Current Issue Highlights
June 9, 2015

June Issue           

Seeking Lasting Enjoyment with Limited Money: Financial Constraints Increase Preference for Material Goods over Experiences

Stephanie M. Tully
Hal E. Hershfield 
Tom Meyvis


Consumers with limited discretionary money face important trade-offs when deciding how to spend it. Feelings of financial constraint increase consumer concern about the lasting utility of their purchases, which in turn increases their preference for material goods over experiences. The consideration of financial constraints shifts consumer preferences toward material goods (rather than experiences), and this systematic shift is due to an increased concern about the longevity of the purchase. This preference shift persists even when the material goods are more frivolous than the experiences, indicating that the effect is not driven by an increased desire for sensible and justifiable purchases. However, the shift toward material purchases disappears when the material good is unusually short lived, further implicating concern about longevity as the key driver of the effect. Finally, the consideration of financial constraints increases preference for material purchases even when the potential memories that experiences can provide are made explicitly salient. Together, these results indicate that financially constrained consumers spend their discretionary money on material purchases as a means of securing long-term consumption utility
.
 
When Brands Reflect Our Ideal World: The Values and Brand Preferences of Consumers Who Support versus Reject Society's Dominant Ideology
Steven Shepherd 
Tanya L. Chartrand
Gavan J. Fitzsimons

In what ways can brands symbolize America's defining values, and for whom do these values resonate? Drawing from research on values (Schwartz 1994), the symbolic power of brands (Holt 2004, 2006; McCracken 1986), and system justification theory (Jost and Banaji 1994), the current research explores what values define America's dominant ideology, which consumers subscribe to these values, and implications for brands that reflect versus do not reflect the dominant ideology. It is proposed that consumers vary in their satisfaction with American society and their endorsement of America's defining values, and thus differ in the values they endorse versus reject in brands. Five experiments manipulate whether or not the values signaled by a brand are in alignment with the dominant ideology. Consumers more versus less satisfied with American society respond differently to the values a brand signals, affecting brand attitudes, perceptions of a brand's status as a cultural icon, and purchase intentions. In a sixth experiment, those more versus less satisfied with American society respond differently to consumer-related policy (a ban on trans fat), depending on the values that the policy is framed as reflecting. Implications for branding and policy are discussed.

Volume 42, Number 1, June 2015
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucv005
 

Sarah G. Moore 


This article examines explanation type in online word of mouth (WOM), focusing on what consumers explain: their actions ("I chose this product because...") or their reactions ("I love this product because..."). Results show that review writers explain their actions more than their reactions for utilitarian products, but they explain their reactions more than their actions for hedonic products. They do so to be helpful to review readers, who find explained actions more helpful for utilitarian products and explained reactions more helpful for hedonic products. Explained actions and reactions are differentially helpful across product type because they increase reader ability to predict their attitude toward the reviewed product: explained actions increase attitude predictability for utilitarian products, whereas explained reactions increase attitude predictability for hedonic products. These increases in attitude predictability and review helpfulness ultimately increase reader choice of the product in question. This article contributes to the explaining and the WOM literatures by focusing on what consumers explain, rather than on how they explain, by identifying product type as a novel moderator of what review writers explain (actions or reactions), and by examining when and why review readers prefer different types of explanations.
 
Volume 42, Number 1, June 2015
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucv003
 

How, When, and Why Do Attribute-Complementary versus Attribute-Similar Cobrands Affect Brand Evaluations: A Concept Combination Perspective

Vanitha Swaminathan
Zeynep
G�rhan-Canli
Umut Kubat
Ceren Hayran


Extant research on cobranding does not examine when and why complementarity or similarity between cobranding partners can be more effective. This research examines consumer reactions to cobranded partnerships that feature brands with either complementary or similar attribute levels, both of which are common in the marketplace. Consumer evaluations vary as a function of concept combination interpretation strategy (property mapping or relational linking) and whether cobranded partners have complementary or similar attributes. Specifically, when consumers use property mapping, they evaluate cobranded partnerships with complementary (vs. similar) attribute levels more favorably. In contrast, when using relational linking, they evaluate cobranded partnerships with complementary (vs. similar) attribute levels less favorably. The breadth of the host brand (broad vs. narrow) and the type of advertising influence the extent to which consumers are likely to use property mapping or relational linking in evaluating cobranded partnerships.

Volume 42, Number 1, June 2015
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucv006
 

Transformative Consumer Research

(Spring/Summer 2015)

Curator: Julie L. Ozanne

Products as Signals

(Winter 2014/2015)

Curator: Page Moreau

Meaningful Choice

(Autumn 2014)

Curator: Jennifer Aaker

Morality and the Marketplace

(Summer 2014)

Curator: Kent Grayson

      
Featured Media Mentions
 
The Atlantic

   Highlights Archive                     
  
The Journal of Consumer Research is sponsored by:





Like us on Facebook      Follow us on Twitter