No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Matching Choices to Avoid Offending Stigmatized Group Members
Abstract
People (selectors) sometimes make choices both for themselves and for others (recipients). We propose that selectors worry about offending recipients with their choices when recipients are stigmatized group members and options in a choice set differ along a stigma-relevant dimension. Accordingly, selectors are more likely to make the same choices for themselves and stigmatized group member recipients than non-stigmatized group member recipients. We conducted eight studies to study this hypothesis in different choice contexts (food, music, games, books) and with recipients from different stigmatized groups (the obese, Black-Americans, the elderly, students at lower-status schools). We use three different approaches to show that this effect is driven by people’s desire to avoid offending stigmatized group members with their choices. Thus, although prior research shows that people often want to avoid being associated with dissociative groups, such as stigmatized groups, we demonstrate that people make the same choices for self and stigmatized other to minimize offense.
... Prior research on joint consumption has typically adopted one of two approaches. One approach is to identify factors that affect the choices that one consumer makes unilaterally for a given joint consumption decision, without expressed preference input from co-consumers (Etkin 2016;Liu et al. 2013;Tu, Shaw, and Fishbach 2016;Wu, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2019). The other approach is to identify factors that affect the choices that two co-consumers make for joint consumption, without the co-consumers having distinct roles or examining the preference expressions that take place (Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014; Lowe et al. 2019;Nikolova and Lamberton 2016). ...
... In a survey of American adults, over half reported making joint consumption choices more than three times per month, often in the food/drink or entertainment/activity domains (Wu, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2019). The frequency of making such choices in these domains is also reflected in considerable research on joint consumption (Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014;Liu et al. 2013;Lowe and Haws 2014;Ratner and Hamilton 2015;Woolley and Fishbach 2017;Wu, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2019). ...
... As illustrated in Figure 1, we refer to this as a "unilateral chooser" joint consumption type, mapping onto one example of decision making in Gorlin and Dhar (2012)'s framework, in which one sole chooser makes a decision for joint consumption (e.g., one consumer deciding on a surprise weekend trip for himself and a companion). Prior research on unilateral choosers has shown that various factors affect the choices that a consumer makes, including the relationship time horizon (Etkin 2016), the co-consumer's stigmatized group membership status (Liu et al. 2013), the chooser's self-construal level (Wu, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2019), and the chooser's gender and selfmonitoring level (Yang, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2015). In a typical study in this line of research, participants make a choice to be shared with another consumer, but in taking a unilateral perspective, this prior work by its nature does not consider the co-consumer's active choice input. ...
This research introduces a framework wherein consumers take on “requestor” or “responder” roles in making joint consumption decisions. The authors document a robust preference expression asymmetry wherein “requestors” soliciting others’ consumption preferences (e.g., “Where do you want to go for dinner?”) desire preference expressions (e.g., “Let’s go to this restaurant”), whereas “responders” instead do not express preferences (e.g., “Anywhere is fine with me”). This asymmetry generalizes under a broad set of situations and occurs because the requestor and responder roles differ in their foci. Compared to responders, requestors are more focused on mitigating the difficulty of arriving at a decision, whereas compared to requestors, responders are more focused on conveying likability by appearing easygoing. Responders thus behave suboptimally, incurring a “preference cost” (when masking preferences) and a “social friction cost” (requestors favor responders who express preferences). Requestors can elicit preference expression by conveying their own dislike of decision-making, which increases responders’ focus on mitigating decision difficulty. The authors conclude by discussing the framework’s contributions to looking “under-the-hood” of joint consumption decisions.
... In addition to serving themselves, people are often tasked with serving others (Laran, 2010;Liu, Campbell, Fitzsimons, & Fitzsimons, 2013;Wansink, 2004). Accordingly, study 3 tested the effect of the proposed Nutrition Facts label on how much food consumers serve to another person. ...
... The instruction sheet also contained a photo of Sarah. Participants were randomly assigned to see either a photo of Sarah in which she appeared as her normal size (5 feet 3.5 inches tall, 116 pounds, body mass index (BMI) of 20.2) or a photo of Sarah in which she wore a professionally-made body prosthesis (Liu et al., 2013;McFerran, Dahl, Fitzsimons, & Morales, 2010) and thus appeared obese (5 feet 3.5 inches tall, 180 pounds, BMI of 31.4). No cosmetic changes were made to Sarah besides her wearing the body prosthesis. ...
