Journal of Consumer Research
Current Issue Highlights
|
Planning to Make Unplanned Purchases?
The Role of In-Store Slack in Budget Deviation
Karen M. Stilley
J. Jeffrey Inman
Kirk L. Wakefield
Consumers have mental budgets for grocery trips that are typically composed of both an itemized portion and in-store slack. The authors conceptualize the itemized portion as the amount that the consumer has allocated to spend on items planned to the brand or product level and the in-store slack as the portion of the mental budget that is not assigned to be spent on any particular product but remains available for in-store decisions. Using a secondary data set and a field study, the authors find incidence of in-store slack. Moreover, they find support for their framework predicting that the relationship between in-store slack and budget deviation (the amount by which actual spending deviates from the mental trip budget) depends on factors related to desire and willpower.
Volume 37, Number 2, August 2010, DOI: 10.1086/651567
Selected Media Mentions
The New York Times
Food Shoppers Who Don't Spend It All
MSN
How to control your sneaky spending
Economic Times
Impulse buys are actually subconsciously planned: Study
MedIndia
Unplanned Purchases may be Planned Ones After All!
EurekAlert!
What Is in-Store Slack? Consumers Often Plan for Unplanned Purchases
Science Daily
What Is in-Store Slack? Consumers Often Plan for Unplanned Purchases
Eureka! Science News
In-store slack: Consumers often plan for unplanned purchases
PhysOrg.com
In-store slack: Consumers often plan for unplanned purchases
Thaindian News
http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_consumers-often-plan-to-buy-unplanned-items_1349433
Daily News & Analysis
Consumers often plan to buy unplanned items
RedOrbit
Study: Consumers Often Plan for Unplanned Purchases
|
Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?
Hazel Rose Markus
Barry Schwartz
Americans live in a political, social, and historical context that values personal freedom and choice above all else, an emphasis that has been amplified by contemporary psychology. However, research shows that in non-Western cultures and among working-class Westerners, freedom and choice do not have the meaning or importance they do for the university-educated people who have been the subjects of almost all research on this topic. One cannot assume that choice, as understood by educated, affluent Westerners, is a universal aspiration. The meaning and significance of choice are cultural constructions. Moreover, even when choice can foster freedom, empowerment, and independence, it is not an unalloyed good. Too much choice can produce a paralyzing uncertainty, depression, and selfishness. In the United States, the path to well-being may require that we strike a balance between the positive and negative consequences of proliferating choice in every domain of life.
Volume 37, Number 2, August 2010, DOI: 10.1086/651242
Selected Media Mentions
The New York Times
Too Many Choices: A Problem That Can Paralyze
Telegraph.co.uk
Too much choice leaving us bewildered and depressed
CBC News
Too much choice can be paralyzing: study
The Sydney Morning Herald
Variety can give you the fright of your life
PsychCentral
Free-Choice Not Tied to Mental Well-Being
EurekAlert!
Choice Doesn't Always Mean Well-Being For Everyone
Science Daily
Choice Doesn't Always Mean Well-Being For Everyone
Eureka! Science News
Choice Doesn't Always Mean Well-Being For Everyone
PhysOrg.com
Choice Doesn't Always Mean Well-Being For Everyone
RedOrbit
Choice Doesn't Always Mean Well-Being For Everyone
|
Goal Management in Sequential Choices:
Consumer Choices for Others Are More Indulgent
than Personal Choices
Juliano Laran
What are the differences in exerting self-control in sequential choices when consumers choose for others (family or friends) rather than for themselves? Sequential choices represent an opportunity to manage the pursuit of one's multiple personal goals. Consumers typically manage these personal goals by combining indulgent and virtuous choices. When choosing for others, however, this is not the case. Consumers then focus on a pleasure-seeking goal, which leads to indulgent choices for others. Six experiments demonstrate this phenomenon and uncover conditions that encourage more virtuous choices for others.
Volume 37, Number 2, August 2010, DOI: 10.1086/652193
Selected Media Mentions
United Press International
People buy less healthy food for others
The Times of India
Why we buy less healthy food for others
Medical News Today
Consumers Buy Healthier Foods For Themselves
MedIndia
We Buy Less Healthy Food Items When It is for Others
Genetic Engineering News
Apples for me, Doritos for you: Consumers buy healthier foods for themselves
EurekAlert!
Apples for me, Doritos for you: Consumers buy healthier foods for themselves
Science Daily
Apples for Me, Potato Chips for You: Consumers Buy Healthier Foods for Themselves
Eureka! Science News
Apples for me, Doritos for you: Consumers buy healthier foods for themselves
PhysOrg.com
Apples for me, Doritos for you: Consumers buy healthier foods for themselves
Thaindian News
When buying for others, consumers go for less healthy food items
Daily News & Analysis
When buying for others, consumers go for less healthy food items
RedOrbit
Study: Consumers Buy Healthier Foods for Themselves
|
Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits
as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter
Jennifer Aaker
Kathleen D. Vohs
Cassie Mogilner
Consumers use warmth and competence, two fundamental dimensions that govern social judgments of people, to form perceptions of firms. Three experiments showed that consumers perceive nonprofits as being warmer than for-profits but as less competent. Further, consumers are less willing to buy a product made by a nonprofit than a for-profit because of their perception that the firm lacks competence. Consequently, when perceived competence of a nonprofit is boosted through subtle cues that connote credibility, discrepancies in willingness to buy disappear. In fact, when consumers perceive high levels of competence and warmth, they feel admiration for the firm-which translates to consumers' increased desire to buy. This work highlights the importance of consumer stereotypes about nonprofit and for-profit companies that, at baseline, come with opposing advantages and disadvantages but that can be altered.
Volume 37, Number 2, August 2010, DOI: 10.1086/651566
Selected Media Mentions
Financial Times
Something for the weekend
EurekAlert!
Do Stereotypes Drive Consumer Purchases?
Science Daily
Do Stereotypes Drive Consumer Purchases?
Eureka! Science News
Do Stereotypes Drive Consumer Purchases?
PhysOrg.com
Do Stereotypes Drive Consumer Purchases?
Thaindian News
Consumers perceive non-profits as incompetent: Study
RedOrbit
Do Stereotypes Drive Consumer Purchases?
|
