 2005; Wertenbroch 1998; Wertenbroch et al. 2005). Although vice and virtuous offerings may vary in their hot spot or cool node strength, either type of stimulus fragment can be utilized for judgement and decision making. For instance, when evaluating the decision to consume chocolate cake, the consumer can focus on the positive affect and hedonic rewards it offers (i.e., it’s hot spots), or the consumer can focus on its

59 objectively poor nutritional value and high caloric content (i.e., it’s cool nodes; Bagchi and Block 2011; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999; Xie et al. 2016). In contrast, for a fruit salad, a consumer can base evaluations off of the salad’s lack of positive affect and hedonic rewards, and bland, less than exciting taste (i.e., it’s hot spots), or its high nutritional value and low caloric content (i.e., it’s cool nodes; Bagchi and Block 2011; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999; Xie et al. 2016). Focus on either a stimulus’ hot spots or cool nodes allows for the respective dual state to be activated. In other words, the two processing systems can operate in parallel whereby each system has access to distinct forms of knowledge that can result in competing attempts to adjust behavior (Klaczynski 2000, 2001; Reber 1993; Sloman 1996). The activation of one state over the other is dependent on the consumers’ focus, whether it is on the hot qualities (hot state activation) or cool qualities (cool state activation) of the stimulus. Appetizing Scents and the Hot State. Because appetitive stimuli are believed to make hot spots salient (Li 2008; Metcalfe and Mischel 1999), I predict the presence of an appetizing ambient scent (one type of appetizing stimuli; Li 2008) will cue consumers to focus on the hot spots of other, present stimuli, such as vice and virtuous offerings. Focus on the hot qualities gives rise to an emotional, hot response. Activation of the hot system should enhance consumers’ desire to indulge, resulting in an increased affinity toward vice offerings as they have superior hot nodes in comparison to virtuous offerings. As an instinctive state, the hot state’s impact on affinity toward vice offerings should begin via enhancing automatic, physiological outcomes such as visual attention, thereby increasing consumers’ recognition of vice offerings (Lwin et al. 2012). Increased visual attention should then enhance recall of other, semantically congruent visual cues (i.e., advertisements promoting vice products), driving desire for vice offerings, and increasing attitudes toward stores offering vice products. Formally, I predict: H1a: Pleasant appetizing ambient scents increase consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings. Non-appetizing Scents and the Cool State. In contrast, highlighting cool characteristics of a stimulus via exposure to other stimuli can effectively activate the cool system and override the hot system (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999). One way to highlight cool characteristics, is by removing the consumers’ perception of the stimulus’ hot spots, thereby isolating the cool nodes to drive processing (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999). As the conceptual opposite of a pleasant appetizing ambient scent, I propose that pleasant non-appetizing ambient scents highlight the

60 cool nodes of vice and virtuous offerings by neutralizing their appetitive, hot counterparts. A non-appetizing scent should negate instinctual, hot desires of the consumer, drawing their attention away from the hot spots of a vice or virtuous offering. As a result, the consumer should be left with a foundation of rational evaluation of the offerings’ cool nodes. In other words, the cool nodes should stand alone as the stimuli’s qualities of reference for evaluation. Because activation of the cool system enhances self-control and decision making (Metcalfe and Mischel 1999), consumers’ affinity should shift from vice offerings to virtuous offerings as virtuous offerings should have superior cool nodes that align more strongly with self-regulation and are objectively a better benefit to the consumer. Therefore, I hypothesize: H1b: Pleasant non-appetizing ambient scents decrease consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings and increase consumers’ affinity toward virtuous offerings.

The Moderating Role of Personal Control

Personal control is defined as consumers’ perceived ability to alter events in order to attain desired outcomes and prevent undesired outcomes (Burger 1989; Scott and Nenkov 2016; Skinner et al. 1988). Additionally, enhanced personal control reduces feelings of randomness/chaos and increases feelings of confidence/competence (Cutright 2011; Scott and Nenkov 2016). Thus, when consumers are in a state of high perceived personal control, this should trigger reminders that they are responsible for the successes and failures in their life (Abramson et al. 1978). This includes whether they resist indulgence and make more virtuous consumption decisions (i.e., success) or give in to indulgence and avoid virtuous consumption decisions (i.e., failure). As a result, I predict personal control can be an effective way to attenuate indulgent effects of appetizing ambient scents. Heightened personal control should override visceral reactions from ambient scents by reminding consumers of their ability to enact restraint in order to achieve the desired outcome of virtuous (vs. vice) consumption. Thus, indulgent effects of appetizing scents are reduced and differences among scent conditions in affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings are attenuated. Formally, I propose: H2: Under neutral personal control, (a) pleasant appetizing ambient scents increase consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings and (b) pleasant non-appetizing ambient scents decrease consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings and increase

61 consumers’ affinity toward virtuous offerings. Under high personal control, effects on consumers’ affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings are attenuated.

General Discussion

Due to the pressure to differentiate themselves from their competitors, retailers are looking for novel ways to enhance consumers’ shopping experiences (Accenture 2015; Broniarczyk and Hoyer 2006; Lemon and Verhoef 2016; Weitz and Whitfield 2006). One strategy firms have taken to gain a competitive edge is to provide consumers with more sensory and atmospheric experiences at the organizational frontline (e.g., Annear 2012; Biswas et al. 2019; Biswas et al. 2017; Bone and Ellen 1999; Broniarczyk and Hoyer 2006; Carroll 2012; Elliott 2007; Gordon 2006; McGregor 2008; Pfanner 2007; Weitz and Whitfield 2006). An approach to manage atmospherics at the frontline that retailers are recommended to use, and are currently utilizing, is to expose customers to (non-)appetizing ambient scents (Air-Scent 2016; Brissette 2018; CBS News 2011; Elejalde-Ruiz 2014; Hoppough 2006; Mui 2006; Vlahos 2007). As a result, this research conceptualizes when (non-)appetizing ambient scents differentially affect consumers’ affinity toward vice and virtuous firm offerings, and how these effects change as a function of the consumer’s personal control. This research offers new theoretical and managerial implications as well as avenues for future research. Theoretical Contributions. Prior research on the effects of appetizing ambient scents on vice options reports conflicting results. Some of the literature suggests appetizing scents increase consumers’ desire to indulge (i.e., affinity toward vice offerings; Doucé, et al. 2013; Li 2008; Moore 2014), whereas other research suggests exposure to appetizing scents can enact counteractive control, causing self-control processes to activate, whereby consumers engage in less indulgence (Coelho et al. 2009). Although some research has begun to reconcile these conflicting findings (e.g., Biswas and Szocs 2019), more work is needed on the effects of appetizing ambient scents at the frontline. Moreover, prior research has compared the effects of appetizing scents to no scent (e.g., Baron 1997; Coelho et al. 2009; Doucé et al. 2013; Li 2008; Moore 2014; Vinitzky and Mazursky 2011) and compared different types of appetizing scents to one another (Biswas and Szocs 2019), but there is very little work that investigates the impact of appetizing ambient scents in comparison to their conceptual opposite, non-appetizing ambient scents. Of the minimal amount of work that has examined both appetizing and non-appetizing

62 scents, it has not conceptualized the scents as so, and therefore did not compare effects directly (Mitchell et al. 1995). Contributing to this valuable prior work, my research supports the notion that appetizing ambient scents do in fact increase consumer indulgence, in the form of increased affinity toward vice offerings. I also propose that scents can be conceptualized as non-appetizing (in addition to appetizing), in that they are pleasant, but not stimulating to the appetite as they are not physiologically arousing, and instead, initiate deliberate, consciously driven approach behaviors. I predict that exposure to a non-appetizing ambient scent will not only attenuate appetizing scents’ influence on indulgence (i.e., affinity toward vice offerings), but will also reverse this effect by driving an increase in consumers’ self-regulation (i.e., affinity toward virtuous offerings). Taken together, this work contributes to the theory of dual systems (e.g., Evans 2006, 2008; Kahneman and Frederick 2002; Klaczynski 2000, 2001; Metcalfe and Mischel 1999; Stanovich 1999; Yang et al. 2012). In particular, it adds to work on the hot-cool system by proposing a novel set of sensory cues (i.e., (non-)appetizing ambient scents) that can act as an initiator of the hot and cool system. My work also connects the hot-cool system to consumer- relevant, frontline outcomes (e.g., preferences for vice and virtuous offerings, displayed via increased attitude, attention, recall, product selection, purchasing behavior, loyalty, etc.). Lastly, in addition to contributing to the literature on olfaction (e.g., Krishna 2012; Mitchell et al. 1995; Rimkute et al. 2016; Spangenberg et al. 1996), this work contributes to research on personal control (e.g., Burger 1989; Cutright 2011; Scott and Nenkov 2016; Skinner et al. 1988). My work suggests that priming personal control can attenuate the differences in effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents. I propose that when consumers are primed to have high personal control, they have a stronger affinity toward virtuous offerings, and weaker affinity toward vice offerings, regardless of the scent they are exposed to; suggesting that priming personal control overrides effects of ambient scent. This insight contributes to the literature on olfaction and personal control by illustrating personal control’s novel moderating effects on the sensory cue of olfaction. Managerial Implications. Although diffusing ambient scent at the organizational frontline is becoming an increasingly common practice, the types of scents utilized are diverse (Hoppough 2006). Of importance to this particular work, is use of appetizing and non-appetizing scents. Brands such as the Hard Rock Hotel, Doubletree Hotels, Cinnabon, Sony, H.H. Gregg (an

63 appliance retailer), and NetCost supermarket (Brissette 2018; CBS News 2011; Hoppough 2006; Tischler 2005) are exposing their customers to appetizing scents, whereas retailers like Aaron’s and Thomas Pink are diffusing non-appetizing scents at their frontline (Elejalde-Ruiz 2014; Vlahos 2007). Though their scent selection differs, their goal is the same: to encourage consumer spending at the organizational frontline (Air-Scent 2017; Hoppough 2006). However, it is unclear under which circumstances dispersing an appetizing or non-appetizing scent would be ideal to reach a retailer’s goal of improving sales. Providing insights to consumer-based strategy (Hamilton 2016), my research offers firm recommendations of best (non-)appetizing scenting practices. In particular, my work suggests that retailers who either explicitly provide vice offerings (e.g., casinos, liquor stores, candy shops, fast food establishments, tobacco retailers; Bradley 2013; Braithwaite 2005; Chernev and Gal 2010; Ferguson 2017;) or have vice offerings in their product set that need to be sold (e.g., grocery stores during the month of October and November that need to move their inventory of Halloween candy) should diffuse appetizing ambient scents at their frontline. In contrast, retailers who explicitly offer virtuous offerings (e.g., fitness stores, vitamin shops, organic grocers; Bezawada and Pauwels 2013; Braithwaite 2005; Chernev and Gal 2010; Lee et al. 2011) or have virtuous offerings in their product set that need to be sold (e.g., department stores in February that need to move their increased fitness inventory after the novelty of consumers’ New Year’s resolutions has faded) should expose their customers to non-appetizing ambient scents. In parallel, my research provides managerial insights as to how (non-)appetizing olfactory cues might integrate with frontline communications that promote personal control. It is important for managers to be aware of how marketing communications (e.g., point-of-purchase displays, print advertisements, commercial advertisements, etc.) that prime consumers to have high personal control may interact with, and override the outcomes they intended to influence by exposing their customers to an appetizing or non-appetizing ambient scent. For example, if Mirania Group, a real estate developer in India, is utilizing an appetizing scenting strategy (the real estate industry is known to diffuse chocolate-chip-cookie scent in homes that are for sale; Vlahos 2007), with the hope to promote indulgence so that buyers are more likely to select elaborate, higher priced homes, my research would suggest Mirania should remove any print ads from the homes for show, that have copy priming personal control. Specifically, I would recommend the removal of Mirania Group’s print ad that reads: “You can take control of your

