Search

In today's advanced economies, consumers are constantly exposed to an increasing number of upgraded products. This research examines consumer response to a brand's launching of an upgraded product and identifies the consumer's ownership status of a previous version of the product as a key dimension that can influence their reaction. Contrary to common intuition, the research demonstrates that while the release of an upgraded product is received positively by nonowners of a previous version, this is not always the case for owners. The authors propose that owners respond unfavorably because the new upgrade increases perceived distance between the owners and the brand as the brand progresses forward with the enhanced products. That is, when the new product replaces an existing product the consumers own, consumers perceive that the brand is moving away from them. This negative effect of an upgrade is attenuated if the owners are provided with an extra source of connection to the brand. The authors investigate this phenomenon in five studies and discuss the implications of their findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co‐advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co‐advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co‐advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research takes the first step in exploring how the emotions of choice recipients influence the riskiness of decisions made for them by others. In particular, we focus on the role of sadness—an emotion that has been shown to prompt risk‐seeking in choices for self. Across five studies, in monetary and social decisions, participants prefer safer options for sad, relative to neutral‐affect others, even when the expected value of the safer option is significantly lower than that of the riskier option. The effect is driven by a desire to protect sad others from further loss or disappointment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the impact of advice use on perceptions of competence. We propose that advice use sends opposing signals to an advisor regarding the advisee's competence. Greater advice use signals respect for the advisor, which is reciprocated by enhancing competence perceptions. However, greater advice use also indicates a lack of independence in judgment, reducing perceptions of competence. As a result, as advice use increases (i.e., gets closer to the exact advice provided), perceptions of competence first increase but then decrease. We further argue that the impact of advice use on competence is influenced by perceptions of information accessibility, such that when advisor and advisee have access to the same information, lower reliance on advice is more tolerated and less impactful on competence. We show that this effect is conceptually and empirically distinct from advisor's confidence and subsequent preference for advice use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arboviruses have been reported over the years as constant threats to blood transfusion recipients, given the high occurrence of asymptomatic cases and the fact that the presence of viremia precedes the onset of symptoms, making it possible that infected blood from donors act as a source of dissemination. This work aims to identify the prevalence of dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus (ZIKV) and Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection in blood donors during epidemic and non-epidemic periods; classify the donor as symptomatic or asymptomatic; and verify the need to include DENV, CHIKV and ZIKV in the nucleic acid test (NAT) platform in northern Brazil. We investigated 36,133 thousand donations in two years of collection in Northern Brazil. One donor was positive for DENV and one for CHIKV (0.002% prevalence). As the prevalence for arboviruses was low in this study, it would not justify the individual screening of samples from donors in a blood bank. Thus, DENV- and CHIKV-positive samples were simulated in different amounts of sample pools, and both were safely detected by molecular biology even in a pool of 14 samples, which would meet the need to include these three viruses in the routine of blood centers in endemic countries such as Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many consumer price promotions (including new product launches) offer a product for free or for a low, discounted price along with a required purchase. This research demonstrates that consumers' willingness to pay for the product after the promotion is retracted is higher when it was offered for free than when it was offered at a low, discounted price. The underlying reasoning is that the price of the product on promotion is used as a natural anchor for value estimation. However, when the product is offered for free (i.e., zero price), consumers are less likely to consider the value of the product and are influenced by anchors such as the price of the focal purchase. In contrast to some prior findings, a free offer does not devalue the product at all and, at a minimum, devalues the product less than if it were offered for a low, discounted price. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumers often wonder about the product's maximum output: the highest rotation speed of a blender or the best printing quality of a printer. We examine how the number of levels (e.g., a blender with 3 vs. 7 speeds) influences judgments of maximum product output. Objectively speaking, the number of levels is no more than a set of breakpoints in an already predetermined continuum from the product's minimum to maximum output. Nevertheless, because of the ubiquitous association between number of breakpoints and quantity in daily life, consumers do not simply view more levels as a signal of greater precision (i.e., giving consumers more control over the possible outputs). They also incorrectly believe that the product has greater power (i.e., a higher maximum output), even when such an inference is in conflict with diagnostic attribute information (e.g., watts). A series of five studies documents the phenomenon, its asymmetric nature, and its boundary conditions. Reliance on the inaccurate "more levels, more power" lay theory weakens when participants consider a reduction rather than an increase in number of levels, and it disappears when the consumer is presented with an explicit relationship between each level and its corresponding output value (e.g., level 4:400 W). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The main aim of this paper is to examine the role of brand reputation on the impact of value product on perceptions of a premium product from the same brand. As a secondary goal, it tests and extends existing findings from judgment tasks to a choice task. Design/methodology/approach -- Two online experiments are presented. In Study 1 (1a and 1b), participants provided quality and price judgments to products. Brand reputation was manipulated by comparing common store brands to non-store brands (Study 1a) and to upscale store brands (Study 1b). In Study 2, we examined whether findings indicating a positive effect of a value store brand on a premium store brand extends to a choice context. Participants made choices between a premium store brand and a national brand in the presence of either a value store brand or a value national brand. Findings -- It was found that brand reputation plays an important role in the interplay of products in line extensions. While the positive impact of a value brand on a premium brand is at its strongest level for a regular store brand, it still has a moderate size for a non-store brand without a defined reputation, as well as for an upscale store brand. Second, using a choice task, we reject an important rival explanation for the impact of a value store brand on a premium store brand observed in previous research. Research limitations/implications -- The authors have focused on consumers' expectations of products. While research has shown that these expectations play an important role in evaluations, future research may directly examine perceptions after consumption. The findings also offer an opportunity for future research to examine the differences in perceptions between store and non-store brands at different positioning levels, as well as other factors that affect brand reputation. Practical implications -- The findings have two practical implications. First, our results indicate that when a manufacturer produces two products in the same category at different levels of quality, there is some benefit in letting consumers know about this relationship. The authors consistently found no negative impact on the brands and often a positive impact on the premium brand. While effects are stronger for common store brands, they are likely to emerge for any type of brand, albeit weaker. Originality/value -- This paper contributes to the nascent literature on multi-tier brands and vertical extensions in several ways. First, the role of brand reputation was examined and how it interacts with positioning in line extension context. Second, we show that the effect of a value brand on a premium brand is stronger for store brands, but still existent for non-store brands. These results offer implications for practice and open opportunities for future research on multi-tier store brands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Sensitization occurs when the passage of time increases the intensity of the experience. Individuals have sensitization intuitions for some unpleasant experiences such as waiting and commuting. In contrast, diminishing sensitivity indicates that the impact of each additional unit of a stimulus decreases as the magnitude of the stimulus increases. In this article, we document a new preference reversal phenomenon due to switch between these two intuitions. When considering unpleasant experiences such as waiting and commuting in a judgment task that asks individuals to consider the impact of an additional unit of time to different baselines, we find that individuals respond in a way consistent with a sensitization intuition. However, when asked to make choices involving trade-offs between longer unpleasant experiences and other attributes, participants respond in a way contrary to their sensitization intuitions and consistent with diminishing sensitivity. We reason that the automatic use of relative differences and diminishing sensitivity occurs because it facilitates trade-offs considerations in a typical choice task. Our hypotheses are supported in a series of four studies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Giving help is a generous act, but it can cause psychological distress for the recipients by inducing feelings of dependency, incompetence, or indebtedness. The current research identifies a novel factor—the timing of help in the course of an activity—that modulates the negative effect of help on the recipient's subjective well-being. Across nine studies, we show that people experience less happiness and satisfaction when they receive help in a later (vs. earlier) stage of an activity. We attribute this timing effect to the recipient's loss of psychological ownership of the activity; help causes a temporary, perceived shift of ownership from the recipient to the helper, and the recipient perceives a greater loss of ownership after receiving help in a later (vs. earlier) stage. We also identify two theoretical moderators: The effect holds when the activity is pursued for intrinsic reasons (e.g., for enjoyment) but not when the activity is pursued for extrinsic reasons (e.g., out of obligation), and the effect holds when help is dependency-oriented (e.g., providing full solutions) but not when help is autonomy-oriented (e.g., providing tools). Our findings advance the current understanding of how the provision of help can hurt a recipient's well-being and offer practical insight into when help should be given to minimize such harmful effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]