1 - 10 of 19
-
PublicationLeveraging Projection to Increase the Predictive Validity of Self-Reports: Four Experiments in the Domain of Consumption Motives( 2015-02-27)It is well known that respondents view themselves in a more positive light than others. Prominent domains include personal traits (“better-than-average effect,” Alicke et al. 1995), abilities (“above-average effect,” Dunning, Meyerowitz, and Holzberg 1989), and likelihood judgments (“unrealistic optimism,” Weinstein 1980; “self-positivity bias,” Raghubir and Menon 1998). However, as everyone cannot be above average, these comparative self-reports are biased. An important theoretical and managerial question is: “How best can self-reports be de-biased?” A common technique to elicit reliable responses to sensitive questions is projection: ask about other people and use this information as a proxy for self-judgments. For socially sensitive questions, these (de-biased) proxy-reports have been shown to have higher predictive validity for behavioral intentions than the (biased) self-reports (Fisher 1993). This paper presents an alternate method that leverages projection to “de-bias” (vs. “replace”) self-reports by utilizing contextual manipulations: When other-judgments precede self-judgments (i.e., other-self order) projection should be greater as the other is judged to be more similar and, hence, self-other differences should be attenuated (vs. when self-judgments are elicited first, i.e., self-other order, Raghubir and Menon 1998). The key question is whether other-judgments (projection techniques) or self-judgments elicited after other-judgments (our method) are better predictors of future behavior. To assess this question we first ran three field experiments (Ns=957, 789, and 1095) among participants at an international marathon. Prior to the race, the runners were asked for their motivations to run marathon that were grouped into signaling-related (more sensitive) and fitness-related (less sensitive) reasons. Respondents rated their reasons either before or after rating reasons for the average runner (Studies 1 and 2). In Study 3, we additionally manipulated the referent other (average, similar, inferior, or superior runner). We further assessed the perceived self-other similarity and the extent to which judgments of the other person were anchored on the self (Studies 2 and 3). After the race, we contacted the participants again and in Study 2 and 3 (Ns=552 and 764 matched observations) assessed the stated importance of signaling-related products (e.g., finisher medal, finisher t-shirt). “I run for fitness, not for fame”. In all three studies runners believed that they ran more for fitness rather than signaling motives (ΔFitnessSelf–SignalingSelf, ΔMSelf =.78, .94, and .80 all >0, Motive main effect: Fs>245, ps<.001). This finding replicates the socially desirable bias in consumption motives, which is at an absolute level. The “Nobler-than-thou” effect. In each study we found that the runners believed that they ran for fitness rather than signaling to a greater extent (see above) than the other runner they judged (ΔFitnessOther–SignalingOther, ΔMOther=.09, .05, and -.24 all < their corresponding ΔMSelf, TargetxMotive interaction: Fs>229, ps<.001). We refer to this as the “Nobler-than-thou” effect, which is relative to a referent other. 139 The attenuating effect of order-of-elicitation. In every study we demonstrated that the “Nobler-than-thou” effect (= ΔFitnessSelf–SignalingSelf > ΔFitnessOther–SignalingOther) was lower in the other-self condition (ΔMSelf=.57, .86, and .66 vs. ΔMOther=.19, .17, and -.14) than in the self-other condition (ΔMSelf=.99, 1.02, and .93 vs. ΔMOther=-.01, -.06, and -.34, TargetxMotivexOrder interaction: Fs>16, ps<.001). Process evidence for similarity (established by mediation and moderation). As predicted, Studies 2 and 3 showed that in the other-self order the average runner was perceived as more similar (Mother-self =.21 and .34) than in the self-other order (Mself-other=-.10 and -.12, Fs>5, ps<.05, with similarity as mediator at 95% CIs). The order effect was moderated by the type of other in Study 3 (4-way interaction: F=2.5, p=.06), that is, it was eliminated for similar peers (self-other order: ΔMSelf=.85 and ΔMOther = .17. vs. other-self order: ΔMSelf =.76 and ΔMOther =.29, TargetxMotivexOrder: F=2.0, p>.10) compared to superior or inferior peers (Fs>5, ps≤.02), which corroborates that perceived similarity drives the order effects. Role of projection. Studies 2 and 3 also revealed that the respondents anchored less on themselves when judging the average other in the self-other order (Mself-other=2.94 and 2.66 vs. Mother-self =3.40 and 3.47, Fs>13, ps<.001). Study 3 shows that this holds for average, inferior, and superior others (Fs>2, ps<.10), but not for similar others (Mself-other=3.27 vs. Mother-self=3.42, F<1). Taken together, the findings suggest that eliciting responses about others first makes them appear more similar, and leads to greater projection of own motives onto judgments of others, unless the other person is similar to begin with. Predictive validity. Pooling the data across studies, we regressed the importance of signaling-related products onto the fitness and signaling motives projected for others (projection technique: Only Other), the fitness and signaling motives given for oneself (Only Self), and all four predictors together (Both Self and Other), separately for each order condition. First, we find that the motives people give for themselves are better at predicting the importance they assign to signaling-related products as compared to the motives that they give to others and do so parsimoniously, particularly in the other-self order (R2 Only_Other =.03, R2 Both_Self_and_Other =.09, and R2 Only_Self=.09) versus the self-other order (R2 Only_Other=.02, R2 Both_Self_and_Other=.07, and R2 Only_Self=.06). Second, in the other-self order, it is the (de-biased) signaling motives people give for themselves that drive how important signaling-related products are perceived rather than the projections for others (which are not significant once self-values are entered to the regression), suggesting that eliciting self-reports after other-reports is a superior alternative to only using other reports (projection techniques). Generalizability. Study 4 (N=230 mTurk) replicated the findings for luxury purchases. Consumers judged that they purchase luxury brands more for quality than status reasons compared to others, particularly if self-reports preceded other-reports. Moreover, we found that self-deceptive needs for social approval (vs. self-enhancement or impression management, Paulhus 2002) drive the effects. To summarize, we show that when self-judgments are elicited after other-judgments, they are better predictors compared to not only when they are elicited first, but also as compared to only eliciting other-judgments (viz., projection techniques). As such, encouraging projection via contextual manipulations that increase the similarity between the self and the other (order-of-elicitation, type of referent other), attenuates self-other biases in socially sensitive consumption motives and increases the predictive validity of self-reports.
