Search

Despite the popularity and extensive use of engaging users in crowdvoting, very little research has been conducted into the appropriateness of users as substitutes for experts when judging ideas. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriateness of using users as a proxy for professional experts during the initial idea screening of new product/service ideas. In other words, are users' assessments during idea screening conformant with professional experts' assessments and are they reliable as a proxy for experts during idea screening? In a comparative study, two different approaches to outsourcing the screening of wireless ideas to users are examined, including assessment by two different user panels: (1) technically skilled users and (2) technically naïve users. These two approaches were compared with the assessments made by professional experts. The results showed no conformance between users and experts when comparing their absolute scores. However, during a relative comparison (the ranking of ideas), both user panels were conformant with the professional experts. A test of the user panels' ability to select the same top ideas as the professional experts was successful, indicating good conformance between the user panels and the professional experts. This paper's contribution is knowledge of how conformant external users are compared with professional expert judges during idea screening. The results indicate that companies can employ users during the initial screening process using criteria assessment to select the best ideas for further elaboration, something that would significantly reduce the number of ideas. The paper suggests an alternative design to crowdvoting, whereby the users assess the relevant criteria.

Despite the popularity and extensive use of engaging users in crowdvoting, very little research has been conducted into the appropriateness of users as substitutes for experts when judging ideas. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriateness of using users as a proxy for professional experts during the initial idea screening of new product/service ideas. In other words, are users' assessments during idea screening conformant with professional experts' assessments and are they reliable as a proxy for experts during idea screening? In a comparative study, two different approaches to outsourcing the screening of wireless ideas to users are examined, including assessment by two different user panels: (1) technically skilled users and (2) technically naïve users. These two approaches were compared with the assessments made by professional experts. The results showed no conformance between users and experts when comparing their absolute scores. However, during a relative comparison (the ranking of ideas), both user panels were conformant with the professional experts. A test of the user panels' ability to select the same top ideas as the professional experts was successful, indicating good conformance between the user panels and the professional experts. This paper's contribution is knowledge of how conformant external users are compared with professional expert judges during idea screening. The results indicate that companies can employ users during the initial screening process using criteria assessment to select the best ideas for further elaboration, something that would significantly reduce the number of ideas. The paper suggests an alternative design to crowdvoting, whereby the users assess the relevant criteria.

Despite the popularity and extensive use of engaging users in crowdvoting, very little research has been conducted into the appropriateness of users as substitutes for experts when judging ideas. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriateness of using users as a proxy for professional experts during the initial idea screening of new product/service ideas. In other words, are users' assessments during idea screening conformant with professional experts' assessments and are they reliable as a proxy for experts during idea screening? In a comparative study, two different approaches to outsourcing the screening of wireless ideas to users are examined, including assessment by two different user panels: (1) technically skilled users and (2) technically naïve users. These two approaches were compared with the assessments made by professional experts. The results showed no conformance between users and experts when comparing their absolute scores. However, during a relative comparison (the ranking of ideas), both user panels were conformant with the professional experts. A test of the user panels' ability to select the same top ideas as the professional experts was successful, indicating good conformance between the user panels and the professional experts. This paper's contribution is knowledge of how conformant external users are compared with professional expert judges during idea screening. The results indicate that companies can employ users during the initial screening process using criteria assessment to select the best ideas for further elaboration, something that would significantly reduce the number of ideas. The paper suggests an alternative design to crowdvoting, whereby the users assess the relevant criteria.

Despite the popularity and extensive use of engaging users in crowdvoting, very little research has been conducted into the appropriateness of users as substitutes for experts when judging ideas. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriateness of using users as a proxy for professional experts during the initial idea screening of new product/service ideas. In other words, are users' assessments during idea screening conformant with professional experts' assessments and are they reliable as a proxy for experts during idea screening? In a comparative study, two different approaches to outsourcing the screening of wireless ideas to users are examined, including assessment by two different user panels: (1) technically skilled users and (2) technically naïve users. These two approaches were compared with the assessments made by professional experts. The results showed no conformance between users and experts when comparing their absolute scores. However, during a relative comparison (the ranking of ideas), both user panels were conformant with the professional experts. A test of the user panels' ability to select the same top ideas as the professional experts was successful, indicating good conformance between the user panels and the professional experts. This paper's contribution is knowledge of how conformant external users are compared with professional expert judges during idea screening. The results indicate that companies can employ users during the initial screening process using criteria assessment to select the best ideas for further elaboration, something that would significantly reduce the number of ideas. The paper suggests an alternative design to crowdvoting, whereby the users assess the relevant criteria.

Despite the popularity and extensive use of engaging users in crowdvoting, very little research has been conducted into the appropriateness of users as substitutes for experts when judging ideas. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the appropriateness of using users as a proxy for professional experts during the initial idea screening of new product/service ideas. In other words, are users' assessments during idea screening conformant with professional experts' assessments and are they reliable as a proxy for experts during idea screening? In a comparative study, two different approaches to outsourcing the screening of wireless ideas to users are examined, including assessment by two different user panels: (1) technically skilled users and (2) technically naïve users. These two approaches were compared with the assessments made by professional experts. The results showed no conformance between users and experts when comparing their absolute scores. However, during a relative comparison (the ranking of ideas), both user panels were conformant with the professional experts. A test of the user panels' ability to select the same top ideas as the professional experts was successful, indicating good conformance between the user panels and the professional experts. This paper's contribution is knowledge of how conformant external users are compared with professional expert judges during idea screening. The results indicate that companies can employ users during the initial screening process using criteria assessment to select the best ideas for further elaboration, something that would significantly reduce the number of ideas. The paper suggests an alternative design to crowdvoting, whereby the users assess the relevant criteria.

Purpose – The research concerns the effect of frontline employees’ averted or direct gaze on consumers’ evaluation of the encounter. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that in normal interactions, a direct or averted gaze affects people’s evaluation of others. The question was whether this finding would hold true in commercial interactions. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted three experiments using a written scenario with a photograph among a total sample of 612 participants. Findings – This research showed that consumers’ social impression of the frontline employees mediated the effect of the employees’ gazing behaviour on consumers’ emotions and satisfaction with the encounters. The findings also showed that averting gaze had a negative effect on consumers’ first impression of the frontline employee, which affected consumers’ satisfaction with the encounter. The findings also showed that a direct gaze had a negative effect on encounter satisfaction when consumers sought to purchase embarrassing products. Originality/value – The research demonstrated that the effect of gaze on encounter satisfaction was mediated by the social impression and moderated by consumers’ approach/avoidance motivation.

In-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences. Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an in-store product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences. Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an in-store product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences. Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an in-store product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences. Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an in-store product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences. Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an in-store product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Consumer awareness is continuously increasing towards pro-environmental behavior. Thus, we developed a web-based environmental feedback tool EcoRunner, which is designed for Swedish households aiming at increasing the awareness in a more pro-environmental direction. The conceptual model of EcoRunner has been developed based on top-down and bottom-up approaches connecting economic activities within a household to environmental pressures (both direct and indirect). In addition, the development of the tool includes a multi-level model aiming at better tailor-made advice to consumers. In this paper, we examine the EcoRunner tool with average single Swedish household expenditures as well as explore options for reductions and systems effects. Analysis shows that food and non-alcoholic beverages, fuel for personal transport (e.g. car) and air transports have significant environmental pressures. In addition, this study suggests that EcoRunner could be used in education systems as an environmental feedback tool to enlighten consumers motivation and change consumption patterns.