ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Individual Differences in Marketing Placebo Effects: Evidence From Brain Imaging and Behavioral Experiments Hilke Plassmann, INSEAD, France Bernd Weber, University of Bonn, Germany

We used a novel automated structural brain imaging approach to determine individual differences of Marketing-Placebo-Effects (MPE) and combined this approach with behavioral experiments. We found that consumers high in reward-seeking, high in need for cognition, and low in somatosensory awareness are more responsive to MPE.

[to cite]: Hilke Plassmann and Bernd Weber (2015) ,"Individual Differences in Marketing Placebo Effects: Evidence From Brain Imaging and Behavioral Experiments", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 43, eds. Kristin Diehl and Carolyn Yoon, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 45-50.

[url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1019497/volumes/v43/NA-43

[copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Expectancy and Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions Chair: Yann Cornil, University of British Columbia, Canada

Paper #1: How Counterfeiting Contaminates the Efficacy of nals. Finally, Plassmann and Weber use a novel automated structur- Authentic Products al brain imaging approach to better understand individual differences Moty Amar, Ono College, Israel in marketing placebo effects on a behavioral and neural level, and Haiyang Yang, Johns Hopkins University, USA show that people high in reward-seeking, high in need for cognition, Ziv Carmon, INSEAD, Singapore and low in somatosensory awareness are more responsive to such Dan Ariely, Duke University, USA effects. This session brings together leading scholars and uses diverse Paper #2: Expectancy Effects of Alcohol-Energy Drink Cocktail methods (field experiments, lab experiments, neuroimaging trials) Labeling on Subjective Intoxication, Risk-Taking, and Sexual to address important theoretical questions about marketing placebo Self-Confidence and Aggressiveness effects such as the role of involvement and awareness, and the iden- Yann Cornil, University of British Columbia, Canada tification of personality traits and neural circuits involved in these ef- Pierre Chandon, INSEAD, France fects. They also provide evidence of domain-specific placebo effects Aradhna Krishna, University of Michigan, USA with substantive implications for business, consumer satisfaction and Paper #3: The Taste of a Bad Deal: The Effect of Transactional public health. We expect this session to have a broad appeal among Utility on Experiential Utility consumer researchers interested in the psychology of expectancies, Jayson S. Jia, The University of Hong Kong branding and labeling, public and health policy, and neurosciences. Taly Reich, Yale University, USA Baba Shiv, Stanford University, USA How Counterfeiting Contaminates the Efficacy of Paper #4: Individual Differences in Marketing Placebo Effects: Authentic Products Evidence from Brain Imaging and Behavioral Experiments Hilke Plassmann, INSEAD, France EXTENDED ABSTRACT Bernd Weber, University of Bonn, Germany Counterfeiting is a rampant global phenomenon. The value of counterfeit and pirated products globally is estimated to be up SESSION OVERVIEW to $1.77 trillion in 2015 (ICC, 2015). Sales of counterfeit products Expectancies are beliefs about future feelings, events or out- have grown by 1700% in the past decade (Economist, 2010), affect- comes. A large body of literature in consumer research has shown that ing a remarkably broad range of industries (e.g., apparel, consumer expectancies, shaped by marketing actions such as branding, labeling electronics, beverage, food, pharmaceutical, tobacco, and even cars or pricing, influence consumers’ sensory perception and enjoyment and heavy machinery) in both developing and developed countries of products independently of their physical properties (e.g. Allison around the world. While a number of studies have shed light on how and Uhl 1964, McClure et al. 2004, Lee, Frederick and Ariely 2006). counterfeits affect consumers’ preference for authentic products (e.g., More recently, consumer research has shown that marketing-based Gino, Norton, & Ariely, 2010; Grossman & Shapiro, 1988; Wilcox, expectancy effects operate as “placebo” effects and modify neural Kim, & Sen, 2009), how counterfeiting may impact the consumption representations of experiences (Plassmann et al. 2008). Marketing experience is not well understood. For example, might knowing that placebo effects influence not only sensory perception, but also the the Nike’s golf clubs they have may be counterfeits impair expert actual efficacy of products claimed to trigger a specific behavioral golfers’ game performance? Might knowing that there are counterfeit response: the pricing of energy drinks influence drinkers’ mental acu- Parker ink pens on the market reduce how well one can write when ity (Shiv, Carmon and Ariely 2005), or the pricing of pills influence she is using an authentic (non-counterfeit) Parker mechanical pencil? patients’ resistance to pain (Waber, Shiv and Carmon 2008). This research aims to fill this gap in the literature. We argue The four papers in this session –all in advanced stages of com- and show in the lab and the field that counterfeiting can engender pletion- aim to present novel findings on the psychological and neu- moral disgust—in a manner similar to the disgust aroused by ex- rological underpinnings of marketing placebo effects. These papers posure to physical contaminants (cf. Chapman, Kim, Susskind, & also present a large scope of marketing placebo effects in domains Anderson, 2009). Because moral disgust triggers repulsion and re- with high relevance for consumers, firms, policymakers and health jection responses (Chapman & Anderson, 2012), it can contaminate authorities. Amar, Ariely, Carmon and Yang demonstrate how ex- the consumption experience, dampening perception and even actual pectancies make counterfeiting particularly harmful from consum- product efficacy. We further argue and demonstrate that, just like that ers’ perspective: labeling products as fakes (counterfeit) decreases disgusting substance can transfer infectious essence to another ob- their actual efficacy. For instance golf players perform worse when ject (Rozin, Millman, & Nemeroff, 1986), moral disgust experienced playing with a club labeled as counterfeit. Cornil, Chandon and towards a counterfeited product can contaminate the counterfeited Krishna contribute to the debate on Alcohol Mixed with Energy brand in general, and thus harming the efficacy of authentic products Drinks by showing the critical role of expectancies: consuming a in other categories of the brand. cocktail labeled as “Vodka Red Bull” (rather than “Vodka” or “Exot- In Study 1, we investigated whether perceiving that the golf ic Fruits”) influences perceived intoxication and may trigger harmful club they used is a counterfeit could impair the performance of ex- behavioral responses such as sexual aggressiveness. Whereas most pert golfers, even though that club was an authentic product and previous research on marketing placebo effects has examined how those golfers were certified experts in the sport. Consistent with our quality signals (such as price) can influence expectancies,Jia, Reich proposition, the golfers were more successful at driving the balls into and Shiv show that transaction utility (for instance, the feeling of the holes when they thought they were using the authentic putter than making a good or bad deal) can also shape consumers’ expectancy the supposedly counterfeit one; even when they missed, they drove and enjoyment of purchased products, independently of quality sig- the balls closer to the holes. That these results emerged in the field,

Advances in Consumer Research 45 Volume 43, ©2015 46 / Expectancy and Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions with expert golfers, and manifested in objective performance differ- cant difference was found, indicating that the downward movements, ences, demonstrated the external validity of the effect. which reflect the frequency at which participants loosened their grip, In Study 2, we sought evidence of the psychological mecha- drove the effect we obtained with the total-distance-travelled mea- nism we proposed—whether moral disgust towards counterfeiting sure. These findings thus suggest that the counterfeit effect we ob- mediates the negative effect of counterfeiting on product efficacy, served in this research cannot be simply explained by consumers’ and whether exposure to a counterfeit can contaminate the efficacy lower expectation about a counterfeit’s product quality—this alter- of authentic products in other categories of the target brand. They native account would not predict the difference in downward move- were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Those who in the ments of the laser beam. authentic condition, were provided an authentic Parker pen. Those Taken together, the findings of the three studies provide con- who in the counterfeit condition were given the same pen but were verging support for our proposition that the notion of counterfeit en- told that the product was a counterfeit. Participants were instructed genders moral disgust towards the victimized brands, which, in term, to draw a line connecting the entrance and the exit of a small maze can result in reduced product efficacy of authentic products. printed on paper, without touching the “walls” of the maze. Next, participants completed a word fragment task that unobtrusively as- Expectancy Effects of Alcohol-Energy Drink Cocktail sessed the level of moral disgust participants