... Additionally, increased serving sizes on the Nutrition Facts label may also lead consumers to serve and purchase more food when serving food to other people (studies 3 and 4). This potential consequence is particularly troubling because consumers are often tasked with serving or purchasing food for others (Laran, 2010;Liu et al. 2013;Wansink, 2004). Thus, the studies presented here demonstrate that increasing serving sizes on the proposed Nutrition Facts label may have several negative, unintended consequences. ...
The United States Food and Drug Administration recently announced that the serving sizes on the Nutrition Facts labels for many products will be increased, but the effect of these increases remains unclear. The present research examined consumers' interpretation of the meaning of serving size information (study 1) and tested whether exposing consumers to the increased serving sizes of the proposed Nutrition Facts label leads consumers to serve and purchase more food for themselves and others (studies 2-4). Study 1 (N = 101; 44.7% female) tested what consumers believe the serving sizes on Nutrition Facts labels refer to, and the majority of participants (over 78%) incorrectly believed that the serving sizes refer to how much food can or should be consumed in one sitting as part of a healthy diet. Study 2 (N = 51; 41.2% female) tested how exposure to the current versus proposed Nutrition Facts label influences the amount of food that consumers serve themselves, and studies 3 (N = 60; 46.7% female) and 4 (N = 61; 48.2% female) assessed how exposure to the current versus proposed label influences the amount of food that people serve and purchase for others. In studies 2-4, the proposed label (vs. the current label) led consumers to serve themselves 41% more cookies (study 2); serve 27% more cheese crackers to another person (study 3); and buy 43% more lasagnas for others and divide a lasagna into 22% larger slices (study 4). The results suggest that the proposed Nutrition Facts label's increased serving sizes may lead people who use this information as a reference to serve more food to themselves and others.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
... Further, when making recommendations and choices for others, people often consider their beliefs about what other people will enjoy (Barasz et al., 2016;Jung, Moon, et al., 2020;Liu & Baskin, 2021;Liu, Dallas, et al., 2019;Smith & Krajbich, 2023). Indeed, even when choosing for a stigmatized group member, people may aim to make choices based on what they believe other people would enjoy (Liu et al., 2013). Yet, potentially problematically, if such enjoyment beliefs are stereotypebiased, then a heavy reliance on enjoyment beliefs when making recommendations and choices for others could inadvertently reinforce stigma. ...
... Second, when making recommendations and choices for others, people often consider beliefs about what other people will enjoy (Barasz et al., 2016;Campbell et al., 2014;Jung, Moon, et al., 2020;Liu, Dallas, et al., 2019;Polman, 2012). Even when choosing for people with heavy body types and other stigmatized group members, people may still aim to make choices based on what they believe other people will enjoy (Liu et al., 2013). Given the importance of accurate predictions of what other people enjoy, people often try to figure out how much others like particular options (Liu & Min, 2020;Smith & Krajbich, 2023). ...
Weight-based stigma is prevalent, increasing, and has many negative consequences. This research examines people's beliefs about what other people with heavy versus thin body types enjoy, in terms of food and activities. Predictions of others' enjoyment are important, as they can shape various downstream judgments, including beliefs about other people's likely goal pursuit success, and recommendations and choices for others. Six pre-registered experiments compare predictions of others' enjoyment of healthy and unhealthy foods and activities, based on whether others have heavy versus thin body types. These experiments show that whereas beliefs about what people with thin body types enjoy are flexible, beliefs about what people with heavy body types enjoy are narrow and inflexible. Specifically, if people with thin body types engage in counter-stereotypical unhealthy behavior, they are perceived to enjoy such behavior as much as people with heavy body types. By contrast, even if people with heavy body types engage in counter-stereotypical healthy behavior, they are perceived not to enjoy such behavior as much as people with thin body types. The potential wide-ranging implications of the belief that heavy people have narrower ranges of potential enjoyment are discussed.
... Prior research has examined the influence of social others on individuals' food choices and shows that consumers eat less in the presence of strangers (Herman et al., 2003), eat more junk food when with close friends (Cummings & Tomiyama, 2019), mimic choices made in the presence of stigmatized dining companions (Liu et al., 2013), and follow their romantic partners' eating patterns when a particular relationship motive is at play (Hasford et al., 2018). ...
... First, in the power literature, previous work has put much effort into investigating the effect of a personal sense of one's own power on one's subsequent consumption behavior, such as by comparing the product preferences of consumers who feel powerful and of those who feel powerless (Anderson et al., 2012;Dubois et al., 2012;Guinote, 2017). This (Gao & Mattila, 2017), romantic partners (Hasford et al., 2018), friends (Cummings & Tomiyama, 2019), or even stigmatized dining companions (Liu et al., 2013). This research contrib- This research also has important practical implications. ...