64 destiny and be happy! Live a happy life with Mirania Homes.” (Mirania Group 2017, 1). Exposing potential buyers to an ad like this would override the effects of ambient scent, attenuating the scent’s impact on indulgence. Nonetheless, (non-)appetizing ambient scenting strategies offer an opportunity to increase consumers’ approach toward vice and virtuous offerings, though their effects are nuanced as they are dependent on the consumers’ level of personal control; thus, stimuli that may impact personal control should be considered before implementing a (non-)appetizing a scenting strategy. Avenues for Future Research. My research theorizes the effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents on consumers’ affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings; besides its theoretical and managerial implications, it offers avenues for future research. A natural first step would be to test my hypotheses empirically. Second, my research proposes a boundary condition of (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ impact on affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings, but does not theorize the mechanism driving these effects. Future research should investigate the psychological process driving consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings when exposed to an appetizing scent, as well as the process driving consumers’ affinity toward virtuous offerings when exposed to a non-appetizing scent. Interestingly, it could be that the process driving each scents’ impact on consumer affinity is unique. A third avenue for future research could examine other boundary conditions of the effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents. For example, how does the salience of the scent impact consumers’ affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings? In other words, do (non-)appetizing ambient scents have the same impact on affinity when consumers consciously recognize the presence of the scent? It could be that enhancing the scents’ salience bolsters their effects, causing a stronger activation of the hot-cool system. Or, it could be that increased salience attenuates their effects as prior research suggests people typically consider their initial reaction to a stimuli to be genuine, but as the salience of another source (e.g., ambient scent) increases, people become aware of the additional source’s impact on their initial reaction (Bosmans 2006; Pham 1998; Schwarz and Clore 1983). As a result, the effect of the additional source is discredited, and their reaction adjusted (Bosmans 2006). Finally, my research focused on (non-)appetizing ambient scents’ impact on affinity toward vice and virtuous offerings. Future research could broaden my theoretical lens to other

65 managerially relevant dependent variables. For instance, can the hot-cool system that drives the influence of (non-)appetizing ambient scents also influence consumers’ attention to colors in the retail space? If appetizing ambient scents activate the hot system, should consumers be naturally drawn to hot colors (e.g., reds, oranges, yellows)? And if non-appetizing ambient scents enact the cool system, will consumers be drawn to cool colors (e.g., greens, blues, purples)? Such insights could prove quite valuable to retailers and marketers when developing advertisement color schemes, designing product packaging, or deciding where to display particular products (dependent on each department’s scenting strategy). Overall, insights from the above proposed future research would certainly help better understand and leverage (non-)appetizing ambient scenting strategies at the organizational frontline.

66 Consumer Gender Product Type (Male/Female) (Status-Signaling/Neutral)

H2 Self-Control

Gender-Based Ambient Scent Spending (Feminine/Masculine) H1

Figure 6. Gender-Based Ambient Scents: Conceptual Framework

Personal Control (Neutral/High)

Ambient Scent H1 Affinity Toward Offerings (Non-/Appetizing) (Vice/Virtuous)

Figure 7. (Non-)appetizing Ambient Scents: Conceptual Framework

67 CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Answering the call for additional work in consumer-based strategy (Dahl 2016) and OFR (Singh et al. 2017), this dissertation examined social and atmospheric factors that influence managerially-relevant consumer behavior at the organizational frontline. In Essay I, I conceptualized the ambassador effect, which leverages a novel, socially-induced pre- commitment to encourage consumer prosociality at the frontline. Specifically, I demonstrated that frontline employees can prompt prosocial behavior by encouraging consumers (a) to engage in a prosocial behavior and (b) to involve another person in the same prosocial behavior. I find that this increase in consumer prosociality has positive implications for store patronage. Furthermore, I revealed the underlying process of the ambassador effect (enhanced warm glow and group orientation), as well as the moderating roles of consumer environmental consciousness and firms’ policy incentives. With these discoveries I bridge the gap between OFR and transformative consumer research (Mick et al. 2012), while simultaneously informing consumer- based strategy via unique methods to improve the success of firms’ prosocial initiatives. In the second half of this dissertation, Essay II conceptualized the influence of two frontline, atmospheric scenting strategies: diffusing (1) gender-based ambient scents and (2) (non-)appetizing ambient scents. In particular, I proposed that gender-based ambient scents elicit distinct responses among male and female consumers. For instance, male consumers spend more (on status-signaling vs. neutral products) when exposed to a gender-incongruent (vs. gender- congruent) ambient scent, whereas female consumers are relatively unaffected; the mechanism driving this effect being a reduced sense of self-control. Additionally, I theorized that exposing consumers to appetizing ambient scents enhances their affinity toward vice products, whereas exposing consumers to non-appetizing ambient scents decreases their affinity toward vice products and increases their affinity toward virtuous products. However, I further proposed that these effects of (non-)appetizing ambient scents are attenuated when a consumer is primed with high personal control. With these propositions I connect the fields of OFR and sensory marketing (Krishna 2012), while also advising consumer-based strategies for firms who are interested in increasing frontline spending on status-signaling, vice, or virtuous products.

68 In conclusion, this dissertation highlights the importance of having well-informed, consumer-based strategies at the organizational frontline, as insights from consumer behavior can greatly influence a variety of managerially-relevant, frontline outcomes.

69 APPENDIX A

THE AMBASSADOR EFFECT: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE

Source Stimuli Effects Dependent Variables Main Results Ariely et al. (2009) Reward-based Negative Prosocial behavior Private (public) reward-based incentives encourage more incentives and social and (less) prosocial behavior; implying that public reward- observability positive based incentives crowd-out image motivation and the benefits of signaling.

Baca-Motes et al. Specific/action- Positive Prosocial behavior Specific/action-oriented commitments increase prosocial (2013) oriented behavior. commitments

Bénabou and Tirole Reward- and penalty- Negative Prosocial behavior Reward- and penalty-based incentives create doubt as to (2006) based incentives true motive, crowding out, and thus reducing, prosocial behavior.

Bernburg and Labeling Positive Label aligned Labeling someone, via intervention, results in subsequent Krohn (2003) behaviors behaviors that align with the label.

Conner et al. Questioning Positive Health behaviors Receiving a questionnaire about health behaviors (e.g., (2011) someone’s intentions health check attendance, influenza vaccination) increases the focal behavior.

Freedman and Commitment Positive Larger requests Complying with small requests increases compliance with Fraser (1966) larger requests.

Gneezy and Penalty-based Negative Prosocial behavior Small penalty-based incentives reduce prosocial behavior. Rustichini (2000) incentives

Harari et al. (1980) Commitment size Positive Moderate requests Large (vs. small) initial requests increase compliance with moderate requests. 70 Source Stimuli Effects Dependent Variables Main Results Karmarkar and Prosocial behavior Positive Prosocial and Engaging in prosocial behavior (e.g., using reusable bags) Bollinger (2015) indulgent purchases primes (licenses) consumers to make more prosocial (indulgent) purchases.

Khan and Dahr Altruistic (prosocial) Positive Indulgent Via licensing, making an altruistic choice before (2006) choice consumption consumption increases consumers’ likelihood to engage in indulgent consumption.

Krishna (2011) Cause-related Negative Prosocial behavior Purchasing products attached to cause-related marketing marketing decreases prosocial behavior (e.g., charitable giving) and consumer happiness.

Kristofferson et al. Social observability Negative Motives and Private (public) token support enacts consistency (2014) of token support and meaningful support (impression management) motives, leading to increased positive (decreased) meaningful support; effect is attenuated when values are aligned with the cause, and reversed when connection to the cause is strong.

Lacetera et al. Reward-based Positive Prosocial behavior Reward-based incentives increase prosocial behavior, and (2012) incentives are more effective as size increases; substitution effects should be considered.

Lacetera et al. Reward-based Positive Prosocial behavior Reward-based incentives increase prosocial behavior and (2014) incentives are more effective as the size increases; donor type should be considered.

Matsueda (1992) Labeling Positive Label aligned Labels from important others (e.g., parents) influence behaviors appraisals of the self which lead to behaviors that align with the labels.

Mazar and Zhong Exposure Negative Altruistic (prosocial) Mere exposure to prosocial products increases altruistic (2010) to/purchases of and behavior behaviors, but purchasing prosocial products decreases prosocial products positive altruistic behaviors.

71 Source Stimuli Effects Dependent Variables Main Results Meier (2007) Reward-based Negative Prosocial behavior Reward-based incentives that aid a cause increase prosocial incentives and behavior in the short-term, but may undermine behavior in positive the long-term.

Schwartz et al. Binding Positive Healthy behaviors Self-control oriented, binding pre-commitments to healthy (2014) pre-commitment behavior (e.g., healthy food choices) increases healthy behavior.

Seligman et al. Commitment size Positive Subsequent Complying with large requests increases compliance with (1976) compliance subsequent requests.

Williams et al. Questioning Positive (Non-)normative Asking questions about normative (e.g., exercising) and (2006) someone’s intentions healthy behaviors non-normative (e.g., using drugs) healthy behaviors, increases these behaviors.

My Research Personal commitment Negative Prosocial behavior Consumers engage in more prosocial behavior when in an + social exemplar and intentions and ambassador role. Penalty-based incentives encourage more (ambassador role) positive patronage intentions (less) prosocial behavioral intentions and patronage and penalty-/reward- intentions for consumers in an ambassador role (vs. not); based incentives effect is attenuated for reward-based incentives.

72 APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF STUDY CELL SIZES, MEANS, AND STANDARD ERRORS

N Prosocial Behavior Patronage Warm Glow Group Orientation M (SE) Intentions M (SE) M (SE) M (SE) Study 1 Usage Intentions Control 84 63.57 (2.66) Ambassador 78 70.02 (2.76) Study 2 Usage Intentions Control 55 3.20 (0.16) Two Bags for Personal Use 69 3.36 (0.14) Ambassador 67 3.78 (0.15) Study 3 Usage Warm Glow Two Bags for Personal Use 18 19.92 (8.08) 2.90 (.35) Ambassador 28 46.11 (6.41) 4.05 (.28) Study 4 Usage Intentions Warm Glow Self: No, Other: No 35 4.78 (0.21) 4.73 (0.18) Self: No, Other: Yes 26 4.42 (0.22) 4.69 (0.19) Self: Yes, Other: No 31 4.86 (0.25) 4.65 (0.21) Self: Yes, Other: Yes 38 5.49 (0.20) 5.29 (0.17) (Ambassador) Study 5 Usage Intentions Group Orientation Control 72 5.41 (.13) 4.53 (.13) Ambassador 62 5.80 (.15) 4.99 (.14)

73 N Prosocial Behavior Patronage Warm Glow Group Orientation M (SE) Intentions M (SE) M (SE) M (SE) Study 6 Usage Intentions Patronage Warm Glow Group Orientation Intentions Control 44 38.56 (3.60) 5.12 (0.17) 3.92 (0.18) 4.09 (0.13) Ambassador 45 48.70 (3.56) 5.52 (0.17) 4.42 (0.18) 4.56 (0.13) Study 7 Usage Control 44.07 (4.56) Ambassador 60.20 (4.13) Study 8 Commitment Patronage to Policy Intentions Control, Penalty 40 3.84 (0.25) 4.38 (0.22) Control, Reward 48 4.52 (0.23) 5.46 (0.20) Ambassador, Penalty 31 4.70 (0.28) 5.50 (0.25) Ambassador, Reward 43 4.27 (0.24) 5.44 (0.21)

74 APPENDIX C

RULED-OUT ALTERNATIVE PROCESS VARIABLES WITH MEASUREMENT ITEMS AND CORRESPONDING ANOVA RESULTS

Construct Measurement Items ANOVA results Group Orientation: How much they disagreed or agreed with (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .70): MControl = 5.03, Team Effort • Changing the world requires group effort. MAmbassador = 4.85; (Wagner III 1995) • Working with a group is better than working alone. F(1, 131) = .61, p = .44 • I prefer to work with others in a group than working alone. Group Orientation: How much they disagreed or agreed with (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .83): MControl = 4.74, Enhanced • I feel like I should display exemplary behavior for others in my social groups. MAmbassador = 4.81; Responsibility • I am reminded that I am responsible for other people. F(1, 131) = .08, p = .78 • I feel accountable to others in my social groups. Group Orientation: How much they disagreed or agreed with (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .81): MControl = 5.51, Citizenship • I think of myself as a good citizen. MAmbassador = 5.67; • Being a good citizen is an important part of who I am. F(1, 131) = .54, p = .47 Self-Consistency How much they disagreed or agreed with (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .77): MControl = 4.77, (Cialdini et al. 1995; • The appearance of consistency is an important part of the image I present to the world. MAmbassador = 4.98; Kristofferson et al. • I make an effort to appear consistent to others. F(1, 131) = .76, p = .39 2014) • It doesn’t bother me much if my actions are inconsistent. Perceived Impact How much they disagreed or agreed with (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .83): MControl = 4.95, (Fuchs et al. 2010; • My impact by using reusable shopping bags is large. MAmbassador = 5.14; Spreitzer 1995) • I have a great deal of control over reusable shopping bag usage. F(1, 131) = .61, p = .44 • I have significant influence over reusable shopping bag usage.