experienced (adapted Labeling on Subjective Intoxication, Risk-Taking, and from Jones & Fitness, 2008). After a short break, participants were Sexual Self-Confidence and Aggressiveness asked to complete a second task that examined the infectious effect of counterfeiting on other product of the target brand. Participants EXTENDED ABSTRACT were given an authentic Parker branded mechanical pencil and asked More than 50% of American and European college students re- to work on the same maze task as they did with the pen. Consistent port consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AMED), raising with our propositions, even though participants in both conditions major public health and safety concerns. The US Food and Drug used an identical pen, those in the counterfeit condition made sig- Administration has argued that mixing energy drinks with alcohol nificantly more errors on the maze task than those in the authentic has a causal effect on risky behaviors because the caffeine in these condition. A mediation analysis established that the moral disgust drinks masks the effects of alcohol, decreasing perceived intoxica- participants experienced mediated the effect of counterfeiting on tion without actually reducing the effects of intoxication (Ferreira product efficacy. Further, consistent with the notion of contamina- et al. 2006). This concern has prompted the FDA to ban premixed tion we proposed, prior exposure to the counterfeit pen significantly AMEDs in supermarkets in 2010. impacted participants’ performance when they switched to the pencil In the last years however, new evidence has emerged refuting to work on the maze task; those in the counterfeit condition made the masking hypothesis, the central argument used by the FDA. As significantly more mistakes on the maze task. A mediation- analy summarized in review papers, “there is no consistent evidence that sis also established that the moral disgust participants experienced energy drinks alter the perceived level of intoxication” (Verster et al. towards the first, counterfeit product (i.e., the pen) mediated the ef- 2012), and “the underlying mechanisms of action of alcohol–caffeine fect of counterfeiting on the efficacy of the second product (i.e., the co-administration remain unknown” (Benson and Scholey 2014). mechanical pencil). We argue that the current research on AMED, which has only In Study 3, we directly probed whether counterfeits illicit investigated pharmacological effects in blind experiments, has over- physical repulsion, probing whether the effect we found could not looked psychological effects created by cocktail labeling. Research be simply explained by the alternative account that consumers have in consumer behavior has shown that brands or categorization labels lower quality expectation about counterfeited products. Participants can influence perceptions and actual behavior through expectancy were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Whereas those in (or placebo) effects (Ariely and Norton 2009; Irmak et al. 2011; the authentic condition were asked to complete the session using the Plassmann et al. 2008). Two studies have focused on the expectancy club they identified as authentic, those in the counterfeit condition, effects of energy drinks. Shiv et al. (2005) have shown that people the one they thought was the counterfeit. The rest of the procedure solve more puzzles after drinking energy drinks believed to increase was identical in both conditions. A laser pointer was attached to the mental alertness. Brasel and Gips (2011) have shown that mere ex- handle end of the club. Participants were asked to hold the club head posure to the Red Bull brand increased aggressive driving in video and point the laser beam (emitting from the pointer attached to the games. However, no research has, to date, examined whether AMED handle) at the bull’s eye of a round target with ten rings. The target consumption can influence perceived intoxication and harmful be- was pinned to a vertical wall. Participants were asked to keep the havioral responses through expectancy effects shaped by cocktail laser beam on the bull’s eye as much as possible for 30 seconds. A labeling. high-resolution video camera was discretely set up in the lab room, We hypothesize that highlighting that a cocktail contains vodka recording the movements of the laser beam on the target area. and Red Bull (vs. vodka alone and vs. soft drinks) increases per- The overall distance the laser point ‘traveled’ on the target ar- ceived intoxication through expectancy effects. This sharply con- ea—a measure of the extent to which participants were willing to trasts with the FDA’s masking hypothesis that energy drinks de- firmly grip and control the club head—was used as the dependent crease perceived intoxication through pharmacological effects. We measure. Supporting