Nitika Garg

The Influence of Incidental Affect on Consumers’ Food Intake

Although incidental affect has been shown to influence both attitude and purchase behavior, it has not been extended to actual consumption. This research investigates whether specific affective states influence food consumption and whether this influence is moderated by factors such as information and the nature of the product (hedonic versus less hedonic). The authors show that an integrative mood management and mood evaluation framework accounts for this relationship more effectively than a self-regulation explanation. A preliminary test and two lab studies show that people eat larger amounts of hedonic foods (buttered popcorn and M&Ms) when they are in a sad state than when they are in a happy state and that this effect is attenuated when nutritional information is present. In contrast, they tend to eat larger amounts of a less hedonic product (raisins) when they are in a happy state than when they are in a sad state. The authors discuss implications for responsible marketers, health professionals, and health conscious consumers in the context of campaigns and individual efforts.

Incidental and Task-Related Affect: A Re-Inquiry and Extension of the Influence of Affect on Choice

We examine the interplay between incidental affect and task-related affect in the context of consumer choice. Specifically, we examine the differential impact of two discrete negative affective states-anger and sadness-vis--vis a neutral affective state. We replicate Luces ( 1998 ) finding that people are more likely to rely on a status quo option when they have to make emotionally difficult trade-offs. However, incidental affect moderates this effect such that angry individuals are more influenced by task-related affect, while sadness is less influenced by it. These findings support our thesis that consumers experiencing different negative emotions display differential reliance on avoidance choice strategies such as choosing the status quo. (c) 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

The misery-is-not-miserly effect revisited: Replication despite opportunities for compensatory consumption

Sadness increases how much decision makers pay to acquire goods, even when decision makers are unaware of it. This effect is coined the “misery-is-not-miserly effect”. The paper that first established this effect is the second most-cited article appearing in Psychological Science in 2004. In light of its impact, the present study sought to assess whether the misery-is-not-miserly effect would replicate (a) in a novel context and (b) even when another way of alleviating a sense of loss (i.e., compensatory consumption) was available. Results revealed that the effect replicated in the novel context and, despite a prediction otherwise, even when individuals had an opportunity to engage in compensatory consumption. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the original effect and that observed in the present study yielded a small-to-medium effect (Cohen’s d = 0.43). As such, the present study lends evidentiary support to the misery-is-not-miserly effect and provides impetus for future research exploring the impact of sadness on consumer decision-making, specifically, and of emotion on decision processes, more generally.

Emotion effects on choice deferral: The moderating role of outcome and process accountability

Purpose Choice deferral (making no choice at all) is a common phenomenon, especially when individuals face a difficult decision. This is further exacerbated in the presence of negative incidental emotions which can have a wide-ranging influence on various aspects of decision-making. Previous research suggests that process (vs outcome) accountability might be more effective at mitigating the effect of irrelevant factors. This paper aims to examine whether accountability attenuates emotion effects on choice and examines the differences in the efficacy of the two accountability types. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the appraisal tendency framework to propose differences between same valenced emotions on choice deferral and predicts the moderating role of process versus outcome accountability. Two experiments are conducted to test the predictions and the results analyzed using logistic regression. Findings The authors find that outcome and process accountability have different moderating effects on emotion and choice deferral relationship: under outcome accountability, angry individuals are more likely to defer choice while under process accountability, differences in choice across emotion conditions are attenuated. As predicted, differences between anger and fear on the certainty appraisal and thereby information processing, mediate the effects of emotion on choice deferral in the outcome (but not process) condition. Originality/value This research studies the intersection of two developing research streams, affect and accountability, by focusing on specific affective states (anger and fear) and specific accountability types (outcome and process) in the important context of decision avoidance in consumer behavior. Thus, theoretical understanding in both domains is advanced and the benefits of specific accountability types clarified. Key implications for consumers and future research directions are also discussed.

Geographically Varying Effects of Weather on Tobacco Consumption: Implications for Health Marketing Initiatives

Weather and its fluctuations have been found to influence the consumption of negative hedonic goods. However, such findings are of limited use to health marketers who cannot control the weather, and hence, its effects. The current research utilizes data obtained at the zip-code level to study geographical variations in the effect of weather on tobacco consumption across the entire continental United States. The results allow health marketers to identify areas that will be most responsive to marketing efforts aimed at curtailing negative hedonic consumption and thus implement more effective, region-specific initiatives.