Stephen M. Nowlis

The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons

This research investigates the interaction between a very common task, explaining decisions, and an individual difference, need for uniqueness (NFU), on buyer decision making. We propose that explaining (or providing reasons for) decisions shifts the focus from the choice of options to the choice of reasons. Furthermore, buyers who explain their decisions and have high NFU tend to select unconventional reasons and are, consequently, more likely to make unconventional choices. These predictions were supported in a series of studies involving choices between conventional and less‐conventional options, such as whether to switch to a brand on sale, whether to select a compromise option, and whether to accept a gamble with a possible loss. The findings also indicate that the effects of providing reasons are not due to attempts to act rationally or to concerns about being evaluated. Three boundary conditions on the generalization that high NFU consumers who provide reasons tend to make unconventional choices we...

Attribute-Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals

The authors propose that consumers’ preferences are systematically affected by whether they make direct comparisons between brands (e.g., a choice task) or evaluate brands individually (e.g., purch...

The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral

This article investigates the effect of time pressure on choice deferrai. Recent research suggests that the likelihood of deferral is contingent on the ease of making the selection decision (which option to choose) as well as the overali attractiveness of the selected alternative. We focus on how time pressure systematically impacts choice deferral by increasing the use of noncompensato ry decision rules in the selection decision and by increasing the relative emphasis placed on the unique features in the deferral decision (whether to choose). Consistent with the hypotheses, we find over a series of five studies that time pressure (1) decreases choice deferral when choice involves high conflict but not when conflict is low, (2) reduces the impact of shared features on choice deferral, and (3) decreases choice deferral for sets with common bad and unique good features (approach-approach conflict) but not for sets with common good and unique bad features (avoidance-avoidance conflict). We further show that greater attention to the unique features is not a general property of decision making under time pressure but rather a consequence of the primacy of the selection decision over the deferral decision. Consistent with this premise, time pressure did not decrease the relative attention paid to common features when the task was described as purely a deferral decision. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

The Effects of Reduced Food Size and Package Size on the Consumption Behavior of Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters

This research examines the moderating role of attempted dietary restraint on the amount of food consumed from small food in small packages versus large food in large packages. Four experiments demonstrate that restrained eaters consume more calories from small food in small packages, while unrestrained eaters consume more calories from large food in a large package. For restrained eaters, overconsumption of the small food in small packages results from a lapse in self-control caused by the stress of perceiving conflicting food information: the small food in small packages is perceived as both diet food and high in calories. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice

Several studies have shown that consumer choice is often influenced by the context or the set of alternatives under consideration. Context effects have largely been explained in terms of constructive preferences that are consistent with 2 theoretical accounts—effort minimization and perceptual contrast—that emphasize different underlying motivations. We propose that the effect of time pressure on context effects can be used as a moderating variable to determine which of the 2 motives is supported. Specifically, if context effects bias preferences due to effort minimization, time pressure should increase the magnitude of such effects. In contrast, if context effects arise due to an excessive focus on the relational characteristics of the alternatives provided, time pressure should reduce the magnitude of such effects. We examine this proposition in relation to the compromise effect and a choice between an extreme and an all-average option. We find that the compromise effect and the preference for an all-average alternative are both reduced under time pressure. A study using Mouselab provides additional support for the underlying decision mechanisms. We discuss the theoretical implications of this research and explore its consequences for marketers.

The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference

Many consumers purchase products in stores, where they can physically examine and touch the items. In addition, consumers shop for products online or through direct mail, where they cannot physically examine and touch the merchandise. Building on an analysis of perceptual mechanisms involved in the sense of touch, we find that products with primarily material properties, such as clothing or carpeting, are more likely to be preferred in shopping environments that allow physical inspection than in those environments that do not. We also find that there is no difference in preference across the two environments for products with primarily geometric properties, such as packaged goods, for which vision is highly diagnostic. Furthermore, when the touch properties of a material product are verbally described, this reduces the difference in preference between the two environments.

Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments

This article examines how the exclusion of a neutral or fence-sitting option changes an expressed attitude or preference judgment. Over a series of six studies, we find that the exclusion of a neutral response option (1) affects the judgment of extreme options (strong positive and negative features) more significantly than the judgment of options that are average on all features, (2) results in respondents favoring the option superior on the more important attribute, and (3) results in more risk aversion. We also provide evidence for the underlying process and show that our findings are moderated by individual differences on need for cognition and tolerance for ambiguity.

Comparison Effects on Preference Construction

Consumers frequently compare alternatives to make similarity and preference judgments. Recent research suggests that the construction of both similarity and preference judgments can be captured by a feature-matching model that allows for shifts in the relative weights assigned to the various features of the alternatives being compared. An implication of this model is that engaging in one comparative process (e.g., similarity) can influence the relative weight assigned to the features that are considered in a second comparative judgment (e.g., preference). Our main proposition that the type and direction of the initial comparison process has a systematic effect on subsequent preference judgments and choice was tested in a series of studies. One study, which focused on alternatives about which consumers have information in memory, shows that the direction of an initial comparison task that elicits differences between two options systematically alters their relative attractiveness in a subsequent preference task. In two subsequent studies, the effect of engaging in an initial comparison task on subsequent preference judgments was tested for stimulus-based choice sets. The results on choice deferral and choice satisfaction were consistent with the notion that engaging in similarity/dissimilarity comparisons altered the relative weight assigned to common and unique features for the two alternatives. Mouselab was used to support the decision mechanisms underlying the effect of the initial similarity/dissimilarity judgments. An additional study examined how the effect of adding common features on subsequent preference was also contingent on the initial comparison task. We conclude with a study involving real consequences and a discussion of the theoretical and practical goals of our findings. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.

The Effect of a Delay between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment

A consumer choosing a product must often wait before consuming it. In this article, we consider the consequences of waiting on consumption enjoyment. We propose that the effect of a delay on consumption enjoyment depends on both the negative utility of the wait itself and on the positive utility of anticipating a pleasant consumption experience. These factors exert different degrees of influence, depending on characteristics of the decision task. The results of three studies suggest that a delay increases consumption enjoyment for pleasurable products when actual consumption occurs, but decreases enjoyment for imagined consumption. Furthermore, the vividness of the awaited product moderates these effects.

Opportunity Cost Neglect

To properly consider the opportunity costs of a purchase, consumers must actively generate the alternatives that it would displace. The current research suggests that consumers often fail to do so. Even under conditions promoting cognitive effort, various cues to consider opportunity costs reduce purchase rates and increase the choice share of more affordable options. Sensitivity to such cues varies with chronic dispositional differences in spending attitudes. We discuss the implications of these results for the marketing strategies of economy and premium brands.