our proposition that counterfeiting triggers argue that this happens because people generally believe that AMED moral disgust and hence physical repulsion, participants in the au- consumption is more (rather than less) intoxicating than alcohol con- thentic condition exhibited behavior consistent with tighter grip than sumption alone (Marczinski et al. 2011; Peacock et al. 2013). We those in the counterfeit condition—the former group’s laser beam also hypothesize that higher perceived intoxication increases behav- traveled a shorter distance than did that of the latter group. Further, iors which are culturally associated with alcohol intoxication (Ma- when we used the total distance the laser point traveled below the cAndrew and Edgerton 1969), such as sexual self-confidence and center line as the dependent measure, a significant difference was aggressiveness and general risk-taking. Conversely, we hypothesize found. However, when we used the total distance the laser point that it also makes people compensate for the anticipated decrease in traveled above the center line as the dependent measure, no signifi- motor or cognitive capacities associated with alcohol intoxication Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 43) / 47

(Testa et al. 2006) and makes them take less risks in domains where and advertising of AMED drinks, based on psychological rather than risk-taking can be dangerous, such as driving. Finally, we hypoth- pharmacological mechanisms. esize that these effects should be stronger among people who are less experienced with alcohol intoxication, because experienced drinkers The Taste of a Bad Deal: The Effect of Transactional are better able to estimate their actual level of intoxication (Monk Utility on Experiential Utility and Heim 2013). After prescreening heterosexual men with no alcohol disorders EXTENDED ABSTRACT and at least some experience of social drinking (measured with the Can getting a bad deal on a bar of chocolate make the chocolate AUDIT test), we recruited 154 participants in Paris, France (Mean taste worse? Can accidentally paying twice when buying music on- age=22.3). All participants were asked to drink the same cocktail line make a song sound worse? Our findings suggest “yes” on both containing 6cl of 40% Vodka (two standard drinks), 8cl of Red Bull accounts. This paper explores the notion that transactional utility, or and 16cl of a mix of exotic fruits for a target blood alcohol concen- enjoyment derived from the transaction or acquisition phase prior to tration (BAC) of 0.045g/dL. Depending on the experimental condi- actual consumption, can directly affect how much hedonic utility is tion, participants were told it was a “vodka-Red Bull cocktail,” (high derived from the consumption experience itself1. This phenomenon level of transparency) a “vodka cocktail,” (medium level of transpar- is intuited by research from the past decade showing that that pre-ex- ency) or an “exotic fruit cocktail” (low level of transparency). periential factors (i.e., factors that affect consumers before consump- We administered the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) tion occurs) such as price cues can change experiences’ hedonic and (Lejuez et al. 2002), a measure of general risk taking in which par- neurological reward values (e.g., Plassmann et al. 2007; McClure et ticipants pump a virtual balloon to earn money while increasing the al. 2004; Shiv, Carmon, & Ariely 2005; Tsai & Lee 2013). For ex- risk of losing money if the balloon explodes. We next measured ample, wines with a higher price tag can trigger greater activation of sexual self-confidence by showing photos of attractive women and reward centers of the brain (Plassmann et al. 2007); the same energy asking participants how likely they would chat these women up, and drink with a higher price tag can also improve cognitive performance how likely it was that women would accept their advances. Then, in puzzle solving tasks (Shiv et al. 2005). The cognitive science be- we measured sexual aggressiveness with a validated scale (Ariely hind such ‘mind over body’ effects stems from variations of the pla- and Loewenstein 2006). We also asked participants how long they cebo effect, which relates to how our biology responds to cognitive would wait before driving across different scenarios. Then, we mea- expectations which go on to distort experiences (Shiv et al. 2005). sured perceived intoxication with a questionnaire, and actual intoxi- Whereas most previous research on marketing placebo effects cation with an electronic Breathalyzer. Before releasing participants has examined how factors such as price can influence expectations (when their actual intoxication reached a low point), we measured (e.g., price signals quality), which then affects the reward value of participants’ beliefs that energy drinks increase or