APPENDIX D

STIMULI FOR STUDIES 3 AND 7

Study 3 Stimulus Study 7 Stimulus

76 APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGNS, OBJECTIVES, FINDINGS, AND HYPOTHESIS SUPPORT

Design Objectives Findings and Hypothesis Support Experiment 1: • Provide initial evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 2 (control, ambassador role influences prosocial behavioral intentions. prosocial behavioral intentions. ambassador) between-subjects

Experiment 2: • Provide causal evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 3 (control, two bags ambassador role influences prosocial behavioral intentions. prosocial behavioral intentions (replicating E1). for personal use, • Rule out the alternative explanation of bag quantity as the • The increase in prosocial behavioral intentions occurs above and ambassador), cause of changes in prosocial behavioral intentions. beyond bag quantity, ruling out this alternative explanation. between-subjects

Experiment 3: • Provide causal evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 2 (two bags for ambassador role influences prosocial behavior. prosocial behavior (replicating E1, E2). personal use, • Provide evidence the ambassador role increases warm glow. • H2 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater warm ambassador) • Rule out the alternative explanation of bag quantity as the glow. between-subjects × cause of changes in prosocial behavioral intentions. 4 (time: T1, T2, T3, • Provide evidence the ambassador effect endures over time. T4) within-subjects

Experiment 4: • Provide causal evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 2 (bag for self: no, ambassador role influences prosocial behavioral intentions. prosocial behavioral intentions (replicating E1 - E3) and warm yes) × 2 (bag for • Provide evidence that the ambassador role increases warm glow (replicating E3) than those in other conditions, including other: no, yes), glow, and warm glow mediates the effects of the ambassador those who only personally commit to a prosocial cause. between-subjects role on prosocial behavioral intentions. • H2 ✓: There is a mediation path from the ambassador role to • Validate importance of personal commitment and warm glow to behavioral intentions. engagement in a social exemplar act in order to induce an ambassador role.

77 Design Objectives Findings and Hypothesis Support Experiment 5: • Provide causal evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 2 (control, ambassador role influences prosocial behavioral intentions. prosocial behavioral intentions (replicating E1 - E4) and group ambassador), • Provide evidence that the ambassador role increases group orientation. between-subjects orientation, and group orientation mediates the effects of the • H3 ✓: There is a mediation path from the ambassador role to ambassador role on prosocial behavioral intentions. group orientation to behavioral intentions.

Experiment 6: • Provide causal evidence that placing a consumer in an • H1 ✓ H4 ✓: Consumers in an ambassador role exhibit greater 2 (control, ambassador role influences prosocial behavioral intentions, prosocial behavioral intentions (replicating E1 - E5) and greater ambassador), patronage intentions toward the store, warm glow, and group patronage intentions. between-subjects orientation. • H2 ✓: The ambassador role increases warm glow (replicating • Identify warm glow and group orientation as parallel E3, E4). There is a mediation path from the ambassador role to mechanisms mediating the effects of the ambassador role on warm glow to behavioral intentions to patronage intentions. prosocial behavioral intentions. • H3 ✓: The ambassador role shifts orientation from individually- • Identify prosocial behavioral intentions as a mechanism to group-oriented (replicating E5). There is a mediation path mediating the effects of an ambassador role on patronage from the ambassador role to group orientation to behavioral intentions toward the store. intentions to patronage intentions.

Experiment 7: • Provide causal evidence that consumers’ level of • H5 ✓: The ambassador role results in greater prosocial behavior 2 (control, environmental consciousness moderates the ambassador for consumers low in environmental consciousness. ambassador) role’s impact on prosocial behavior. • H5 ✓: Prosocial behavior is unaffected by the ambassador role between-subjects × for consumers high in environmental consciousness. (measured: environmental consciousness)

Experiment 8: • Provide evidence that placing a consumer in an ambassador • H4 ✓: The ambassador role increases patronage intentions 2 (control, role moderates the effectiveness of different prosocial (replicating E6) by increasing commitment to the policy. ambassador) × policies (penalty- or reward-based). • H6 ✓: With a penalty-based policy, the ambassador role results 2 (policy: penalty, • Identify prosocial behavioral intentions (i.e., commitment to in greater commitment and patronage intentions. reward), the policy) as a mechanism mediating the effects of an • H6 ✓: With a reward-based policy, commitment and patronage between-subjects ambassador role on patronage intentions toward the store. intentions are unaffected by an ambassador role. • H6 ✓: When consumers are in an ambassador role, the difference between the penalty- and reward-based policies is attenuated for commitment and patronage intentions.

78 APPENDIX F

GENDER-BASED AMBIENT SCENTS: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE

Source Conceptualization Context Method Dependent Main Results of (In)congruence Variables(s) Bosmans (In)congruence Fruits and Lab Product and Consumers’ products evaluations were favorable when (2006) between ambient vegetables experiments advertisement exposed to both a congruent and incongruent ambient scent and product evaluations scent, when the scent was not salient or when consumers had low processing motivation. When the scent was salient or consumers had high processing motivation, congruent (vs. incongruent) scents increased product evaluations. Favorable affective evaluations of the product advertisement mediated the relationship between scent congruence and product evaluation.

Cirrincione (In)congruence Artwork Lab Perceived Consumers had higher (lower) evaluations of artwork et al. (2014) between ambient experiment valence, and remembered artwork more (less) when exposed to scent and visual memory, and a neutral (vs. pleasant) scent. When exposed to a scent stimuli arousal incongruent (vs. congruent) to the artwork, consumers’ arousal was higher (lower).

Doucé et al. (In)congruence Bookstore Field Approach Customers’ approach behaviors increased and their (2013) between ambient experiment behaviors, goal-directed behaviors decreased when exposed to a scent and out of goal-directed chocolate ambient scent. Specifically, exposure to a domain products behaviors, and chocolate ambient scent increased (decreased) buying approach and buying behaviors for thematically behavior congruent (incongruent) books.

79 Source Conceptualization Context Method Dependent Main Results of (In)congruence Variables(s) Doucé et al. (In)congruence Apparel-based Field Customer Regardless of customers’ gender, customer value (in (2016) between ambient retail locations experiment value terms of the dimensions play, product excellence, and scent and retail social) increased when exposed to an ambient scent setting that was incongruent (vs. congruent) to the retail setting. Customer value (in terms of the dimension aesthetics) increased when exposed to an ambient scent that was congruent (vs. no scent) with the retail setting.

Krishna et (In)congruence of Paper texture Lab Haptic Consumers’ haptic perceptions and product evaluations al. (2010) product scent and and gel-pack experiments association were more favorable when the products (paper, gel- haptics temperature and product packs) were infused with a scent that was congruent evaluations (vs. incongruent) to the texture (or temperature) of the product.

Madzharov (In)congruence of Advertisements, Lab and Premium Consumers exposed to a warm (vs. cool) scent et al. (2015) ambient scent and optics retail field purchases, perceived the environment to be more (less) socially social density store, campus experiments social density, dense. Increased perceptions of social density caused retail store, and and power consumers to experience more (less) need for power. department restoration To restore power, consumers increased their purchase store shopping of premium products.

Mattila and (In)congruence of Gift shop Field Environment Customers’ perceptions of the environment were more Wirtz (2001) ambient scent and experiment perceptions, positive, they exhibited more approach and impulse music approach buying behaviors, and experienced more satisfaction behaviors, when exposed to an ambient scent that was congruent impulse (vs. incongruent) to the arousal level of the buying, and environment's music. satisfaction

80 Source Conceptualization Context Method Dependent Main Results of (In)congruence Variables(s) Mitchell et (In)congruence of Chocolates Lab Memory, Consumers spent more time processing information, al. (1995) ambient scent and and flowers experiments information were more holistic in their information processing, product class search, and were more likely to go beyond given information about choice their choices, were more likely to spread their choices evenly across the choice set, and were more likely to engage in variety seeking when exposed to an ambient scent that was congruent (vs. incongruent) to the product class.

Morrin and (In)congruence of Shopping mall Field Spending, Customers responded more favorably to atmospheric Chebat atmospheric cues experiment environment cues that were congruent to their affectively-oriented (2005) and the customer’s evaluations, (impulsive) or cognitively-oriented (contemplative) impulsive ease of shopping styles. Impulsive shoppers responded (vs. contemplative) product positively to ambient music, whereas contemplative nature search, shoppers responded positively to ambient scent. hedonic/ utilitarian shopping values, pleasure, and arousal

Morrin and (In)congruence of Personal care, Lab Brand Consumers’ brand recognition and recall of familiar Ratneshwar ambient scent and toiletry, and experiments recognition, and unfamiliar brands improved when exposed to a (2003) product class household brand recall, pleasant ambient scent, despite if the scent was cleaning and attention congruent or incongruent with the product class. products Increased attention mediated these effects.

Spangenberg (In)congruence of Department Lab Environment, Consumers’ evaluations were more (less) favorable et al. (2005) ambient scent and store experiment store, and when exposed to an ambient scent that was congruent music product (vs. incongruent) to the arousal level of the music in evaluations the environment.

81 Source Conceptualization Context Method Dependent Main Results of (In)congruence Variables(s) Spangenberg (In)congruence Apparel-based Field Retailer and Customers evaluated the retailer and its products et al. (2006) between ambient retail location experiment product more favorably, spent more money, purchased more scent and products evaluations, products, shopped for a longer time, and had higher spending, intentions to patron the store when exposed to an shopping time, ambient scent that was congruent (vs. incongruent) to patronage the retailers’ product offerings. Increased positive intentions, affect and arousal mediated these effects. affect, and arousal

My (In)congruence Apparel-based Field and Spending, Male and female consumers are influenced differently Research between ambient retail locations lab relative by ambient scents that are congruent (vs. incongruent) scent and experiment spending to their biological sex. Among male consumers, a consumer gender intentions, and feminine ambient scent (vs. masculine scent) increases self-control spending and decreases self-control. Among male consumers, decreased self-control mediates the relationship between gender-based ambient scent and increased spending. This increase in spending occurs specifically on status-signaling (vs. neutral) products. Among female consumers, spending and self-control are unaffected by gender-based ambient scents, regardless of product type.

82 APPENDIX G

(NON-)APPETIZING AMBIENT SCENTS: THE CURRENT RESEARCH RELATIVE TO SELECTED EXTANT LITERATURE

Source Stimuli Effect of Dependent Main Results Stimuli Variables Baron (1997) Pleasant (appetizing) Positive Prosocial behavior Locations with pleasant (e.g., Cinnabon, Mrs. Field’s Cookies, The ambient scent Coffee Beanery) ambient scents, versus locations without pleasant ambient scents (e.g., clothing stores), increase consumers’ likelihood to help others (e.g., making change for a stranger).

Biswas and Indulgent food-related Positive Vice and virtuous Extended exposure to an indulgent appetizing scent (e.g., cookie Szocs (2019) (appetizing) and and food choice scent), versus no scent or a non-indulgent appetizing scent (e.g., non-indulgent food- Negative strawberry scent), decreases purchases of unhealthy (vs. healthy) related (appetizing) food. The effect is reversed for short exposures to indulgent ambient scents appetizing scents (vs. no scent or non-indulgent appetizing scents) . Coelho, Appetizing ambient Negative Vice consumption Restrained eaters who were exposed to appetizing ambient scent Polivy, scent and (e.g., cookies), versus no scent, consumed less of the vice product Herman, and neutral (e.g., cookies) than restrained eaters who were not exposed to an Pliner (2009) appetizing ambient scent. This effect was not present in unrestrained eaters, with no significant differences between participants who were, or were not, exposed to the appetizing scent.

Doucé, Poels, Pleasant (appetizing) Positive Approach Pleasant ambient scent (e.g., chocolate), versus no scent, increases Janssens, and ambient scent behavior and out- approach behavior and reduced goal-oriented behavior (e.g., De Backer of-domain deviating from a shopping goal) in a bookstore. It also increased (2013) purchase purchases of congruent books (e.g., romance, cooking books).

