2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beauty-is-good, ugly-is-risky: Food aesthetics bias and construal level

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies conducted from the perspective of product aesthetics showed that consumers perceive foods with classical aesthetic appearances to be healthier and show a higher willingness to pay for these than for ugly foods [ 22 ]. Aesthetically imperfect foods are more likely to evoke perceived risk, and thus, lower purchase intentions [ 12 ].…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Studies conducted from the perspective of product aesthetics showed that consumers perceive foods with classical aesthetic appearances to be healthier and show a higher willingness to pay for these than for ugly foods [ 22 ]. Aesthetically imperfect foods are more likely to evoke perceived risk, and thus, lower purchase intentions [ 12 ].…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seeing things as either “black or white” is a characteristic of dichotomous thinking [ 10 ], and combined with perfectionists’ high standards, whenever things are slightly flawed, dissatisfaction can be triggered in perfectionists, causing them to delay or abandon the original task. Perfectionists have a low tolerance for uncertainty [ 11 ], and imperfect products with broken packaging, immediate expiration dates, and defects all evoke the risk that consumers perceive the product as a threat to personal safety and health [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], so we speculated that the intolerance of uncertainty may also contribute to perfectionists’ preference to avoid purchasing imperfect products.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As can be seen in Table 1, academic research initially analyzed the effects of images on consumer behavior through a theoretical background based on imagery-eliciting strategies (Babin and Burns, 1997), consumption vision approach to mental imagery (Walters et al, 2007) and attention restoration theory (Hartmann et al, 2013). After this phase, many studies began to use CLT to support their studies (Hernandez et al, 2015;Lee et al, 2017;Ding and Keh, 2017;Kim et al, 2019;Zheng et al, 2020;Kittur and Chatterjee, 2021;Castagna et al, 2021).…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We build on their work not only by using a last-minute context of rescued meals, but also by showing how product construal and benefit appeals interact to influence consumer decision-making. While the effects of construal level (Castagna et al , 2021; White et al , 2011) and benefit appeals (De Visser-Amundson et al , 2021; Wu et al , 2017) have been well documented separately in the pro-social domain, research on their combined effects is scarce and shows inconsistent results. Some studies suggest that consumers who are in an abstract mindset are more likely to be interested in sustainable products when the environmental (vs financial) benefits are highlighted, while benefit appeals have no impact on consumers who have a concrete mindset (Goldsmith et al , 2016; Yang et al , 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%