Referral reward programs have been shown in past research to stimulate referrals and also to contribute positively to customer lifetime value and firms' profitability. In this paper we examine whether, how, and under what conditions providing a reward for a referral affects receivers' responses to the referral. Based on a multiple motives inference framework, we propose that rewards adversely affect responses because they lead receiving consumers to infer ulterior motives for the referral. Using experiments and a survey we find support for this hypothesis, and show that this effect is stronger for unsolicited and weak tie referrals. We also demonstrate that rewarding both referral provider and receiver, or providing symbolic rewards can eliminate the negative effect of rewarded referrals. The paper makes conceptual contributions to the literature on referral reward programs, word-of-mouth, and motive inferences. The work has implications for managers considering ways to construct referral programs and design marketing activities to increase referrals. Although word-of-mouth (WOM) has long been recognized as an important influence on consumers, for a variety of reasons research attention to WOM recently has surged. First, technology has allowed the emergence of new types of person-to-person interaction about products, and is shifting control of message and media timing to the consumer (cf., Libai et al.

In the current research, we study relationship norms in a word-of-mouth marketing context. The presence of a financial incentive for a recommendation implies that the word-of-mouth behavior

A rich tradition in self-control research has documented the negative consequences of exerting self-control in one task for self-control performance in subsequent tasks. However, there is a dearth of research examining what happens when people exert self-control in multiple domains simultaneously. The current research aims to fill this gap. We integrate predictions from the most prominent models of self-control with recent neuropsychological insights in the human inhibition system to generate the novel hypothesis that exerting effortful self-control in one task can simultaneously improve self-control in completely unrelated domains. An internal meta-analysis on all 18 studies we conducted shows that exerting self-control in one domain (i.e., controlling attention, food consumption, emotions or thoughts) simultaneously improves self-control in a range of other domains, as demonstrated by, for example, reduced unhealthy food consumption, better Stroop task performance, and less impulsive decision making. A subset of nine studies demonstrates the crucial nature of task timing -when the same tasks are executed sequentially, our results suggest the emergence of an ego depletion effect. We provide conservative estimates of the self-control facilitation (d = |0.22|) as well as the ego depletion effect size (d = |0.17|) free of data selection and publication biases. These results (i) shed new light on self-control theories, (ii) confirm recent claims that previous estimates of the ego depletion effect size were inflated due to publication bias, and (iii) provide a blueprint for how to handle the power issues and associated file drawer problems commonly encountered in multi-study research projects.

No abstract

Visceral states are known to reduce the ability to exert self-control. In the current research, we investigated how self-control is affected by a visceral factor associated with inhibition rather than with approach: bladder control. We designed four studies to test the hypothesis that inhibitory signals are not domain-specific but can spill over to unrelated domains, resulting in increased impulse control in the behavioral domain. In Study 1, participants' urination urgency correlated with performance on color-naming but not word-meaning trials of a Stroop task. In Studies 2 and 3, we found that higher levels of bladder pressure resulted in an increased ability to resist impulsive choices in monetary decision making. We found that inhibitory spillover effects are moderated by sensitivity of the Behavioral Inhibition System (Study 3) and can be induced by exogenous cues (Study 4). Implications for inhibition and impulse-control theories are discussed.

Consumer research can benefit greatly from more insight in unconscious processes underlying behavior. Williams and Poehlman's effort at more clearly conceptualizing consciousness and call for more research provides a welcome stimulus in this regard. At the same time, providing evidence for unconscious causation is fraught with methodological difficulties. We outline why it is vital to uphold standards of evidence for claims regarding unconscious processes, as it is precisely a lack of rigor on this front which has generated a countermovement by researchers sceptical of dual process models in general and unconscious processes in particular. We contend that the sceptics have offered valid causes for concern, which we leverage to formulate six concrete recommendations for future research on consciousness. Researchers should (1) specify the process level at which they claim evidence for unconscious processes, (2) not confuse unconscious influences with unconscious processes, (3) carefully choose between different operational definitions of awareness, (4) maximally satisfy four criteria for awareness measures, and (5) complement measurement with experimental manipulations of awareness. Finally, we recommend to (6) refrain from hard claims about unconscious causation that transcend the limitations of the evidence, recognizing that consciousness is a continuous construct. Author NoteSteven Sweldens is associate professor of marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (sweldens@rsm.nl) and distinguished research fellow at INSEAD. Mirjam A. Tuk is assistant professor of marketing at Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK (m.tuk@imperial.ac.uk) and visiting professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Mandy Hütter is junior professor of social psychology at the Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Fachbereich Psychologie, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tübingen, Germany (mandy.huetter@uni-tuebingen.de). 2To better understand, aid and protect consumers, it is imperative to have an accurate understanding of unconscious drivers of behavior. We therefore welcome Williams and Poehlman's (2016) effort to stimulate and more clearly conceptualize the study of consciousness in consumer research. Past research on consciousness has struggled with two major stumbling blocks. First, it is difficult to provide an accurate definition of consciousness, not least because we do not really know how the experience of consciousness originates. As a consequence, there has been much variation in how conscious versus unconscious processing have been defined and operationalized in past research. We believe Williams and Poehlman (WP) have made important progress here by restricting the definition of consciousness to awareness, highlighting its functions and distinguishing it from other features of automaticity. Second, even when researchers agree on a definition (e.g., "awareness"),...

AND KEYWORDS AbstractPrevious research suggests that people form impressions of others based on their facial appearance in a very fast and automatic manner, and this especially holds for trustworthiness.

Source characteristics are a key determinant of preferences and choice in the interpersonal influence process. Extant literature documents the positive impact of similarity between oneself and an opinion provider on advice taking, but much less is known about how dissimilarity affects choice. While earlier research assumed that people ignore or discount the opinions of dissimilar others, we argue that dissimilarity can lead to preference and choice contrast. We posit that perceptions of dissimilarity trigger a more general hypothesis of dissimilarity. As a result, a preference contrast is observed, driven by people's tendency to interpret the provided opinion in a way that confirms their dissimilarity hypothesis. Five studies confirm the emergence of preference and choice contrast due to dissimilarity, and support the proposed mechanism. We discuss the relevance of proper baseline conditions for (dis)similarity research, as well as implications for research within the domain of interpersonal influence.