decrease alcohol experiences, we explored the pure carry-over impact of transaction intoxication. utility independent of such factors. In a similar vein, Tsai and Lee As predicted, the level of manipulated transparency linearly in- (2013) have shown that price promotions and getting a discount can creased perceived intoxication (p<.001), general risk-taking (p=.02), influence post-purchase hedonic consumption experience via the im- sexual self-confidence (p=.01) and sexual aggressiveness (p=.04): all provement of mood, reduction of pain of payment, and change in these measures were highest when the cocktail was labeled “Vodka consumption approach. Although price-discounts are one possible Red Bull”, lowest when labeled “Exotic fruits”, and in-between means of increasing transaction utility, the full extent of transaction when labeled simply “Vodka”. Conversely, transparency increased utility’s relationship with experiential utility remains relatively un- linearly intentions to wait before driving (p=.005), with participants explored. This paper, which tests the impact of decreased transaction in the “Vodka-Red Bull” condition willing to wait the longest time. utility, investigates the general effect of transaction utility on expe- To rule out mere priming effects of exposure to the Red Bull riential utility by exploring how perceived goodness-of-deal affects brand or Vodka label (Brasel and Gips 2011), we tested a moderated motivational factors such as wanting which then affect the liking of mediation model, which showed that perceived intoxication fully me- consumer experiences (Berridge and Robinson 1998). diated the effect of “vodka-Red Bull” label on behavioral responses, The challenge of this research and our experimental design was and that this mediation was conditional upon people’s beliefs in the to find ways of manipulating transactional utility while keeping final intoxicating effect of AMED consumption (i.e. the mediating effect price and perceived value of the products constant. Experiment 1 of perceived intoxication significantly increased when participants served as an initial exploration of the basic effect and explored how more strongly believed that AMEDs increase intoxication compared an incidental decrease in transactional utility that was independent of with alcohol only). Another moderated mediation model showed that the product itself could affect experiential utility. In an online shop- the mediation was stronger among participants with lower AUDIT ping simulation, participants (N = 90) were double-charged for the score, that is, people with less drinking experience. purchase of a music video in the treatment condition (and charged To conclude, while past research has investigated the non-phar- once in the control condition). These participants felt that the song’s macological effects of energy drinks consumption (Shiv et al. 2005) listed price ($2.99 in both conditions) was more expensive and re- or of alcohol consumption (Hull and Bond 1986), our research is the ported lower transactional utility from their purchase, p’s < .05. They first to examine whether and how AMED consumption influences subsequently reported (marginally) lower wanting and motivation to perceived intoxication and harmful behavior through expectancy. listen to the song, p = .07 and less enjoyment during the actual listen- Our findings also suggest that it is important to distinguish between ing experience p = .09. different risky behaviors, such as driving risk and sexual aggres- siveness—which have often been bundled together. From a policy perspective, this research contributes to the current debate about the 1 Experiential utility should not be confused with overall satisfaction; it public health impact of mixing alcohol with energy drinks. Our re- is not surprising that lower transactional utility can decrease overall satisfac- sults support the need for public authorities to regulate the branding tion from the purchase, but traditional economic models do not consider that satisfaction from a purchase can change experiential factors such as enjoy- ment or taste perception. 48 / Expectancy and Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions

Experiment 2 extended the findings to a wider range of prod- ing), and (3) attention to or away from somatosensory experiences ucts (chocolate chip cookies, dessert biscuits, and orange juice) in encoded in somatosensory brain areas (i.e., a bottom-up somatosen- an in-lab shopping simulation that involved physical transactions sory processing linked to processing in the posterior insula and so- (paying with tokens). All participants (N = 130) were endowed matosensory cortices). with both high quality tokens and low quality tokens which were We tested in this paper whether individual differences in these ostensibly worth $1 (participants were endowed with both to induce three processes moderated MPE with a variety of different MPEs relative value for the money). By random assignment, participants (price, brand labels, health claims) and sensory experiences (food were asked to spend either the high quality or low quality chips. Al- and aesthetic consumption) following a two-step procedure: In the though the monetary values of the chips were equal (prices and other first step, we tested the neural predictions of our model using a struc- quality cues were also the same), the apparent disparity in quality tural imaging approach from neuroscience to study individual trait- of chips made it more painful to give up the higher quality tokens related differences (study 1). (higher quality tokens were more valued, p < .05, and spending them More specifically, we used automated structural Magnetic Res- reduced transactional utility p < .05, although perceived objective onance Imaging analysis to detect whether differences in gray matter costliness was no different, p > .1). This manipulation was akin to volume (GMV, Ashburner & Friston 2000) can be linked to individ- asking participants to spend an old, crumpled bill or a new, crisp bill. ual differences in MPE (N = 90). We found that the size of GMV in

When tasting foods, participants who gave up the nicer token (lower the ventral and dorsal striatum (bstriatum = 2.38, SEstriatum = 0.9, p < .01), transaction utility) reported reduced relative desire (wanting) for the the dorsal medial pre-frontal cortex (dmPFC, bdmPFC = 5.35, SEdmPFC foods, lower experiential utility, and less desire for repeat consump- = 1.55, p < .001) and the posterior insula (bposIns = -10.55, SEposIns = tion or future purchases (p’s < .05). Furthermore, we found that the 3.58, p < .005) moderated the expectancy effects of price (high vs. overall relationship between transaction utility and experiential util- low) and health claims (healthy vs. regular) on the experienced taste ity for all three products was mediated by wanting for the products pleasantness for wine and milkshakes. (Sobel = 5.55, p < .01). In other words, lower transaction utility re- In a second step, we relied on existing evidence linking each duced the relative desire for the products, which then reduced how of these brain areas with personality traits (i.e., the striatum with much they were enjoyed. reward-seeking, the posterior insula with somatosensory awareness, Experiment 3 explored the mechanism of reduced wanting and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex with need for cognition) to and tested a latitude of acceptance model of utility whereby lower further test the implications of our model for how personality traits transaction utility increased the ‘standards’ of taste (captured by a moderate the placebo effects of price in behavioral experiments of disjointed, piecewise utility function) – consumption experiences wine tasting (studies 2a, 2b, and 2c) applying a similar design as that were above that standard were unaffected by the increased scru- done by Plassmann et al. 2008. tiny, while consumption experiences that were below the standard In study 2a (N = 88), we investigated whether reward sensitiv- were negatively affected. Employing the same basic experimental ity, measured using the reward-seeking subscale of the behavioral paradigm as Experiment 2, we also randomized low (Hershey’s) ver- activation scale (BAS), predicts MPE and found that the BAS sub- sus high quality (Ghiradelli’s) branded chocolate. In the low trans- scale scores amplified the effect of price on experienced utility rat- action utility condition, participants liked the Hershey’s chocolate ings (T(1, 87) = 2.98, p = .004). In study 2b (N = 85), we investigated less, were less interested in eating more, and less interested in future whether somatosensory awareness, measured using the private body purchases (p’s < .05). However, there were no differences in ratings consciousness subscale of the Body Consciousness Questionnaire of liking, desire, or future interest for the Ghiradelli chocolate. The (Miller, Murphy, and Buss 1981), predicts MPE and indeed found results supported a latitude of acceptance model (driven by differ- that somatosensory awareness moderated MPE (T(1, 84) = –2.83, p ences in scrutiny at different thresholds) that is consistent with both = .006). In study 2c (N = 78), we investigated whether a consumer’s the product quality moderation found in Plassman et al. (2007) and need to focus on cognitive cues might play an important role for involvement mechanism intuited by Tsai and Lee (2013). Overall, MPE using the Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao our findings not only contribute to the understanding of how placebo 1984). We found that the NFC scores in line with our hypothesis effects operate in marketing and the downstream effects of pricing amplified the