83 Source Stimuli Effect of Dependent Main Results Stimuli Variables Fedoroff, (In)congruent Positive Vice consumption Restrained eaters who were exposed to an appetizing ambient scent Polivy, and appetizing ambient and (e.g., pizza, cookies) consumed more of the congruent vice product Herman scents neutral (e.g., pizza, cookies) than restrained eaters who were not exposed (2003) to a congruent appetizing ambient scent. This effect was not present in unrestrained eaters, with no significant differences between participants who were exposed to a congruent appetizing ambient scent and those who were not exposed.

Li (2008) Appetizing ambient Positive Temporal Appetizing scents (e.g., cookies), versus no scent, cause consumers scent orientation, and to be more present-oriented (e.g., reduced happiness with delayed unplanned gains) and increase unplanned purchases (e.g., purchasing an purchases unnecessary item sweater — under a tight budget). Other appetizing stimuli (e.g., images) cause consumers to prefer vice options over virtuous options (e.g., camping vs. studying over the weekend).

Madzharov, Warm and cool Positive Social density, Warm scents (e.g., cinnamon, vanilla), versus cool scents (e.g., Block, and (appetizing) ambient and power restoration, peppermint), increase social density perceptions, thereby increasing Morrin scents neutral premium the need to restore power (e.g., feelings of respect/status), which (2015) purchases leads to an increase in purchases of premium products. This effect is attenuated when interacting with a rude salesperson, with no significant difference between participants who were exposed to a cool and those exposed to a warm scent.

Mitchell, (In)congruent Positive Choice set Scents (e.g., chocolate-cookie, floral) congruent to the product class Kahn, and (appetizing and non- and processing and (e.g., chocolate arrangements, floral arrangements), versus Knasko appetizing) scents negative evaluations incongruent, increase time spent processing product information, (1995) induce more holistic processing (e.g., even assessment of all attributes), increase reliance on inference and self-reference, cause even choice dispersion, and increase variety seeking.

84 Source Stimuli Effect of Dependent Main Results Stimuli Variables Moore (2014) Food-related Positive Taste anticipation, Ambient food scents (e.g., Cinnabon), versus no scent, increase (appetizing) ambient expected pleasure, taste anticipation, expected pleasure from eating the vice product scent taste enjoyment, (e.g., cookies), taste enjoyment, and purchase intentions of the vice and vice purchase product (e.g., cookies). intention

Vinitzky Appetizing ambient Positive Approach Appetizing (e.g., chocolate) ambient scents (vs. no scent), increase and Mazursky scent and behaviors, focus, approach behaviors (e.g., time spent, time spent examining brands, (2011) negative challenge in the money spent) online. Appetizing ambient scents (vs. no scent), search process, reduce focus and increase challenge in the search process for and telepresence people high in systematic cognitive thinking style (e.g., analytic, logically connected, intentional, effortful). The effect is reversed for people low in systematic cognitive thinking style. Appetizing ambient scents (vs. no scent), increase telepresence (i.e., feeling of being inside the computer’s virtual space) for people high in intuitive thinking style (holistic, hedonic activity, based on emotions). The effect is reversed for people low in intuitive thinking style.

Current Appetizing and non- Positive Affinity toward Appetizing (vs. non-appetizing) ambient scents increase Research appetizing ambient and vice/virtuous consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings. Non-appetizing (vs. scents negative offerings appetizing) ambient scents decrease consumers’ affinity toward vice offerings and increase their affinity toward virtuous offerings, at the same time. Effects are attenuated when consumers are primed with personal control; there are no differences in affinity toward vice or virtuous products when exposed to appetizing (vs. non- appetizing) scents.

85 APPENDIX H

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTERS AND CONSENT FORMS

87 88 89 90 91 92 93

94 95 96

97 98 99

100

101 102 103 104

105 REFERENCES

Abramson, Lyn Y., Martin E. Seligman, and John D. Teasdale (1978), “Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74.

Accenture (2015), “Improving Customer Experience is Top Business Priority for Companies Pursuing Digital Transformation, According to Accenture Study,” https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/improvingcustomer-experience-is-top-business- priority-for-companiespursuing-digital-transformation-according-to-accenture-study.htm.

Ackerman, Naomi (2017), “Abercrombie & Fitch Replaces the Signature Scent Used in Stores with a 'Gender Neutral' Fragrance as Part of Struggling Fashion Chain's Major Rebrand,” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4704786/Abercrombie-Fitch-introduce- gender-neutral-scent.html.

Aggleton, John P. and Louise Waskett (1999), “The Ability of Odours to Serve as State- Dependent Cues for Real-World Memories: Can Viking Smells Aid the Recall of Viking Experiences?” British Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 1-7.

Air-Scent (2016), “The Cents in Scents: How Aroma Branding is Increasing Bottom Dollar,” https://www.airscent.com/the-cents-in-scents-how-aroma-branding-is-increasing-bottom- dollar/.

Air-Scent (2016), “The 12 Best Scents for Hotel Lobbies & Hospitality Brands,” https://www.airscent.com/the-12-best-aromas-for-scenting-hotels-hospitality-brands/.

Air-Scent (2017), “Scent Marketing: 11 Research-Backed Benefits to Bottom Line,” https://www.airscent.com/scent-marketing-11-research-backed-benefits-to-bottom-line- profits/.

Air-Scent (2017), “The Top 9 Fall Scents to Help Increase Your Retail Bottom Line,” https://www.airscent.com/the-top-9-fall-scents-to-enrich-your-customer-experience- brand/.

Aluru, Shivani (2014), “Guys and Girls, Wear These Scents,” https://www.theodysseyonline. com/guys-girls-wear-these-scents.

Andreasen, Alan R. (2002), “Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Marketplace,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 3-13.

Andreoni, James (1995), “Warm-Glow Versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1-21.

106 Andrews, Michelle, Xueming Luo, Zheng Fang, and Jaakko Aspara (2014), “Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the Moderating Role of Price Discounts,” Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 120-42.

Annear, Steve (2012), “Dunkin’ Donuts Sprays the Smell of Coffee onto Buses to Increase Sales,” https://www.americaninno.com/boston/dunkin-donuts-sprays-the-smell-of-coffee- onto-buses-to-increase-sales-video/.

Ariely, Dan, Anat Bracha, and Stephan Meier (2009), “Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially,” American Economic Review, 99(1), 544-55.

AromaTech (2017), “What is Scent Science?” https://aromatechsystems.com/pages/what-is- scent-science.

Ashforth, Blake E. and Ronald H. Humphrey (1997), “The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organizations,” Organization Science, 8(1), 43-58.

Atkin, Albert (2011), “Icon, Index, and Symbol,” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, ed. Patrick Colm Hogan, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baca-Motes Katie, Amber Brown, Ayelet Gneezy, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Leif D. Nelson (2013), “Commitment and Behavior Change: Evidence from the Field,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070-84.

Bagchi, Rajesh and Lauren G. Block (2011), “Chocolate Cake Please! Why Do Consumers Indulge More When it Feels more Expensive?” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 294-306.

Bagwell, Laurie Simon and B. Douglas Bernheim (1996), “Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption,” The American Economic Review, 349-73.

Baker, Michael D. and Jon K. Maner (2008), “Risk-Taking as a Situationally Sensitive Male Mating Strategy,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391-95.

Balsam, Peter D. and Andrew S. Bondy (1983), “The Negative Side Effects of Reward,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(3), 283-96.

Barber, Brad M. and Terrance Odean (2001), “Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261-92.

Baron, Robert A. (1997), “The Sweet Smell of... Helping: Effects of Pleasant Ambient Fragrance on Prosocial Behavior in Shopping Malls,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 498-503.

107 Baumeister, Roy F. (2002), “Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-76.

Becker, Howard (1963), Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York: Free Press.

Bénabou, Roland and Jean Tirole (2006), “Incentives and Prosocial Behavior,” The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-78.

Berman, Saul J. (2011), “Learning How to Make Market Segmentation Work Again,” https://hbr.org/2011/03/how-to-make-market-segmentation-work.

Bernburg, Jön Gunnar and Marvin D. Krohn (2003), “Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood,” Criminology, 41(4), 1287-318.

Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Bezawada, Ram and Koen Pauwels (2013), “What is Special About Marketing Organic Products? How Organic Assortment, Price, and Promotions Drive Retailer Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 31-51.

Biswas, Dipayan (2016), “Sensory Aspects of Branding,” in The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management, eds. Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, Jaywant Singh, and Charles Blankson, New York: Routledge, 218-27.

Biswas, Dipayan, Kaisa Lund, and Courtney Szocs (2019), “Sounds Like a Healthy Retail Atmospheric Strategy: Effects of Ambient Music and Background Noise on Food Sales,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 37-55.

Biswas, Dipayan and Courtney Szocs (2019), “The Smell of Healthy Choices: Cross-Modal Sensory Compensation Effects of Ambient Scent on Food Purchases,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 123-41.

Biswas, Dipayan, Courtney Szocs, Roger Chacko, and Brian Wansink (2017), “Shining Light on Atmospherics: How Ambient Light Influences Food Choices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 111-23.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees,” The Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.

Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Pam Scholder Ellen (1999) “Scents in the Marketplace: Explaining a Fraction of Olfaction,” Journal of Retailing, 75(2), 243-62.

108 Bosmans, Anick (2006), “Scents and Sensibility: When Do (In) Congruent Ambient Scents Influence Product Evaluations?” Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 32-43.

Bradley, Ryan (2013), “A Candy Chain's Sweet Success,” http://fortune.com/2013/06/13/a- candy-chains-sweet-success/.

Braithwaite, John (2005), Markets in Vice, Markets in Virtue, Oxford University Press on Demand.

Briley, Donnel A. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2002), “The Effect of Group Membership Salience on the Avoidance of Negative Outcomes: Implications for Social and Customer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 400-15.

Brissette, Christy (2018), “If You Think Grocery Stores are Playing Tricks on You, They Really Are,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/if-you-think-grocery-stores- are-playing-tricks-on-you-they-really-are/2018/01/05/4c49450a-deb2-11e7-8679- a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.d9dafc4ccd69.

Brittain, Amy and Steven Rich (2015), “Is D.C.’s 5-Cent Fee for Plastic Bags Actually Serving Its Purpose?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/nickel-by-nickel-is-the-dc- bag-fee-actually-saving-the-anacostia-river/2015/05/09/d63868d2-8a18-11e4-8ff4- fb93129c9c8b_story.html?utm_term=.7b61f70941de.

Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Wayne D. Hoyer (2006), “Retail Assortment: More ≠ Better,” in Retailing in the 21st Century: Current and Future Trends, eds. Manfred Krafft and Murali K. Mantrala, New York: Springer Publishing, 225-38.

Burger, Jerry M. (1989), “Negative Reactions to Increases in Perceived Personal Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 246-56.

Burger, Jerry M., Nicole Messian, Shebani Patel, Alicia del Prado, and Carmen Anderson (2004), “What a Coincidence! The Effects of Incidental Similarity on Compliance,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 35-43.

Burger, Jerry M., Shelley Soroka, Katrina Gonzago, Emily Murphy, and Emily Somervell (2001) “The Effect of Fleeting Attraction on Compliance to Requests,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1578-86.

Bushdid, Caroline, Marcelo O. Magnasco, Leslie B. Vosshall, and Andreas Keller (2014), “Humans Can Discriminate More Than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli,” Science, 343(6177), 1370-72.

Buss, David M. (1988), “The Evolution of Human Intrasexual Competition: Tactics of Mate Attraction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616-28.

109 Buss, David M. (1989), “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-14.

Candi, Marina, Haeran Jae, Suzanne Makarem, and Mayoor Mohan (2017), “Consumer Responses to Functional, Aesthetic and Symbolic Product Design in Online Reviews,” Journal of Business Research, 81, 31-9.

Capparuccini, Ottavia, Christopher P. Berrie, and Andrea Mazzatenta (2010), “The Potential Hedonic Role of Olfaction in Sexual Selection and Its Dominance in Visual Cross-Modal Interactions,” Perception, 39(10), 1322-29.

Carroll, Matthew (2012), “How Retailers Can Replicate the 'Magic' of the Apple Store... Online,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewcarroll/2012/06/26/how-retailers-can- replicate-the-magic-of-the-apple-store-online/#610471ecda87.

CBS News (2011), “N.Y. Grocery Turns to Scent Marketing,” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ny-grocery-turns-to-scent-marketing/.

Cereceda, Rafa (2016), “France Bans Plastic Bags, What About the Rest of the EU?” http:// www.euronews.com/2016/06/30/france-bans-plastic-bags-what-about-the-rest-of- the-eu.

