The Role of Arousal in Congruity-Based Product Evaluation

Noseworthy, Theodore J.; Muro, Fabrizio Di; Murray, Kyle B.

doi:10.1086/678301

Cited by 116 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The valence of the evaluations generated by schema incongruity depends on a person's ability to facilitate meaningor what is referred to as the ability to "resolve" the incongruity (Jhang et al 2012;Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989;Noseworthy et al 2014). More accurately, however, it is the ability to resolve the tension that results from the incongruity.…”

Section: How Enablers Facilitate Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast majority of research examining the schema congruity effect has explored how marketing tactics can facilitate assimilation-that is, resolution within an activated schema (Jhang et al 2012;Noseworthy et al 2014). Comparatively little research has explored how marketers can facilitate accommodation-that is, resolution through schema reconfiguration or subtyping.…”

Section: How Enablers Facilitate Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with the literature on schema congruity, we define an extremely incongruent product as being so atypical of the category that people struggle to resolve it within an existing set of beliefs, and, consequently, the product suffers negative evaluations (Jhang et al 2012;Meyers-Levy et al 1994;Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989;Noseworthy et al 2014;Noseworthy and Trudel 2011;Peracchio and Tybout 1996;Stayman et al 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Rather, they often incorporate a single feature that is nonnormative for that particular category among several otherwise normative features, be it color (e.g., black toilet paper; Jhang et al 2012), ingredient (e.g., natural juice in a soft drink; MeyersLevy and Tybout 1989), packaging (e.g., a bladder bag soft drink; Noseworthy et al 2014), shape (e.g., a triangle camera; Noseworthy, Cotte, and Lee 2011), or even benefit (e.g., vitamin D in meat; Meyers-Levy et al 1994). These features are not new to the world, but rather it is the feature combinations that are novel.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products

Noseworthy

Murray

Muro

2017

Journal of Consumer Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of new incongruent products hinges largely on whether consumers can efficiently make sense of the product. One of the most efficient ways that people make sense of new objects is through feature-based association. Such associations often incorporate an enabler (e.g., the color green) to help make sense of a semantically related feature (e.g., vitamin enriched). Evidence from three studies suggests that marketers can strategically incorporate enablers in product design to help consumers make sense of an extremely incongruent feature. As a result, consumers tend to reflect more favorably on the product. Furthermore, the authors find that even if the enabler itself is incongruent and leads to lower evaluations on its own, when combined with an atypical feature the effect can still be positive. Thus, a small but semantically meaningful adjustment in design can help marketers successfully introduce extremely incongruent innovations.

show abstract

Section: How Enablers Facilitate Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Enablers Facilitate Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products

Noseworthy

Murray

Muro

2017

Journal of Consumer Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of these effects could explain switching from the status quo (e.g., the United Kingdom as a member of the European Union) to an unknown future (Brexit). Anxious people also try to restore a sense of control (Noseworthy, Di Muro, and Murray 2014) and are therefore likely to go for the option that appears to be stronger and provide a sense of control. Low-power audiences who felt helpless and anxious are unlikely to have been persuaded by Clinton's positioning around competence (Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2016).…”

Section: Why Do People Sometimes Vote Against Their Self-interest?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Dahl¹,

Fischer²,

Johar³

et al. 2017

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains the emergence of nativist and populist movements across the globe? From the election of Donald Trump to the vote for Brexit, pundits wonder how and why these unforeseen outcomes came to pass. Why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Why do people sometimes vote against their self-interest? And why do people fall prey to fake news and believe seemingly outrageous claims? In this, our last editorial, we claim that some answers to these questions can be found in the pages of this journal-in articles published in JCR 1. While JCR welcomes and publishes many different types of papers, it has traditionally focused on theory building, and our goal in this article is to show how rich and robust theoretical work-uncovering the "why" behind effects-can help us explain and understand events. In our view, such understanding remains a key goal of science, even though immediate practical application of many JCR papers may not seem obvious.We will address the first two questions relying on the literatures on optimism, motivated reasoning and forgetting, survey and prediction pool biases, the affective bases for decisions, and the potential for social performance and media influence. Then we turn to a critical question that looms large and could provoke undesired consequences: how do people determine whether a claim is true? WHY WERE PEOPLE SO SURPRISED ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF THESE ELECTIONS?In the days leading up to the 2016 Brexit and US presidential elections, many people actively tracked and attended to political polls and models. On November 8, 2016-Election Day in the United States-"The Upshot" column writers in the New York Times predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning the presidency. On June 23, 2016, the day of the UK Brexit referendum, betting markets predicted an 88% chance that "remain" would win. After the outcomes of those elections were revealed, many expressed shock and wondered why the opinion polls were so wrong. While most polls did indicate a greater probability of Clinton beating Trump and "remain" beating "exit," polls also measure variation, and these polls indicated enough variation that the alternative outcomes should not have been so surprising. For example, on Election Day in the United States, the legendary Nate Silver's poll-analysis blog FiveThirtyEight predicted a 71% chance for the Democrats to win the presidency. Thus, Silver also predicted a non-negligible, nearly 30% chance that Trump would win. In the United Kingdom, during the month leading up to the Brexit vote, nearly the same number of surveys gave "exit" the edge as gave "remain" the edge (17 of 35 surveys conducted in June 2016 indicated "exit" had the edge), suggesting either outcome had a realistic possibility of occurring.So why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Research published in this journal (and elsewhere) has shown that people are unrealistically optimistic about themselves (Tanner and Carlson 2009) and that they engage in motivated reasoning (Jain and Maheswaran 2000). I...

show abstract

Arousal enhances herding tendencies when decision making

Coker

2020

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how arousal enhances consumer tendencies to be influenced by the majority when decision making, also known as "herding." Physiological arousal was manipulated in three controlled experiments, using discrete choice decisions as the dependent variable. The results suggest that arousal enhances tendencies to choose more popular options and that deindividuation mediates the effect of arousal on choice. This research enriches our understanding of the theoretical relationship between arousal and consumer decision making, by suggesting that arousal increases herding. The practical relevance of our findings suggests that strategies to increase herding effects, such as "popular choice" stickers and social media metrics, may be enhanced by making the experience more arousing.

show abstract

The Role of Arousal in Congruity-Based Product Evaluation

Cited by 116 publications

References 45 publications

When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products

When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Arousal enhances herding tendencies when decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About