Kelly Goldsmith

Can Uncertainty Improve Promotions

Many consumer promotions involve uncertainty (e.g., purchase incentives offering the chance to receive one of several rewards). Despite retailers’ heavy reliance on such promotions, much academic research on uncertainty has demonstrated examples of consumers avoiding and/or disliking uncertainty, implying that promotions involving uncertainty may not be as effective for retailers as promotions offering certain rewards. In an effort to reconcile the prevalence of uncertain promotions with the existing research, this article explores the conditions under which uncertain promotions may be effective for retailers. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications for these findings.

When Guilt Begets Pleasure: The Positive Effect of a Negative Emotion

Understanding how emotions can affect pleasure has important implications both for people and for firms’ communication strategies. Prior research has shown that experienced pleasure often assimilates to the valence of ones active emotions, such that negative emotions decrease pleasure. In contrast, the authors demonstrate that the activation of guilt, a negative emotion, enhances the pleasure experienced from hedonic consumption. The authors show that this effect occurs because of a cognitive association between guilt and pleasure, such that activating guilt can automatically activate cognitions related to pleasure. Furthermore, the authors show that this pattern of results is unique to guilt and cannot be explained by a contrast effect that generalizes to other negative emotions. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for marketing and consumption behavior.

Giving Against the Odds: When Tempting Alternatives Increase Willingness to Donate

The authors examine how a reference to an unrelated product in the choice context affects consumers’ likelihood of donating to charity. Building on research on self-signaling, the authors predict that consumers are more likely to give when the donation appeal references a hedonic product than when a utilitarian product is referenced or when no comparison is provided. They posit that this phenomenon occurs because referencing a hedonic product during a charitable appeal changes the self-attributions, or self-signaling utility, associated with the choice to donate. A series of hypothetical and actual choice experiments demonstrate the predicted effect and show that the increase in donation rates occurs because the self-attributions signaled by a choice not to donate are more negative in the context of a hedonic reference product. Finally, consistent with these experimental findings, a field experiment shows that referencing a hedonic product during a charitable appeal increases real donation rates in a nonlaboratory setting. The authors discuss the theoretical implications for both consumer decision making and the self-signaling motives behind prosocial choice.

How Ease of Categorization Affects the Use of Situational Discounting Cues

The current research provides robust evidence for a counter-intuitive phenomenon: the negative signal from a deviant behavior can be attenuated under a condition that is itself considered to be deviant (e.g., intoxication), as compared to one that is not (e.g., sobriety). Thus, “two wrongs” (e.g., being deviant while intoxicated) can be more permissible than one (e.g., being deviant while sober). Further, we reveal that these effects are often explained by a shift in attribution: when the behavior is psychologically distant (e.g., because the actor is a hypothetical other or because an abstract construal is primed) intoxication reduces dispositional attributions, which in turn attenuates negative judgments. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, in addition to why certain deviant behaviors often linked to alcohol consumption, such as sexual violence, may be perpetuated in part due to observers’ tendency to rely on intoxication as a discounting cue.

How Ease of Categorization Affects the Use of Discounting Cues

The current research provides robust evidence for a counter-intuitive phenomenon: the negative signal from a deviant behavior can be attenuated under a condition that is itself considered to be deviant (e.g., intoxication), as compared to one that is not (e.g., sobriety). Thus, “two wrongs” (e.g., being deviant while intoxicated) can be more permissible than one (e.g., being deviant while sober). Further, we reveal that these effects are often explained by a shift in attribution: when the behavior is psychologically distant (e.g., because the actor is a hypothetical other or because an abstract construal is primed) intoxication reduces dispositional attributions, which in turn attenuates negative judgments. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, in addition to why certain deviant behaviors often linked to alcohol consumption, such as sexual violence, may be perpetuated in part due to observers’ tendency to rely on intoxication as a discounting cue.

Is the Preference for Certainty Always So Certain

Academic research in several disciplines has demonstrated that consumers generally show a preference for certainty in the domain of gains. The current research provides evidence for an important psychological antecedent to this effect. Specifically, the authors find that the likelihood of choosing a certain reward over a risky or uncertain reward with a greater expected value is affected by whether consumers attend to the gist of the choice options or their associated details. Five experiments reveal that shifting attention to the gist of the choice options accentuates the preference for certainty and, conversely, shifting attention to the details of the choice options attenuates it. The authors provide convergent evidence for this using a variety of different means to manipulate consumers’ attention, and offer novel insights into when consumers are more or less likely to show a preference for certainty and an aversion to risk and uncertainty in common, retail settings.

Is the Preference for Certainty Always So Certain? Why Differentiating Details Increases Risk Tolerance and Decreases Uncertainty Aversion

A great deal of academic research across a variety of disciplines has demonstrated that consumers generally show a preference for certainty in the domain of gains. In the current research, we provide evidence for an important, and previously unconsidered, psychological antecedent to this effect. Specifically, we find that the likelihood of choosing a certain reward (e.g.,

What Two Wrongs Make Alright: Examining the Psychological Factors Underlying the Tendency to Temper Judgments of Intoxicated People

100) over an uncertain reward with a greater expected value (e.g., an option offering an 89% chance of receiving

When Goal Violation Prompts Justification: Conflicting Goals and Reason Based Choices

100, a 10% chance of receiving

The Importance of the Context in Brand Extension: How Pictures and Comparisons Shift Consumers’ Focus from Fit to Quality

500, and a 1% chance of receiving