Chan, Tat Y., Chunhua Wu, and Ying Xie (2011), “Measuring the Lifetime Value of Customers Acquired from Google Search Advertising,” Marketing Science, 30(5), 837-50.

Chaudhuri, Himadri Roy and Sitanath Majumdar (2006), “Of Diamonds and Desires: Understanding Conspicuous Consumption from a Contemporary Marketing Perspective,” Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11, 1-18.

Chernev, Alexander and David Gal (2010), “Categorization Effects in Value Judgments: Averaging Bias in Evaluating Combinations of Vices and Virtues,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 738-47.

Choi, Jayoung and Loren V. Geistfeld (2004), “A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Consumer E- Shopping Adoption,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 821-38.

Cialdini, Robert B., Joyce E. Vincent, Stephen K. Lewis, Jose Catalan, Diane Wheeler, and Betty Darby (1975), “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door- in-the-Face Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206-15.

Cialdini, Robert B., Melanie R. Trost, and Jason T. Newsom (1995), “Preference for Consistency: The Development of a Valid Measure and the Discovery of Surprising Behavioral Implications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318-28.

Cialdini, Robert B. and Noah J. Goldstein (2002), “The Science and Practice of Persuasion,” The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 40-50.

110 Cirrincione, Armando, Zachary Estes, and Antonella Carù (2014), “The Effect of Ambient Scent on the Experience of Art: Not as Good as it Smells,” Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 615-27.

Coelho, Jennifer S., Janet Polivy, C. Peter Herman, and Patricia Pliner (2009), “Wake Up and Smell the Cookies. Effects of Olfactory Food-Cue Exposure in Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,” Appetite, 52(2), 517-520.

Cohen, Joel B. and H. Russell Bernard (2013), “Evolutionary Psychology and Consumer Behavior: A Constructive Critique,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 387-99.

Conner, Mark, Gaston Godin, Paul Norman, and Paschal Sheeran (2011), “Using the Question- Behavior Effect to Promote Disease Prevention Behaviors: Two Randomized Controlled Trials,” Health Psychology, 30(3), 300-9.

Corter, James E. and Mark A. Gluck (1992), “Explaining Basic Categories: Feature Predictability and Information,” Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 291-303.

Cutright, Keisha M. (2011), “The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 775-90.

Dacko, Scott G. (2012), “Time-of-Day Services Marketing,” Journal of Services Marketing, 26(5), 375-88.

Dahl, Darren W. (2016), “The Argument for Consumer-Based Strategy Papers,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 286-87.

Dholakia, Utpal M. (2010), “A Critical Review of Question–Behavior Effect Research,” in Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, ed. Naresh K. Malhotra, Emerald Publishing, 145-97.

Doucé, Lieve, Wim Janssens, Sara Leroi‐Werelds, and Sandra Streukens (2016), “What to Diffuse in a Gender‐Specific Store? The Effect of Male and Female Perfumes on Customer Value and Behaviour,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(3), 271-80.

Doucé, Lieve, Karolien Poels, Wim Janssens, and Charlotte De Backer (2013), “Smelling the Books: The Effect of Chocolate Scent on Purchase-Related Behavior in a Bookstore,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 65-9.

Duclos, Rod and Alixandra Barasch (2014), “Prosocial Behavior in Intergroup Relations: How Donor Self-Construal and Recipient Group-Membership Shape Generosity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93-108.

Dunlap, Riley E. and Robert E. Jones (2002), “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues,” in Handbook of Environmental Sociology, eds. Riley E. Dunlap and William Michelson, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 482-524.

111 Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), “The New Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results,” Journal of Environmental Education, 9 (Fall), 10-19.

Durante, Kristina M., Vladas Griskevicius, Sarah E. Hill, Carin Perilloux, and Norman P. Li. (2011), “Ovulation, Female Competition, and Product Choice: Hormonal Influences on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921-34.

Elejalde-Ruiz, Alexia (2014), “Scent Branding Catching on with Retailers,” https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2014-04-20-ct-scent-branding-0420- biz-20140420-story.html.

Elliott, Stuart (2007), “Movies Soon Really Will Smell; This One, in an Ad, Like a Cake,” The New York Times Online, September 3, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/business/media/03scent.html.

Epstein, Robert, Paul McKinney, Shannon Fox, and Carlos Garcia (2012), “Support for a Fluid- Continuum Model of Sexual Orientation: A Large-Scale Internet Study,” Journal of Homosexuality, 59(10), 1356-81.

Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. (2006), “The Heuristic-Analytic Theory of Reasoning: Extension and Evaluation,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378-95.

Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. (2008), “Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition,” Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-78.

Fahmy, Dalia (2010), “Smells Like Profit: Scents in Stores, on Products, Makes Shoppers Buy More,” http://abcnews.go.com/Business/smells-profit-scents-stores-products-makes- shoppers-buy/story?id=11053555.

Fedoroff, Ingrid, Janet Polivy, and C. Peter Herman (2003), “The Specificity of Restrained Versus Unrestrained Eaters' Responses to Food Cues: General Desire to Eat, or Craving for the Cued Food? Appetite, 41(1), 7-13.

Ferguson, Eamonn, Femke Atsma, Wim De Kort, and Ingrid Veldhuizen (2012), “Exploring the Pattern of Blood Donor Beliefs in First‐Time, Novice, and Experienced Donors: Differentiating Reluctant Altruism, Pure Altruism, Impure Altruism, and Warm Glow,” Transfusion, 52(2), 343-55.

Ferguson, Jill L. (2017), “Big Money and Tech Advances in Vice Products,” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-money-and-tech-advances-in-vice- products_us_5994b2c7e4b00dd984e37c04.

Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press: CA.

112 Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1977), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fisher, Helen (2006), “The Drive to Love: The Neural Mechanism for Mate Selection,” in The New Psychology of Love, eds. Robert J. Sternberg, Robert Jeffrey Sternberg, and Karin Weis, London: Yale University Press, 87-115.

Fleming, Olivia (2015), “That Perfume You Smell Everywhere Is Santal 33,” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/t-magazine/perfume-santal-33-ds-durga- aesop.html.

Foodland Super Market, Ltd. (2016), “Savings: Reusable Bag Credit,” http://www.foodland.com /Savings/reusable-bag-credit.

Freedman, Jonathan L. and Scott C. Fraser (1966), “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in- the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-202.

Freeman, Nicholas and Mark Muraven (2010), “Self-Control Depletion Leads to Increased Risk Taking,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 175-81.

Fuchs, Christoph, Emanuela Prandelli, and Martin Schreier (2010), “The Psychological Effects of Empowerment Strategies on Consumers' Product Demand,” Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65-79.

Garvey, Aaron M. and Lisa E. Bolton (2017), “Eco-Product Choice Cuts Both Ways: How Proenvironmental Licensing Versus Reinforcement is Contingent on Environmental Consciousness,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 284-98.

Gayomali, Chris (2014), “How Cinnabon Strategically Seduces Hungry Shoppers with Insanely Delicious Smells,” https://www.fastcompany.com/3030919/how-cinnabon-strategically- seduces-hungry-shoppers-with-insanely-delicious-smells.

Geisler, Fay C. M. and Thomas Kubiak (2009), “Heart Rate Variability Predicts Self‐control in Goal Pursuit,” European Journal of Personality, 23(8), 623-33.

Gamerman, Ellen (2008), “An Inconvenient Bag,” Wall Street Journal Online, September 26, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122238422541876879.

Giebelhausen, Michael, HaeEun Helen Chun, J. Joseph Cronin Jr., and G. Tomas M. Hult (2016), “Adjusting the Warm-Glow Thermostat: How Incentivizing Participation in Voluntary Green Programs Moderates Their Impact on Service Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 56-71.

Gneezy, Uri and Aldo Rustichini (2000), “A Fine is a Price,” The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1-17.

113 Gneezy, Uri, Stephan Meier, and Pedro Rey-Biel (2011), “When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191-209.

Goldstein, Noah J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius (2008), “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-82.

Goodman, David J. (2016), “5¢ Fee on Plastic Bags is Approved by New York City Council,” The New York Times Online, May 5, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/nyregion/ new-york-city-council-backs-5-cent-fee-on-plastic-bags.html.

Gorassini, Donald R. and James M. Olson (1995), “Does Self-Perception Change Explain the Foot-in-the-Door Effect?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 91-105.

Gordon, R. (2006), “At Bus Stops, Scents of Dissent,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 17, A29.

Griskevicius, Vladas and Douglas T. Kenrick (2013), “Fundamental Motives: How Evolutionary Needs Influence Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 372-86.

Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur, Jill M. Sundie, Robert B. Cialdini, Geoffrey F. Miller, and Douglas T. Kenrick (2007), “Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85-102.

Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur, and Bram Van den Bergh (2010), “Going Green to be Seen: Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404.

Guadagno, Rosanna E., Terrilee Asher, Linda J. Demaine, and Robert B. Cialdini (2001), “When Saying Yes Leads to Saying No: Preference for Consistency and the Reverse Foot-in-the- Door Effect,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 859-67.

Gulas, Charles S. and Peter H. Bloch (1995), “Right Under Our Noses: Ambient Scent and Consumer Responses,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(1), 87-98.

Habel, Johannes, Laura Marie Schons, Sascha Alavi, and Jan Wieseke (2016), “Warm Glow or Extra Charge? The Ambivalent Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customers’ Perceived Price Fairness,” Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 84-105.

Hagtvedt, Henrik and Vanessa M. Patrick (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379-89.

Hamilton, Rebecca (2016), “Consumer-Based Strategy: Using Multiple Methods to Generate Consumer Insights that Inform Strategy,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 281-85.

114 Hamilton, Rebecca, Debora Thompson, Sterling Bone, Lan Nguyen Chaplin, Vladas Griskevicius, Kelly Goldsmith, Ronald Hill, Deborah Roedder John, Chiraag Mittal, Thomas O’Guinn, Paul Piff, Caroline Roux, Anuj Shah, and Meng Zhu (2019), “The Effects of Scarcity on Consumer Decision Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-19.

Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.

Harari, Herbert, Deborah Mohr, and Karen Hosey (1980), “Faculty Helpfulness to Students: A Comparison of Compliance Techniques,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 373-77.

Harrison, Kate (2019), “3 Ways Marketers Can Boost Profits with Sustainable Design,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2019/01/29/3-ways-marketers-can-boost- profits-with-sustainable-design/#74a9fe21109a.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press.

Heffernan, Sean (2015), “4 Scents Perfect for Retail Stores,” https://www.ambius.com/blog/4- scents-perfect-for-retail-stores/.

Homburg, Christian, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Nicole Koschate (2005), “Customers’ Reactions to Price Increases: Do Customer Satisfaction and Perceived Motive Fairness Matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 36-49.

Hoppough, Suzanne (2006), “What’s That Smell?” https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1002/076.html#574a01d55377.

Huang, Jiekun and Darren J. Kisgen (2013), “Gender and Corporate Finance: Are Male Executives Overconfident Relative to Female Executives?” Journal of Financial Economics, 108(3), 822-39.

Janes, Leslie M. and James M. Olson (2000), “Jeer Pressure: The Behavioral Effects of Observing Ridicule of Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 474- 85.

Janssen, Erick, Kimberly R. McBride, William Yarber, Brandon J. Hill, and Scott M. Butler (2008), “Factors that Influence Sexual Arousal in Men: A Focus Group Study,” Archives of Sexual behavior, 37(2), 252-65.

115 Janssens, Kim, Mario Pandelaere, Bram Van den Bergh, Kobe Millet, Inge Lens, and Keith Roe (2011), “Can Buy Me Love: Mate Attraction Goals Lead to Perceptual Readiness for Status Products,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 254-58.

Kafashan, Sara, Adam Sparks, Vladas Griskevicius, and Pat Barclay (2014), “Prosocial Behavior and Social Status,” in The Psychology of Social Status, eds. Joey T. Cheng, Jessica L. Tracy, and Cameron Anderson, Springer, New York, 139-58.

Kahneman, Daniel and Shane Frederick (2002), “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment,” Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49, 81-111.

Kahneman, Daniel and Jack L. Knetsch (1992), “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70.

Kaiser, Florian G., Sybille Wolfing, and Urs Fuhrer (1999), “Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behaviour,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (March), 1-19.

Kalish, Yuval and Garry Robins (2006), “Psychological Predispositions and Network Structure: The Relationship Between Individual Predispositions, Structural Holes and Network Closure,” Social Networks, 28(1), 56-84.