-
PublicationConsumers' Emotions about Getting a Discount and their Likelihood to Return at Regular Prices(EMAC European Marketing Academy, 2013-06-04)Discounts are an important strategic tool for service marketers to attract new customers or to entice them to use their service during off-peak times. To establish long-term relationships it is crucial for firms to understand when and why these customers are willing to return at regular prices. Using a discrete emotions approach, we propose that this depends on the specific positive emotion elicited by this price situation. The results of a field study with 803 customers indicate that the distinct agency attributions associated with getting a discount trigger different emotions (pride, gratitude, relief, surprise) that distinctively affect post-purchase intentions.
-
PublicationI Run to be Fit, You Run for Fame: Context Effects Affecting Self-Positivity in Judgments on Consumption Motives and Emotions(Association for Consumer Research, 2013-10-04)Three field experiments demonstrate that judgments of own versus peers' consumption motives and emotions are subject to self-positivity reflecting socially desirable reporting. Changing the order of questions and the type of referent other changes the perceived similarity between the self and the other and attenuates self-positivity and socially desirable responding.
-
PublicationEmotional Effects of Purchase Price-Reference Price Divergence(Association for Consumer Research, 2012-10-05)This research investigates consumers' discrete emotional responses to discrepancies between the actual price paid versus their maximum willingness to pay or the price they expected to pay. We report evidence that divergence from these different reference prices trigger specific emotions, which in turn distinctively affect consumers' behavioral intentions
-
PublicationThe Interplay of Hope and Fear on Investment Choices(EMAC, 2012-05-22)We examine how heterogeneity among investors' goals, personality, and motivations affect their current portfolio allocation and future portfolio plans. We asked 1347 investors from a national US sample the extent to which they agreed with 28 statements that reflected their investment strategy (adapted from Hoffmann and Shefrin, 2011; e.g., "My investment decisions are driven by hope for a positive outcome"), susceptibility to normative influence (Bearden et al., 1989), risk attitude and confidence (Wood and Zaichowsky, 2004). We used cluster analysis to categorize investors into different groups, leading to the emergence of four types of investors: The Hopeful, the Fearful, the Experts, and the Socially Conscious. These four categories of investors differ in terms of their current portfolio allocation (ranging from checking accounts, and mutual funds to commodities and ETFs). They have very different motivations to invest. For example, the "fearful" investor has the highest economic motivation to invest (e.g., "I want to safeguard my retirement," Hoffmann 2007), and the "hopeful" investor has the lowest psychological motivation to invest (e.g., "It makes me feel smart," Chandon et al. 1990). The investor segments also vary in terms of the importance associated with investment features such as fees versus volatility of returns. These preferences are strongly related to stable personality constructs such as investors' overall optimism and pessimism (Schreier et al., 1994), as well as their promotion and prevention focus (Carver & White, 1994).
-
-
PublicationIn what condition is a price increase perceived as fair? : An empirical investigation in the cable car industry(CAUTHE, 2010-02-10)This paper investigates the concept of customers' perceived price fairness in the context of different price increase conditions. Several tourism service industries seem reluctant to systematically vary or occasionally rise prices, mostly because of potential negative consumer responses. Previous studies in behavioral pricing confirm that a price increase may be perceived as highly unfair and, with this, may lead to negative consequences for the firm. However, there is some evidence that not all price increase events are perceived equally and that consumers' fairness perception depends on the situational conditions of the respective price event. Drawing on the principle of dual entitlement and attribution theory, the results of a standardized survey with 1530 cable car customers in Switzerland reveal that cost-based reasons seem to legitimate a price increase, rather than excess demand conditions. Still, within cost conditions, an increase in internally controllable costs is perceived as a less fair reason for raising prices as opposed to an exogenously caused and uncontrollable cost increase. Interestingly, increasing prices without any communicated reason is perceived as the most unfair condition, indicating the crucial role of price communication.
-
PublicationPredicting Online Travel Purchases: The Case of Switzerland( 2009-05-28)
-
PublicationEstimating renting behaviour of second home owners - The case of swiss Alpine destinations(Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2008-09-10)
-
PublicationHealth travel motivations and activities : The Swiss case(Travel & Tourism Research Association, 2008-06-17)
