Shailendra Pratap Jain

Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of-Processing Perspective

We show how motivation affects reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes. We manipulate the level of brand preference experimentally and expose subjects to a message that is either consistent or inconsistent with their manipulated preference. Further, the message contains either strong or weak arguments. In two experiments, we find that preference-inconsistent information is processed more systematically and is counter argued more than preference-consistent information. In addition, experiment 2 shows that strong arguments are more persuasive than weak arguments in the preference-inconsistent condition. We employ the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion and its sufficiency principle as a framework to understand the psychological mechanism that underlies the biased processing of preference-inconsistent information. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.

Prepurchase Attribute Verifiability, Source Credibility, and Persuasion

Recent research has found that search and experience attribute claims are processed differently by consumers, with search attribute claims typically being more believable than experience attribute claims. It is, however, routinely the case that marketers desire to promote a product by making a claim featuring an experience attribute. The marketing literature has largely neglected the issue of how to enhance persuasion of experience attribute claims. The purpose of this research was to fill this void. We reason that source credibility impacts the receipt of experience claims and search claims differently and then report results of two experiments featuring two different types of sources in the context of two different categories which suggest that a source high in credibility can be employed to make experience claims more persuasive. The contributions our study makes to the persuasion literature and avenues for future research are discussed.

The Influence of Chronic and Situational Self-Construal on Categorization

Four studies, using chronic and situational self-construal, supported the proposition that individualists (collectivists) focus on within-category richness (between-category differentiation). Collectivists judged paired products as less similar than individualists did, but only at the higher level of a category hierarchy (studies 1 and 2). Further, collectivists were more context driven in product ratings in a categorization task (study 3). Study 4 focused on high-level pairs and found that under high involvement, chronic self-construal dominated judgments. Under low involvement, chronic and situational construals interacted: individualists (collectivists) were less (more) amenable to the situational construal. Implications for self-construal and categorization research are discussed. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

The Influence of Consumers' Lay Theories on Approach/Avoidance Motivation

This research suggests that consumers’ approach/avoidance tendencies depend on their implicit theories about the world around them. Entity theorists believe in the immutability of the world, and thus they are not influenced by whether a persuasive message is framed in terms of approach or avoidance. In contrast, incremental theorists believe that the world is mutable, and thus they are influenced by the message frame. This proposition is supported in two studies that feature advertising messages. The mechanism underlying these effects differs as a function of implicit theory orientation. Entity theorists’ focus on the outcome and incremental theorists’ reliance on the process form the basis for the observed findings. A third study reveals that when a consumers implicit theory is violated, these findings are reversed. The authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications.

Stock Market Response to Regulatory Reports of Deceptive Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Omission Bias and Firm Reputation

Whereas a growing body of research has examined the consumer-related implications of deceptive advertising, the stock market consequences stemming from the regulatory exposure of such infractions remain largely unexplored. In a step to address this gap, the current research examines the effect of regulatory reports of misleading ads on firm stock prices. Results from an event study, focusing on the pharmaceutical industry as the empirical context, show an average abnormal return of -0.91% associated with regulatory reports of deceptive advertising. Analysis of the abnormal returns, however, reveals that the stock market response to these reports is shaped by omission bias, in that investors penalize commission violations more than omission violations. Furthermore, firm reputation is found to moderate the penalty for commission violations. In addition, two experiments examine the effect of such violations on investor beliefs. The first helps elucidate the process mechanism underlying the observed stock market effects and the second provides insights regarding the reputation-omission bias interaction for firms committing repeat violations. Overall, our findings provide important theoretical, managerial, and public policy implications regarding the role of financial markets in regulating deceptive ad practices.