effect of price on experienced utility ratings ( T(1, 78) on consumer behavior, but also reveal intuitions on the basic un- = 2.40, p = .019). derstanding of reward and how cognitive and affective motivational Taken together, studies 2a, 2b, and 2c provided further evidence forces can interact to change the processing of reward value. that participants high in reward-seeking and high in need for cogni- tive processing were more responsive to MPE, whereas subjects high Individual Differences in Marketing Placebo Effects: in somatosensory awareness were less responsive to MPE. Evidence from Brain Imaging and Behavioral In the last study, we tested the robustness and generalizability Experiments of our effects by studying whether reward responsiveness, somato- sensory awareness, and need for cognition also jointly moderate EXTENDED ABSTRACT the effects of the perceived expertise of artists (known artist vs. the Recent research has studied whether marketing-based expec- experimenter, taken from Kirk et al. 2008) on subjective aesthetic tancies such as price quality beliefs influence the consumption ex- experiences (study 3, N = 492). We found that the BAS (T(1, 491) = perience and subsequent behavior, but almost no research has ex- 6.53, p < .001) and NFC (T(1, 491) = 2.44, p = .015) scores indeed amined individual differences in “marketing placebo effects” (MPE, amplified expectancy effects on experienced utility ratings, whereas see Plassmann & Wager 2014 for a review). In this paper, we suggest PBC moderated expectancy effects on experienced utility ratings three moderators of MPE based on previous findings from the neu- (T(1, 491) = –2.75, p = .006). roscientific literature investigating traditional pain placebo effects. To conclude, in this paper we investigated individual differ- These are (1) dopaminergic processing linked to reward-seeking, ences in MPE. We found converging evidence using different meth- (2) prefrontal activity linked to cognitive regulation and appraisal of odologies (brain imaging and behavioral exepriements) that for a emotional states and experiences (i.e., a top-down cognitive process- variety of marketing-based expectancies (process, brand labels, and Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 43) / 49 health claims) and different sensory consumption experiences (food ICC (2015), “Global Impacts Study,” retrieved February 23, 2015 and art) consumers high in reward-seeking and high in need for cog- from http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/ nitive processing were more responsive to MPE, whereas subjects BASCAP/BASCAP-Research/Economic-impact/Global- high in somatosensory awareness were less responsive to MPE. Impacts-Study/ Understanding individual differences of marketing placebo effects Irmak, Caglar, Beth Vallen, and Stefanie Rosen Robinson (2011), is important for marketing researchers, public policy makers, and “The Impact of Product Name on Dieters’ and Nondieters’ practitioners alike. Food Evaluations and Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 390-405. REFERENCES Jones, Andrew, and Julie Fitness (2008), “Moral Hypervigilance: Allison, Ralph I. and Kenneth P. Uhl (1964), “Influence of The Influence of Disgust Sensitivity in the Moral Domain,” Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,” Journal of Emotion, 8, 5, 613-27. Marketing Research, 1 (3), 36-39. Kirk, Ulrich, Martin Skov, Oliver Hulme, Mark S. Christensen, Ariely, Dan and George Loewenstein (2006), “The heat of the and Semir Zeki (2009), “Modulation of Aesthetic Value moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision by Semantic Context: An fMRI Study,” NeuroImage, 44, making,” J Behav Decis Mak, 19 (2), 87-98. 1125–32. Ariely, Dan and Michael I. Norton (2009), “Conceptual Lee, Leonard, Shane Frederick, and Dan Ariely (2006), “Try It, Consumption,” Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1), 475-99. You’ll Like It: The Influence of Expectation, Consumption, Ashburner, John and Karl J. Friston (2000), “Voxel-Based and Revelation on Preferences for Beer,” Psychological Morphometry—The Methods,” NeuroImage, 11(6 Pt 1), Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 17 (12), 1054-58. 805–21. Lejuez, Carl W., Jennifer P. Read, Christopher W. Kahler, Jerry Benson, Sarah and Andrew Scholey (2014), “Effects of alcohol B. Richards, Susan E. Ramsey, Gregory L. Stuart, David and energy drink on mood and subjective intoxication: a R. Strong, and Richard A. Brown (2002), “Evaluation of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study,” Human behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 29 (4), 360- Task (BART),” J Exp Psychol Appl, 8 (2), 75. 