ARTICLES
SUMMARY
Consumer Marketing
2023-2024
, Table of Contents
Articles discussed during lectures
Bitterly, T. B., Mislavsky, R., Dai, H., & Milkman, K. L. (2014). Dueling with desire: a synthesis of past research
on want/should conflict ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Elsen, M., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2016). Thin slice impressions: how advertising evaluation depends on
exposure duration............................................................................................................................................... 2
Verhellen, Y., Eelen, J., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2016). The short-and long-term impact of brand
placement in an advertiser-funded TV program on viewers' attitudes toward the sponsor brand and its main
competitor. ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Anik, L., Hauser, R., & Gibson, M. (2020). To understand consumer behavior, think like a marketplace scientist
............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis 7
Madan, S., Nanakdewa, K., Savani, K., & Markus, H. R. (2020). The paradoxical consequences of choice: Often
good for the individual, perhaps less so for society? .......................................................................................... 8
Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products ......... 10
Palmeira, M. M., & Srivastava, J. (2013). Free offer≠ cheap product: A selective accessibility account on the
valuation of free offers ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Levav, J., & Argo, J. J. (2010). Physical contact and financial risk taking .......................................................... 18
McFerran, B., Dahl, D. W., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Morales, A. C. (2010). I’ll have what she’s having: Effects of
social influence and body type on the food choices of others .......................................................................... 21
Eelen, J., Özturan, P., & Verlegh, P. W. (2017). The differential impact of brand loyalty on traditional and
online word of mouth: The moderating roles of self-brand connection and the desire to help the brand. ...... 23
Watson, G. F., Beck, J. T., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Building, measuring, and profiting from
customer loyalty. .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Barasch, A., Zauberman, G., & Diehl, K. (2018). How the intention to share can undermine enjoyment: Photo-
taking goals and evaluation of experiences ..................................................................................................... 29
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy
life and a meaningful life. ................................................................................................................................. 32
Articles discussed during tutorials
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to
motivate environmental conservation in hotels. .............................................................................................. 33
Putnam-Farr, E., Dhar, R., Gorlin, M., Upritchard, J., Hatzis, M., & Bakker, M. (2023). Forgot your bottle or bag
again? How well-placed reminder cues can help consumers build sustainable habits. ................................... 36
Trudel, R., Argo, J. J., & Meng, M. D. (2016). The recycled self: Consumers’ disposal decisions of identity-linked
products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 246-264. ............................................................................... 37
Verplanken, B. (2018). Promoting sustainability: Towards a segmentation model of individual and household
behaviour and behaviour change. .................................................................................................................... 39
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 579-592. ... 41
1
, Bitterly, T. B., Mislavsky, R., Dai, H., & Milkman, K. L. (2014). Dueling with desire: a synthesis
of past research on want/should conflict
In our daily lives we frequently face a tension between what we want to do (or what we desire)
and what we believe we should do. For decades, researchers have examined battles like these
between highly desirable options that provide immediate gratification (e.g., eating junk food,
procrastinating, overspending) and options that provide more long-term benefits (e.g., eating
healthy food, meeting deadlines, and saving for retirement.
This chapter has synthesized research on the internal conflict we face when presented with
want and should options, with particular attention to how we can best encourage more should
choices. The effectiveness of many of the strategies we have discussed has important
implications for public policy. In the realm of public health, for instance, ailments such as
addiction and obesity carry tremendous costs. Specifically, it is estimated that unhealthy
behaviors may account for up to 40 percent of premature deaths in the United States
(Schroeder, 2007), and such behaviors place a significant strain on the nation’s healthcare
systems (Finkelstein, Trogdon, Cohen, & Dietz, 2009). In many cases, outcomes such as obesity
and addiction can be traced back to individuals’ failures to successfully navigate want/should
conflicts, with our short-term desires (e.g., watching television, eating junk food, smoking)
frequently winning out over what is in our long-term best interest (e.g., exercising, eating
healthy food, receiving preventive care, quitting smoking). The research highlighted
throughout this chapter shows that even minor interventions (e.g., planning prompts, making
individuals feel closer to their future self) can shift behaviors in societally beneficial directions.
Policymakers may be able to utilize these types of interventions to “nudge” individuals towards
should behaviors without restricting their choices (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). While still a
relatively new idea, the notion that “nudging” citizens towards should choices without taxing
them or restricting their options in any way has gained popularity with politicians around the
world.
Elsen, M., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2016). Thin slice impressions: how advertising evaluation
depends on exposure duration
This research demonstrates the importance of thin slices of information in ad and brand
evaluation, with important implications for advertising research and management. Three
controlled experiments, two in the behavioral lab and one in the field, with exposure durations
ranging from very brief (100 msec) to very long (30 sec), demonstrate that advertising
evaluation critically depends on the duration of ad exposure and on how ads convey which
product and brand they promote, but in surprising ways. The experiments show that upfront
ads, which instantly convey what they promote, are evaluated positively after brief but also
after longer exposure durations. Mystery ads, which suspend conveying what they promote,
are evaluated negatively after brief but positively after longer exposure durations. False front
ads, which initially convey another identity than what they promote, are evaluated positively
after brief exposures but negatively after longer exposure durations. Bayesian mediation
analysis demonstrates that the feeling of knowing what the ad promotes accounts for these
ad-type effects on evaluation.
2
, Three experiments test our predictions. To enable generalizable inferences, the experiments
use 51 target ads (24 in Experiment 1, 27 in Experiment 2, and a subset of 21 of the Experiment
2 ads in Experiment 3) across eight product categories (beverages, cars, cell phones, food,
fragrances, hair care, skin care, and tooth care). In all three experiments, participants saw
multiple ads for each of the three ad identification types. Experiment 1 uses brands that vary
in familiarity and statistically controls for the effects of this factor. Experiments 2 and 3 use
moderately familiar brands, and the experimental designs control for familiarity. In all three
experiments, differences between ads in terms of advertised product, picture–text relevance,
visual appeal, and visual complexity, as well as unobserved sources of heterogeneity between
ads and participants, are statistically controlled for.
3
