No abstract

The authors propose that attempts to increase consumers’ objective knowledge (OK) regarding financial instruments can deter willingness to invest when such attempts diminish consumers’ subjective knowledge (SK). In four studies, the authors use different SK manipulations and investment products to show that investment decisions are influenced by SK, independent of OK. Specifically, they find that (1) willingness to pursue a risky investment increases when SK is high (vs. low) relative to a prior investment choice (Study 1); (2) willingness to enroll in a retirement saving program is enhanced by asking consumers an easy (vs. difficult) question about finance, thereby increasing SK (Study 2); (3) technically elaborating information about a mutual fund diminishes SK regarding that investment and decreases choice of that fund (Study 3); and (4) consumers invest less money in funds when missing information is made salient, holding the objective investment information constant (Study 4). Furthermore, the effects in Studies 2–4 are mediated by participants’ self-rated SK. The authors propose that effective financial education must focus not only on imparting relevant information and enhancing OK but also on promoting higher levels of SK.

No abstract

No abstract

We examine movie sequels as brand extensions of experiential goods. Study 1 reveals a reversal of the traditional categorization model such that dissimilar extensions are rated higher than similar extensions. This reversal is moderated by the name of the sequel; numbered sequels (Daredevil 2) are influenced by similarity more than named sequels (Daredevil: Taking It to the Streets). Study 2 reveals that the reversal arises because numbered sequels invoke a greater degree of assimilation with the parent movie, thereby increasing consumers' level of satiation of experiential attributes. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) provides external validity for our results (study 3). (c) 2006 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Just as good looks bestow an unconscious “beauty premium” on people, high aesthetics bestows an unrecognized benefit on consumer goods. Specifically, choosing a product with good design affirms the consumer’s sense of self. Choice of a highly aesthetic product was compared with choice of products superior on other attributes including function, brand, and hedonics to show that only aesthetics influences a consumer’s personal values. In study 1 a prior self-affirming task leads to a decrease in choice share of a highly aesthetic option. Studies 2 and 3 mimic prior research on self-affirmation with, however, choice of a highly aesthetic product replacing a traditional self-affirmation manipulation. Choosing a product with good design resulted in increased openness to counter-attitudinal arguments and reduced propensity to escalate commitment toward a failing course of action. There are numerous implications of this form of self-affirmation, from public policy to retail therapy.

Three laboratory experiments explore how alternative brand name structures (i.e., family branded or subbranded) and varying degrees of category similarity (i.e., similar or dissimilar) influence extension evaluations and parent brand dilution. The results indicate that subbranded extensions (e.g., Quencher by Tropicana cola) evoke a slower, more thoughtful subtyping processing strategy than family branded extensions (e.g., Tropicana cola), which evoke a faster, category-based processing strategy. As a result, category similarity affects extension evaluations when the extension is family branded but not when it is subbranded. In addition, dilution effects are only evident when consumers have a negative experience with a similar family branded extension. Subbranding thus offers two key benefits to marketers: It both enhances extension evaluations and protects the parent brand from any unwanted negative feedback.

How does the attractiveness of a particular option depend on comparisons drawn between it and other alternatives? We observe that in many cases, comparisons hurt: When the options being compared have both meaningful advantages and meaningful disadvantages, comparison between options makes each option less attractive. The effects of comparison are crucial in choice problems involving grouped options, because the way in which options are grouped influences which comparisons are likely to be made. In particular, we propose that grouping focuses comparison, making within-group comparisons more likely than between-group comparisons. This line of reasoning suggests that grouping should hurt, and we observe that it does: An option is more likely to be chosen when alone than when part of a group.