69. MacAndrew, Craig and Robert B Edgerton (1969), Drunken Berridge, T.E. & Robinson, K.C. (1998), “Incentive sensitization comportment: A social explanation. Chicago: Aldine. and addition”, Addiction, 96(1), 103-114. Marczinski, Cecile A., Mark T. Fillmore, Mark E. Bardgett, and Brasel, Adam S. and James Gips (2011), “Red Bull “Gives You Meagan A. Howard (2011), “Effects of energy drinks mixed Wings” for better or worse: A double-edged impact of brand with alcohol on behavioral control: risks for college students exposure on consumer performance,” Journal of Consumer consuming trendy cocktails,” Alcoholism: Clinical and Psychology, 21 (1), 57-64. Experimental Research, 35 (7), 1282-92. Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and Chuan Feng Kao (1984), McClure, Samuel M, Jian Li, Damon Tomlin, Kim S Cypert, Latané “The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition,” Journal of M Montague, and P Read Montague (2004), “Neural correlates Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–7. of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks,” Carver, Charles S. and Teri L. White (1994), “Behavioral Inhibition, Neuron, 44 (2), 379-87. Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Miller, Lynn C., Richard Murphy, and Arnold H. Buss (1981), Reward and Punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales,” Journal of “Consciousness of Body: Private and Public,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 31. Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 397–406. Chapman, Hanah A., David A. Kim, Joshua M. Susskind, and Monk , Rebecca Louise and Derek Heim (2013), “A Critical Adam K. Anderson (2009), “In Bad Taste: Evidence for the Systematic Review of Alcohol-Related Outcome Oral Origins of Moral Disgust,” Science, 323, 5918, 1222-26. Expectancies,” Substance Use and Misuse, 48 (7), 539-57. Chapman, Hanah A., and Adam K. Anderson (2013), “Things Peacock, Amy, Raimondo Bruno, and Frances H. Martin (2013), Rank and Gross in Nature: a Review and Synthesis of Moral “Patterns of use and motivations for consuming alcohol mixed Disgust,” Psychological Bulletin, 139, 2, 300-27. with energy drinks,” Psychology of addictive behaviors, 27 Economist (2010), “Knock-offs Catch on: Fake Goods are (1), 202. Proliferating, to the Dismay of Companies and Governments,” Plassmann, Hilke, John O’Doherty, Baba Shiv, and Antonio retrieved February 23, 2015 from http://www.economist.com/ Rangel (2008), “Marketing actions can modulate neural node/15610089 representations of experienced pleasantness,” Proceedings Ferreira, Sionaldo Eduardo , Marco Tùlio de Mello, Sabine of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Pompèia, and Maria Lucia Oliveira de Souza-Formigoni America, 105 (3), 1050-54. (2006), “Effects of energy drink ingestion on alcohol Plassmann, Hilke, and Tor D. Wager (2014), “How Expectancies intoxication,” Alcohol Clinical Experimental Research, 30 (4), Shape Consumption Experiences,” in The Interdisciplinary 598-605. Science of Consumption, Stephanie D. Preston, Morten L. Gino, Francesca, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2010), Kringelbach, and Brian Knutson, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT “The Counterfeit Self the Deceptive Costs of Faking It,” Press, 1–22. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712-20. Rozin, Paul, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff (1986), Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro (1988), “Foreign “Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust Counterfeiting of Status Goods,” Quarterly Journal of and Other Domains,” Journal of Personality and Social Economics, 103 (2), 79-100. Psychology, 50, 4, 703-12. Hull, Jay G. and Charles F. Bond (1986), “Social and behavioral Shiv, Baba, Ziv Carmon, and Dan Ariely (2005), “Placebo effects consequences of alcohol consumption and expectancy: a meta- of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for,” analysis,” Psychological bulletin, 99 (3), 347. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), 383-93. 50 / Expectancy and Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions

Testa, Maria, Carol VanZile-Tamsen, and Jennifer A. Livingston Verster, Joris C., Christoph Aufricht, and Chris Alford (2012), (2006), “Compensatory effects of alcohol-sexuality “Energy drinks mixed with alcohol: misconceptions, myths, expectancies within a placebo condition (in: Understanding and facts,” Int J Gen Med, 5, 187-98. alcohol expectancy effects: Revisiting the placebo condition),” Waber, Rebecca L., Baba Shiv, and Ziv Carmon (2008), Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30 (2), 339- “Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic,” JAMA, 48. 299 (9), 1016-17. Tsai, C.I., & Lee, L. (2013), “How Price Promotions Influence Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen, (2009), “Why Post-Purchase Consumption Experience over Time”, Journal Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands,” Journal of of Consumer Research, Forthcoming. Marketing Research