Karmarkar, Uma R. and Bryan Bollinger (2015), “BYOB: How Bringing Your Own Shopping Bags Leads to Treating Yourself and the Environment,” Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 1-15.

Kelley, Harold H. (1967), “Attribution Theory in Social Psychology,” in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 15, ed. David Levine, University of Nebraska Press, 192-238.

Kenrick, Douglas T., Jill M. Sundie, Lionel D. Nicastle, and Gregory O. Stone (2001), “Can One Ever be Too Wealthy or Too Chaste? Searching for Nonlinearities in Mate Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 462-71.

Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259-66.

Kim, Young “Sally” K. and Amy K. Smith (2005), “Crime and Punishment: Examining Customers’ Responses to Service Organizations’ Penalties,” Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 162-80.

Kivetz, Ran and Yuhuang Zheng (2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self- Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 572-87.

Klaczynski, Paul A. (2000), “Motivated Scientific Reasoning Biases, Epistemological Beliefs, and Theory Polarization: A Two-Process Approach to Adolescent Cognition,” Child Development, 71(5), 1347-66.

116 Klaczynski, Paul A. (2001), “Framing Effects on Adolescent Task Representations, Analytic and Heuristic Processing, and Decision Making: Implications for the Normative/Descriptive Gap,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 289-309.

Klara, Robert (2012), “Something in the Air,” http://www.adweek.com/brand- marketing/something-air-138683/.

Knutson, Brian, G. Elliott Wimmer, Camelia M. Kuhnen, and Piotr Winkielman (2008), “Nucleus Accumbens Activation Mediates the Influence of Reward Cues on Financial Risk Taking,” NeuroReport, 19(5), 509-13.

Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Wayne D. Hoyer, Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer, and Jan Engling (2018), “Do Life Events Always Lead to Change in Purchase? The Mediating Role of Change in Consumer Innovativeness, The Variety Seeking Tendency, and Price Consciousness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 516-36.

Kotler, Philip (2011), “Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative,” Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132-35.

Kranzbühler, Anne-Madeleine, Mirella H. P. Kleijnen, and Peeter W. J. Verlegh (2019), “Outsourcing the Pain, Keeping the Pleasure: Effects of Outsourced Touchpoints in the Customer Journey,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 308-27.

Krishna, Aradhna (2011), “Can Supporting a Cause Decrease Donations and Happiness? The Cause Marketing Paradox,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 338-45.

Krishna, Aradhna (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332-51.

Krishna, Aradhna, Ryan S. Elder, and Cindy Caldara (2010), “Feminine to Smell but Masculine to Touch? Multisensory Congruence and its Effect on the Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 410-18.

Kristofferson, Kirk, Katherine White, and John Peloza (2014), “The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-66.

Kuhl, Julius and Arno Fuhrmann (1998), “Decomposing Self-Regulation and Self-Control: The Volitional Components Inventory,” in Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span, eds. Jutta Heckhausen and Carol S. Dweck, New York: Cambridge University Press, 15-49.

Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim (2012), “Will There Be Blood? Incentives and Displacement Effects in Pro-Social Behavior,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(1), 186-223.

117 Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim (2014), “Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment,” Management Science, 60(5), 1107-29.

Larsen, Janet and Savina Venkova (2014), “The Downfall of the Plastic Bag: A Global Picture,” http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2014/update123.

Lee, Leonard and Tim M. Böttger (2017), “The Therapeutic Utility of Shopping: Retail Therapy, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being,” in The Routledge Companion to Consumer Behaviour, eds. Michael R. Solomon and Tina M. Lowrey; UK; Routledge.

Lee, Leonard, Ziv Carmon, Ravi Dhar, and Ayelet Fishbach (2011), “When Shopper Marketing Backfires,” in NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Rebecca K. Ratner, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 185-86.

Lemert, Edwin (1951), Social Pathology, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lemon, Katherine N. and Peter C. Verhoef (2016), “Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96.

Leveille, David (2017), “Two Proposals to Clean Up Our Oceans of Garbage: Will Either Work?” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/30/two-proposals-clean- oceans-garbage/102310484/.

Li, Xiuping (2008), “The Effects of Appetitive Stimuli on Out-of-Domain Consumption Impatience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 649-56.

Li, Yexin Jessica, Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius, and Steven L. Neuberg (2012), “Economic Decision Biases and Fundamental Motivations: How Mating and Self- Protection Alter Loss Aversion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 550-61.

Lin, Ying-Ching, and Chiu-chi Angela Chang (2012), “Double Standard: The Role of Environmental Consciousness in Green Product Usage,” Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125-34.

Link, Bruce (1982), “Mental Patient Status, Work, and Income: An Examination of the Effects of a Psychiatric Label,” American Sociological Review, 47(2), 202-15.

Link, Bruce, Francis Cullen, Elmer Struening, Patrick Shrout, and Bruce Dohrenwend (1989), “A Modified Labeling Approach to Mental Disorders: An Empirical Assessment,” American Sociological Review, 54(3), 400-23.

Liska, Allen E. and Steven F. Messner (1999), Perspectives on Crime and Deviance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

118 Lukas, Bryan A., J. Justin Tan, and G. Tomas M. Hult (2001), “Strategic Fit in Transitional Economies: The Case of China’s Electronics Industry,” Journal of Management, 27, 409-29.

Lundeberg, Mary A., Paul W. Fox, and Judith Punćcohaŕ (1994), “Highly Confident but Wrong: Gender Differences and Similarities in Confidence Judgments,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114-21.

Lwin, May, Maureen Morrin, Chiao Sing Chong, and Su Xia Tan (2012), “Seeing What You Smell: An Eye Tracking Analysis of Visual Attention,” in NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 40, eds. Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, Cele Otnes, and Rui (Juliet) Zhu, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 236-40.

Madzharov, Adriana V., Lauren G. Block, and Maureen Morrin (2015), “The Cool Scent of Power: Effects of Ambient Scent on Consumer Preferences and Choice Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 83-96.

Mandel, Naomi, Derek D. Rucker, Jonathan Levav, and Adam D. Galinsky (2017), “The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How Self‐Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 133-46.

Mandhachitara, Rujirutana and Yaowalak Poolthong (2011), “A Model of Customer Loyalty and Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 122-33.

Maner, Jon K., Matthew T. Gailliot, and C. Nathan DeWall (2007), “Adaptive Attentional Attunement: Evidence for Mating-Related Perceptual Bias,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 28-36.

Matsueda, Ross L. (1992), “Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency: Specifying a Symbolic Interactionist Theory,” American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577-611.

Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2001), “Congruency of Scent and Music as a Driver of In- Store Evaluations and Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-89.

Mazar, Nina and Chen-Bo Zhong (2010), “Do Green Products Make Us Better People?” Psychological Science, 21(4), 494-98.

McCarthy, Michael S. and Eugene H. Fram (2000), “An Exploratory Investigation of Customer Penalties: Assessment of Efficacy, Consequences, and Fairness Perceptions,” Journal of Services Marketing, 14(6), 479-501.

McGregor, Jena (2008), “The Sweet Smell of...Deposits,” The BusinessWeek, 7, 26.

119 McShane, Blakeley B. and Ulf Böckenholt (2017), “Single-Paper Meta-Analysis: Benefits for Study Summary, Theory Testing, and Replicability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048-63.

Mead, George H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meier, Stephan (2007), “Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1203-22.

Mende, Martin, Maura L. Scott, Aaron M. Garvey, and Lisa E. Bolton (2019), “The Marketing of Love: How Attachment Styles Affect Romantic Consumption Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 255-73.

Metcalfe, Janet and Walter Mischel (1999), “A Hot/Cool-System Analysis of Delay of Gratification: Dynamics of Willpower,” Psychological Review, 106(1), 3-19.

Meyer-Waarden, Lars and Christophe Benavent (2008), “Grocery Retail Loyalty Program Effects: Self-Selection or Purchase Behavior Change?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 345-58.

Mick, David Glen (1986), “Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 196-213.

Mick, David Glen, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann, and Julie L. Ozanne (2012), “Origins, Qualities, and Envisionments of Transformative Consumer Research,” in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being.

Milinski, Manfred and Claus Wedekind (2001), “Evidence for MHC-Correlated Perfume Preferences in Humans,” Behavioral Ecology, 12(2), 140-49.

Milkman, Katherine L., Todd Rogers, and Max H. Bazerman (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), 324-38.

Miller, Saul L. and Jon K. Maner (2010), “Scent of a Woman: Men’s Testosterone Responses to Olfactory Ovulation Cues,” Psychological Science, 21(2), 276-83.

Minton, Melissa (2017), “Abercrombie & Fitch Launches 3 New Unisex Scents,” https://www.teenvogue.com/story/abercrombie-fitch-3-new-unisex-scents.

Mirania Group (2017), “Live a Happy Life with Mirania Homes,” http://connect.mirania.com/live-a-happy-life-with-mirania-homes.

120 Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross (1986), “Social Patterns of Distress,” in Annual Review of Sociology, eds. Ralph H. Turner and James F Short, Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc., 23-45.

Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross (1989), Social Causes of Psychological Distress, New York: Aldine.

Mishra, Arul and Himanshu Mishra (2011), “The Influence of Price Discount Versus Bonus Pack on the Preference for Virtue and Vice Foods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 196-206.

Mitchell, Deborah J., Barbara E. Kahn, and Susan C. Knasko (1995), “There's Something in the Air: Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 229-38.

Moon, Sangkil, Paul K. Bergey, Liliana L. Bove, and Stefanie Robinson (2016), “Message Framing and Individual Traits in Adopting Innovative, Sustainable Products (ISPs): Evidence from Biofuel Adoption,” Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3553-60.

Moore, David J. (2014), “Is Anticipation Delicious? Visceral Factors as Mediators of the Effect of Olfactory Cues on Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2045- 51.

Morales, Andrea C., On Amir, Leonard Lee (2017), “Keeping It Real in Experimental Research—Understanding When, Where, and How to Enhance Realism and Measure Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 465-76.

Morrin, Maureen and Jean-Charles Chebat (2005), “Person-Place Congruency: The Interactive Effects of Shopper Style and Atmospherics on Consumer Expenditures,” Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 181-91.

Morrin, Maureen and Srinivasan Ratneshwar (2000), “The Impact of Ambient Scent on Evaluation, Attention, and Memory for Familiar and Unfamiliar Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 157-65.

Morrin, Maureen and Srinivasan Ratneshwar (2003), “Does It Make Sense to Use Scents to Enhance Brand Memory?” Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 10-25.

Motyka, Scott, Rajneesh Suri, Dhruv Grewal, and Chiranjeev Kohli (2016), “Disfluent vs. Fluent Price offers: Paradoxical Role of Processing Disfluency,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(5), 627-38.

Mui, Ylan Q. (2006), “Dollars and Scents Retailers Use Technology to Get Shoppers by Nose,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2006/12/19/dollars-and-scents-span- classbankheadretailers-use-technology-to-get-shoppers-by-nosespan/9d43c4ca-eff6- 48b8-b975-d45fd6758ec5/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aae4c7081f32.

121 Mychaskiw, Marianne (2017), “Abercrombie and Fitch's First-Ever Unisex Scents are a Bigger Deal Than You Think,” https://www.instyle.com/beauty/abercrombie-and-fitch-unisex- fragrances.

Nace, Trevor (2017), “We're Now at a Million Plastic Bottles Per Minute - 91% of Which are Not Recycled,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/07/26/million-plastic- bottles-minute-91-not-recycled/#3e38b01292cc.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2016), “State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation: Fees, Taxes, and Bans | Recycling and Reuse,” http://www.ncsl.org/ research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx.

Networld Media Group, LLC. (2009), “New Perfume Kiosk Dispenses Scent Based on Gender,” https://www.kioskmarketplace.com/news/new-perfume-kiosk-dispenses-scent-based-on- gender-2/.

Nolan, Jessica M., P. Wesley Schultz, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius (2008), “Normative Social Influence is Underdetected,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-23.

Nunes, Joseph C., Xavier Drèze, and Young Jee Han (2011), “Conspicuous Consumption in a Recession: Toning It Down or Turning It Up?” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 199-205.

Okada, E. M. (2005), “Justifying the Hedonic and the effects on Fun Versus Practical Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 45-5.

Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-72.

Ordabayeva, Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2010), “Getting Ahead of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous Consumption Among Bottom-Tier Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 27-41.

Orvis, Guinevere (2016), “The Science of Smell: How Retailers Can Use Scent Marketing to Influence Shoppers,” https://www.shopify.com/retail/the-science-of-smell-how-retailers- can-use-scent-marketing-to-make-more-sales.

Osborn, Jacob (2017), “16 Best Earthy & Woody Colognes & Fragrances for Men,” https://manofmany.com/fashion/mens-fragrances/16-best-earthy-woody-colognes- fragrances-men.

Otterbring, Tobias, Christine Ringler, Nancy J. Sirianni, and Anders Gustafsson (2018), “The Abercrombie & Fitch Effect: The Impact of Physical Dominance on Male Customers’ Status-Signaling Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55(1), 69-79.

122 Ottman, Jacquelyn (2010), “A Smart Way to Segment Green Consumers,” https://hbr.org/2010/02/a-smart-way-to-segment-green-c.

Palan, Kay M. (2001), “Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda,” Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 1-31.

Palan, Kay M., Charles S. Areni, and Pamela Kiecker (1999), “Reexamining Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Identity Scales,” Marketing Letters, 10(4), 363-77.

Perkins, Andrew, Ronn J. Smith, and David E. Sprott (2007), “Understanding the Self-Prophecy Phenomenon,” in European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, eds. Stefania Borghini, Mary Ann McGrath, and Cele Otnes, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 462-67.

Pfanner, Eric (2007), “Sending a Scent by Snail Mail,” The New York Times Online, November 15, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/media/15adco.html.

Pham, Michel Tuan (1998), “Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(September), 144-59.

Pick, Doreén, Jacquelyn S. Thomas, Sebastian Tillmanns, and Manfred Krafft (2016), “Customer Win-back: The Role of Attributions and Perceptions in Customers' Willingness to Return,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(2), 218-40.

Plangger, Kirk, Jan H. Kietzmann, Leyland F. Pitt, Pierre Berthon, and David Hannah (2013), “Nomen Est Omen: Formalizing Customer Labeling Theory,” AMS Review, 3(4), 193- 204.

Prothero, Andrea, Susan Dobscha, Jim Freund, William E. Kilbourne, Michael G. Luchs, Lucie K. Ozanne, and John Thøgersen (2011), “Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31-38.

Ravn, Karen (2007), “Sniff . . . and Spend,” http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/20/health/he- smell20/2.

Reber, Arthur S. (1993), Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rimkute, Justina, Caroline Moraes, and Carlos Ferreira (2016), “The Effects of Scent on Consumer Behaviour,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1), 24-34.

Romer, Jennie (2017), “Why Carryout Bag Fees Are More Effective Than Plastic Bag Bans,” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-carryout-bag-fees-are-better-than-plastic- bag-bans_us_588187ace4b08f5134b61f79.

123 Ronay, Richard and William von Hippel, “The Presence of an Attractive Woman Elevates Testosterone and Physical Risk Taking in Young Men,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 57-64.

Roney, James R (2003), “Effects of Visual Exposure to the Opposite Sex: Cognitive Aspects of Mate Attraction in Human Males,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 393-404.

Roney, Luke (2016), “By 2050, Our Oceans Will Hold More Plastic than Fish,” https://www. usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/24/oceans-more-plastic-than-fish/79267192/.

Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky (2002), “Age and the Gender Gap in the Sense of Personal Control,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(2), 125-45.

Ross, Catherine E. and Jaya Sastry (1999), “The Sense of Personal Control: Social Structural Causes and Emotional Consequences,” in The Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, eds. Carol S. Aneshensel and Jo C. Phelan, New York: Plenum, 369-94.

Rosenthal, Elisabeth (2013), “Is It Time to Bag the Plastic?” The New York Times Online, May 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/sunday-review/should-america-bag-the-plastic- bag.html?pagewanted=all.

Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257-67.

Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2009), “Conspicuous Consumption Versus Utilitarian Ideals: How Different Levels of Power Shape Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 549-55.

Ryu, Gangseog and Lawrence Feick (2007), “A Penny for Your Thoughts: Referral Reward Programs and Referral Likelihood,” Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 84-94.

Saad Gad (2007), The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption, Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub (1997), “A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency,” in Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 7, ed. Terence P. Thornberry, Transaction Publishers, 133-61.

Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., Greg M. Bohlen, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1996), “The Link Between Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness,” European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55.

Schultz, P. Wesley, Azar M. Khazian, and Adam C. Zaleski (2008), “Using Normative Social Influence to Promote Conservation Among Hotel Guests,” Social Influence, 3(1), 4-23.

124 Schultz, P. Wesley, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius (2007), “The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms,” Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-34.

Schwartz, Janet, Daniel Mochon, Lauren Wyper, Josiase Maroba, Deepak Patel, and Dan Ariely (2014), “Healthier by Precommitment,” Psychological Science, 25(2), 538-46.

Schwarz, Norbert and Gerald L. Clore (1983), “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well- Being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(September), 513-23.

Scott, Maura L. and Gergana Y. Nenkov (2016), “Using Consumer Responsibility Reminders to Reduce Cuteness-Induced Indulgent Consumption,” Marketing Letters, 27(2), 323-36.

Seligman, Clive, Malcolm Bush, and Kenneth Kirsch (1976), “Relationship Between Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm and Size of First Request,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(5), 517-20.

Sheppard, Blair H., Jon Hartwick, and Paul R. Warshaw (1988), “The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325-43.

Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-92.

Siegrist, Michael, Heinz Gutscher, and Timothy C. Earle (2005), “Perception of Risk: The Influence of General Trust, and General Confidence,” Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 145-56.

Singh, Devendra and P. Matthew Bronstad (2001), “Female Body Odour is a Potential Cue to Ovulation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1469), 797-801.

Skinner, Burrhus Frederic (1953), Science and Human Behavior, Simon and Schuster.

Skinner, Ellen A., Michael Chapman, and Paul B. Baltes (1988), “Control, Means-Ends, and Agency Beliefs: A New Conceptualization and its Measurement During Childhood,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 117-33.

Sloman, Steven A (1996), “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.

Smith, Joshua E. (2016a), “Nation's First Statewide Plastic-Bag Ban Now in Effect Across California,” http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-plastic- bags-20161111-story.html.

125 Smith, Michelle R. (2016b), “Retailers Push Reusable Bags to Save Money, Environment,” http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3609688&page=1.

Solomon, Richard L. (1964), “Punishment,” American Psychologist, 19(4), 239-53.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and Pamela W. Henderson (1996), “Improving the Store Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 67-80.

Spangenberg, Eric R. and Anthony G. Greenwald (1999), “Social Influence by Requesting Self- Prophecy,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(1), 61-89.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Bianca Grohmann, and David E. Sprott (2005), “It's Beginning to Smell (and Sound) a Lot Like Christmas: The Interactive Effects of Ambient Scent and Music in a Retail Setting,” Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1583-89.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Ioannis Kareklas, Berna Devezer, and David Sprott (2016), “A Meta- Analytic Synthesis of the Question-Behavior Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 441-58.

Spangenberg, Eric R., David E. Sprott, Bianca Grohmann, and Daniel L. Tracy (2006), “Gender- Congruent Ambient Scent Influences on Approach and Avoidance Behaviors in a Retail Store,” Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1281-87.

Spreitzer, Gretchen M. (1995), “Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation,” Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–65.

Sprott, David E., Eric R. Spangenberg, Lauren G. Block, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, Vicki G. Morwitz, and Patti Williams (2006), “The Question–Behavior Effect: What We Know and Where We Go from Here,” Social Influence, 1(2), 128-37.

Stafford, Marla Royne (1996), “Demographic Discriminators of Service Quality in the Banking Industry,” Journal of Services Marketing, 10(4), 6-22.

Stanovich, Keith E. (1999), Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning, Psychology Press.

Stern, Barbara B. (1988), “Sex-Role Self-Concept Measures and Marketing: A Research Note,” Psychology & Marketing, 5(1), 85-99.

Strohmetz, David B., Bruce Rind, Reed Fisher, and Michael Lynn (2002), “Sweetening the Till: The Use of Candy to Increase Restaurant Tipping,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 300-09.

126 Stryker, Sheldon (2001), “Traditional Symbolic Interactionism, Role Theory, and Structural Symbolic Interactionism: The Road to Identity Theory,” in Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. Jonathan H. Turner, Springer, Boston, MA, 211-31.

Sudman, Seymour and Brian Wansink (2002), Consumer Panels, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Sundie, Jill M., Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius, Joshua M. Tybur, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Daniel J. Beal (2011), “Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption as a Sexual Signaling system,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664-80.

Synnott, Anthony (1991), “A Sociology of Smell,” Canadian Review of Sociology, 28(4), 437- 59.

Szaky, Tom (2009), Revolution in a Bottle: How TerraCycle is Redefining Green Business, Penguin.

Target Brands, Inc. (2016), “Sustainable Products,” https://corporate.target.com/corporate- responsibility/sustainability/sustainable-products.

Taris, Toon (2000), A Primer in Longitudinal Data Analysis, London, UK: Sage.

Thornhill, Randy, Steven W. Gangestad, Robert Miller, Glenn Scheyd, Julie K. McCollough, and Melissa Franklin (2003), “Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes, Symmetry, and Body Scent Attractiveness in Men and Women,” Behavioral Ecology, 14(5), 668-78.

Tice, Carol (2013), “How Starbucks Will Make Millions Off Its New, Reusable Cup,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2013/01/17/how-starbucks-will-make-millions- off-its-new-reusable-cup/#46fb127f5b92

Tischler, Linda (2005), “Smells Like Brand Spirit,” https://www.fastcompany.com/53313/smells-brand-spirit.

Tsiros, Michael and Vikas Mittal (2000), “Regret: A Model of its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 401-17.

Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher, and Margaret S. Wetherell (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell.

Vlahos, James (2007), “Scent and Sensibility” The New York Times Online, September 9, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/realestate/keymagazine/909SCENT-txt.html.

127 Vinitzky, Gideon and David Mazursky (2011), “The Effects of Cognitive Thinking Style and Ambient Scent on Online Consumer Approach Behavior, Experience Approach Behavior, and Search Motivation,” Psychology & Marketing, 28(5), 496-519.

Wagner III, John A. (1995), “Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups,” Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-73.

Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), “Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women,” Journal of Consumer Research 40(5), 834-54.

Wang, Cheng, Jennifer Harris, and Paul Patterson (2013), “The Roles of Habit, Self-Efficacy, and Satisfaction in Driving Continued Use of Self-Service Technologies: A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Service Research, 16(3), 400-14.

Weiner, Bernard (2000), “Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 382-87.

Weitz, Barton and Mary Beth Whitfield (2006), “Trends in U.S. Retailing,” in Retailing in the 21st Century: Current and Future Trends, eds. Manfred Krafft and Murali K. Mantrala, New York: Springer Publishing, 59-77.

Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17(4), 317-37.

Wertenbroch, Klaus, Ravi Dhar, and Uzma Khan (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian choice,” in Inside Consumption, Routledge, 166- 87.

Whelan, Jodie and Niraj Dawar (2016), “Attributions of Blame Following a Product-Harm Crisis Depend on Consumers’ Attachment Styles,” Marketing Letters, 27(2), 285-94.

White, Christopher (2011), “The Smell of Commerce: How Companies Use Scents to Sell Their Products,” Independent, August 16, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/the-smell-of-commerce-how- companies-use-scents-to-sell-their-products-2338142.html

Williams, Kipling D., Christopher K.T. Cheung, and Wilma Choi (2000), “Cyberostracism: Effects of Being Ignored Over the Internet,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748-62.

Williams, Patti, Lauren G. Block, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2006), “Simply Asking Questions about Health Behaviors Increases both Healthy and Unhealthy Behaviors,” Social Influence, 1(2), 117-27.

128 Wilson, Margo and Martin Daly (2004), “Do Pretty Women Inspire Men to Discount the Future?” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, S177-S179.

Wilson, Mark (2016), “Confessions of a Store Smell Designer,” https://www.fastcompany.com/3064512/confessions-of-a-store-smell-designer.

Winterich, Karen P. and Michael J. Barone (2011), “Warm Glow or Cold, Hard Cash? Social Identity Effects on Consumer Choice for Donation Versus Discount Promotions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855-68.

Xia, Lan and Monika Kukar-Kinney (2013), “Examining the Penalty Resolution Process: Building Loyalty Through Gratitude and Fairness,” Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 518-32.

Xie, Hu, Elizabeth A. Minton, and Lynn R. Kahle (2016), “Cake or Fruit? Influencing Healthy Food Choice Through the Interaction of Automatic and Instructed Mental Simulation,” Marketing Letters, 27(4), 627-44.

Xu, Lidan and Ravi Mehta (2015), “Good or Bad? Exploring Differential Effects of Creativity on Pro-Social Behavior,” in NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 43, eds. Kristin Diehl and Carolyn Yoon, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 234-38.

Yang, Haiyang, Ziv Carmon, Barbara Kahn, Anup Malani, Janet Schwartz, Kevin Volpp, and Brian Wansink (2012), “The Hot–Cold Decision Triangle: A Framework for Healthier Choices,” Marketing Letters, 23(2), 457-72.

Yoo, Changjo, Jonghee Park, and Deborah J. MacInnis (1998), “Effects of Store Characteristics and In-Store Emotional Experiences on Store Attitude,” Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 253-63.

Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,” American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-75.

Zhou, Wen, Xiaoying Yang, Kepu Chen, Peng Cai, Sheng He, and Yi Jiang (2014), “Chemosensory Communication of Gender Through Two Human Steroids in a Sexually Dimorphic Manner,” Current Biology, 24(10), 1091-95.

129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

CORINNE M. KELLEY Florida State University, College of Business, Department of Marketing, Tallahassee, FL 32306

EDUCATION

Ph.D. in Marketing Florida State University (2019)

Bachelor of Arts in Communication with an Emphasis in Advertising; Minor in Business Florida State University (2012) Major GPA: 4.0; Cumulative GPA: 3.94; Summa Cum Laude

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Social Influence Prosocial Behavior Services, Retailing, and Organizational Frontlines Sensory Marketing Consumer Perceptions of Status Food Consumption, Preferences, and Perceptions

ACADEMIC HONORS AND AWARDS

Research Awards • Winner, ACR/Sheth Foundation Dissertation Award, 2017 • Winner, Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium: Young Scholar Research Award, 2017 • Winner, ACR/Sheth Foundation Transformative Consumer Research Grant, 2017 • Highly Commended Winner, Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral Research Award, 2017 • Winner, Brenda Derby Memorial Award: Best Conference Student Paper, 2018 • Runner-Up, William O. Bearden Doctoral Student Research Award, 2018 • Winner, Marketing Science Institute Research Grant, 2018

Research Honors • Visiting Scholar (funded), Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden, 2017 • Fellow, AMA/Sheth Foundation Doctoral Consortium, 2018

130 Teaching Awards • Winner, FSU, College of Business Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, 2015 • Winner, FSU, College of Business PhD Student Teaching Award, 2017 • Winner, FSU, College of Business Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, 2018

Teaching Honors • Nominee, FSU, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, University-wide Nomination, 2015 • Nominee, FSU, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, University-wide Nomination, 2018

Service Awards • Winner, FSU, Graduate Student Leadership Award, University-wide Nomination, 2018

Service Honors • Participant and Nominee, FSU, GradWorld, 2018 • Nominee, FSU Student Star, 2018

RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS (*denotes presenting author)

*Kelley, Corinne M., Anders Gustafsson, Poja Shams, Martin Mende, and Maura L. Scott, “The Effect of (Non-)appetizing Ambient Scents on Consumers’ Affinity Toward Vices and Virtues in the Retail Environment,” Association for Consumer Research Conference, Dallas, TX, 10/2018.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: How Inducing an Ambassador Role Increases Customers’ Prosocial Behavior and Loyalty Intentions,” Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Columbus, OH, 06/2018.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: How Inducing an Ambassador Role Increases Customer Prosocial Behavioral Intentions and Customer Loyalty Intentions,” Winter American Marketing Association Conference, New Orleans, LA, 02/2018.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: How Inducing an Ambassador Role on the Frontline Increases Customers’ Prosocial Marketplace Behavior and Patronage Intentions,” Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium, New Orleans, LA, 02/2018.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: How Inducing an Ambassador Role Increases Consumers’ Prosocial Marketplace Behavior and Patronage Intentions,” Southeast Marketing Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, 02/2018.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: A Pre- Commitment Technique to Increase Consumer Prosocial Behavior and Loyalty,” Association for Consumer Research Conference, San Diego, CA, 10/2017. 131 *Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “Priming the Social Role Model: The Positive Impact on Subsequent Prosocial Behavior,” Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Washington, D.C., 06/2017.

Gustafsson, Anders, Poja Shams, *Corinne M. Kelley, Martin Mende, and Maura L. Scott, “Scent in the Retail Space,” Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden, 05/2017.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Maura L. Scott, and Martin Mende, “The Ambassador Effect: A Frontline Approach to Increasing Customer Prosocial Behavior and Loyalty,” Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium, Orlando, FL, 02/2017.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Martin Mende, and Maura L. Scott, “Do We Truly Like Those Who Work for It? The Effects of Consumption on Evaluations of Others Spending Earned Wealth,” Association for Consumer Research Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10/2016.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Martin Mende, and Maura L. Scott, “Involving Others in Sustainable Consumption: The Positive Impact of Exemplary Behavior,” Association for Consumer Research Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10/2016.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Martin Mende, Andrew Merwin, and Maura Scott “Involving Others in Sustainable Consumption: The Positive Impact of Exemplary Behavior,” Marketing & Public Policy Conference, San Luis Obispo, CA, 06/2016.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Martin Mende, and Maura L. Scott, “Do We Truly Like Those Who Work for It? The Effects of Consumption on Evaluations of Others Spending Earned Wealth,” Florida State University, Consumer Behavior Research Brown Bag, Tallahassee, FL, 02/2016.

*Kelley, Corinne M., Martin Mende, Andrew Merwin, and Maura Scott “Initial Insights: Consumer Response to Free Reusable Bags at the Grocery Store,” Plastic Bag Reduction Committee of Transition Tallahassee, Tallahassee FL, 10/2015.

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

Graduate Research Assistant, Florida State University College of Business

Live Lab Manager (2015-2016, 2018), Online Lab Manager (2017, 2019), and Online Lab Assistant Manager (2016-2017) for Florida State University Subject Pool and Behavioral Lab • Manages the online study portal, launching studies for faculty and students across the department • Administers studies in live/online labs to approximately 1,100 participants per semester • Schedules research sessions, communicates with participants, assigns participation credit • Completed the Florida State University Human Subjects Training Module • Completed experimental design/execution training with Maura Scott and Martin Mende

132 SERVICE TO THE DISCIPLINE

Journal of Consumer Research • Trainee Reviewer, 2018

Association for Consumer Research Conference • Competitive Paper Reviewer, Atlanta, GA, 2019 • Competitive Paper Reviewer, Dallas, TX, 2018 • Working and Competitive Paper Reviewer, Ghent, Belgium, 2018 • Special Session Co-Chair, San Diego, CA, 2017 • Participant and Note-taker for, “Charting the Future of the Transformative Consumer Research Movement,” San Diego, CA, 2017 • Working Paper Reviewer, San Diego, CA, 2017 • Working Paper Reviewer, Berlin, Germany, 2016 • Participant and Note-taker for, “The Tipping Point: Going from Adaptive to Maladaptive Consumption Behavior Patterns,” New Orleans, LA, 2015

Academy of Marketing Science Review • Sheth Foundation Doctoral Competition Reviewer, 2018

Marketing and Public Policy Conference • Competitive Paper Reviewer, Washington, D.C., 2019 • Competitive Paper Reviewer, Columbus, OH, 2018 • Special Session Co-Chair, Washington, D.C., 2017 • Session Chair and Doctoral Student Volunteer, Washington, D.C., 2017 • Working Paper Reviewer, Washington, D.C., 2017 • Note-taker for the Marketing and Public Policy Conference Planning Committee, San Luis Obispo, CA, 2016

American Marketing Association Conference • Winter AMA Competitive and Working Paper Reviewer, Austin, TX, 2019 • Summer AMA Competitive Paper Reviewer, Boston, MA, 2018 • Winter AMA Working Paper Reviewer, New Orleans, LA, 2018 • Summer AMA Working Paper Reviewer, San Francisco, CA, 2017 • Winter AMA Working Paper Reviewer, Orlando, FL, 2017 • Summer AMA Working Paper Reviewer, Atlanta, GA, 2016 • Winter AMA Working Paper Reviewer, Las Vegas, NV, 2016

Society for Consumer Psychology Conference • Working Paper Reviewer, Dallas, TX, 2018

Southeast Marketing Symposium • Session Chair, Program Developer, and Point of Contact, Tallahassee, FL, 2015

133 TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Florida State University

Position Dates Average Rating* Courses Marketing Principal Fall 2016 – Present 4.42 (range 3.97 – 4.55) Research Instructor (7 sections; live) Basic Marketing Principal Summer 2015 – Summer 2016 4.57 (range 4.53 – 4.60) Concepts Instructor (2 sections; live) Basic Marketing Teaching Fall 2014 – Present N/A Concepts Assistant (16 sections; live and online)

*Overall instructor rating 1 = poor, 5 = excellent

ACADEMIC AFFILIATIONS

• Association for Consumer Research • American Marketing Association • Society for Consumer Psychology • Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society, Florida State University Chapter

CONFERENCES

• Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium 2019 – Austin, TX • Southeast Marketing Symposium 2019 – Memphis, TN • Association for Consumer Research Conference 2018 – Dallas, TX • AMA/Sheth Foundation Doctoral Consortium 2018 – Leeds, U.K. • Marketing and Public Policy Workshop/Doctoral Seminar 2018 (competitive application process) – Columbus, OH • Marketing and Public Policy Conference 2018 – Columbus, OH • Hayes PROCESS Workshop 2018 – Starkville, MS • Winter American Marketing Association Conference 2018 – New Orleans, LA • Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium 2018 – New Orleans, LA • Southeast Marketing Symposium 2018 – Tuscaloosa, AL • Association for Consumer Research Conference 2017 – San Diego, CA • Association for Consumer Research Doctoral Student Symposium 2017 – San Diego, CA • Marketing and Public Policy Conference 2017 – Washington, D.C. • Winter American Marketing Association Conference 2017 – Orlando, FL • Organizational Frontlines Research Symposium 2017 – Orlando, FL • Association for Consumer Research Conference 2016 – Berlin, Germany • Association for Consumer Research Doctoral Student Symposium 2016 – Berlin, Germany

134 • Marketing and Public Policy Workshop/Doctoral Seminar 2016 (competitive application process) – San Luis Obispo, CA • Marketing and Public Policy Conference 2016 – San Luis Obispo, CA • Society for Consumer Psychology Conference 2016 – St. Pete Beach, FL • Society for Consumer Psychology Doctoral Student Symposium 2016 – St. Pete Beach, FL • Southeast Marketing Symposium 2016 – Starkville, MS • Association for Consumer Research Conference 2015 – New Orleans, LA • Association for Consumer Research Doctoral Student Symposium 2015 – New Orleans, LA • Southeast Marketing Symposium 2015 – Tallahassee, FL • Association for Consumer Research Conference 2014 – Baltimore, MD • Association for Consumer Research Doctoral Student Symposium 2014 – Baltimore, MD • Program for Instructional Excellence Teaching Conference 2014 – Tallahassee, FL

DOCTORAL COURSEWORK

• Consumer Behavior Theory, Dr. Maura Scott • Consumer Behavior Methods, Dr. Ron Goldsmith • Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process, Dr. Martin Mende • Advanced ANOVA, Dr. Insu Paek • Quantitative Methods I, Dr. Michael Brusco • Seminar in Marketing Management, Dr. Jerome Cronin • Seminar in B2B Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Dr. Larry Giunipero/Dr. Ruby Lee • Structural Equation Modeling, Dr. Daekwan Kim • Research Design, Dr. Chad Van Iddekinge • Organizational Behavior: Social Influence, Dr. Gerald Ferris • Multivariate Analysis, Dr. Yanyun Yang • General Linear Model Applications, Dr. Ying Zhang • Research Methods and the Philosophy of Science, Dr. Ashley Bush

PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE

FSU University Business Administrator Staff Services Associate (2012-2014) • Human Resource Representative for the department of Admissions and Records at FSU • Completed all hiring paperwork for A&P, USPS, and OPS employees • Updated and monitored all position descriptions for the department • Coordinated with supervisors to complete all USPS and A&P evaluations • I-9 departmental administrator and internal auditor • Approved and audited all travel reimbursements • Finalized all invoice payments for department expenses • Proxied all purchasing card transactions • Assisted in catering Admissions Committee Meetings 135