Consumers make distinct food choices when they see versus when they think about a powerful person. This research identifies two scenarios involving the presence of a high‐powered other, physical presence versus mental presence, and examines the effect of the physical and mental presence of a high‐powered other on consumers' healthy food choices. Conducting six experiments, we show that the physical presence of a high‐powered other increases one's self‐enhancement motivation and leads to healthier food choices, while the mental presence of a high‐powered other increases one's perceived constraints and leads to unhealthy food choices. We also find that interpersonal closeness moderates the positive effect of the physical presence of a high‐powered other on healthy food choices but does not moderate the negative effect of the mental presence of a high‐powered other on healthy food choices.
... Relatedly, people also believe that others perceive products differently than they do (Ziano and Villanova 2019) and believe that the effects of products on others are different than on the self . Moreover, although choices for others occur in a wide variety of domains, one of the most common domains is that of food (Laran 2010;Liu et al. 2013). Indeed, within the food domain, consumers make choices on an everyday basis and further, food often differs from other types of consumption in how it often involves the presence of other people Fishbach 2017, 2019). ...
... Of note, our proposed process account is not based on consumers' ability (or inability) to directly compare portion sizes, and thus we expected that the effect would generalize across both between-subjects and within-subject designs. On the practical side, consumers often make food choices for both the self and another person on the same occasion (Liu et al. 2013 ...
Consumers’ portion size choices are important, both as larger portion sizes can lead to overeating and as uneaten portions can contribute to food waste. Existing research has largely focused on consumers’ portion size choices for themselves—even though consumers often choose for others. Fourteen studies examine portion size choices for others, testing: Do consumers choose smaller, similar, or larger portion sizes for others, compared to various benchmarks—(1) how much they choose for themselves, (2) how much others want to receive, and (3) predictions about how much others actually want to eat? Studies show that consumers choose larger portion sizes for others across multiple choosing-for-others contexts, involving everyday favors, gift-giving, and joint consumption. Consumers’ goal to be considerate of others’ needs and desires given uncertainty about others’ consumption is one broad “baseline” driver of this multiply determined phenomenon. Consumers do not choose larger portion sizes for others when they lack a considerateness goal, when choosing larger portions is inconsiderate, or when a responsibility goal instead dominates (as in the choosing-for-others context of caregiving). This research offers theoretical implications for understanding choices for others and portion size choices and practical implications through identifying a potential cause of overeating and/or food waste.
... Sharing, or joint consumption, is common in families (Belk 2010;Corfman and Lehmann 1987;Davis 1976) and romantic partnerships (Etkin 2016), but also occurs outside families, as when friends attend a movie or coworkers have lunch together (Liu et al. 2013). In these contexts, more than one consumer consumes or experiences a product and, thus, joint consumption inherently involves choosing for others, if not completely then at least partially. ...
... Joint (or shared) consumption is a common type of consumption that occurs within families (Belk 2010;Corfman and Lehmann 1987;Davis 1976;Su, Fern, and Ye 2003), romantic partnerships (Etkin 2016), and even friend and coworker groups (Liu et al. 2013;Tu, Shaw, and Fishbach 2016). More than one consumer is involved in the consuming, using, or experiencing of a product and, thus, such contexts involve choosing for other consumers with or without other co-consumers' input. ...
Although most research on consumers’ choices, and resulting insights, have focused on choices that consumers make solely for themselves, consumers often make choices for others, and there is a growing literature examining such choices. Theoretically, how can this growing literature be integrated, and what gaps remain? Practically, why should marketers, consumers, and policymakers care when choices are made for others, and what should they do differently? A 2 × 2 framework of consumers’ choices for others addresses these questions. This framework has two fundamental dimensions: the chooser’s social focus (relationship vs. recipient oriented) and the chooser’s consideration of consumption preferences (highlight the recipient’s preferences vs. the balance recipient’s preferences with the chooser’s preferences). These dimensions generate four cells that represent prototypical choosing-for-others contexts: gift-giving (relationship focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), joint consumption (relationship focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences), everyday favors/pick-ups (recipient focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), and care-giving (recipient focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences). This framework captures most choosing-for-others situations, and each cell involves a distinct profile of motives, ultimately affecting choices. This framework integrates the choosing-for-others literature, which we hope will guide future research, and it also offers practical implications for marketers, consumers, and policymakers.
... In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that consumption-based offense will be unintentional as a rule, not the exception: people are fundamentally social, seeking acceptance and adhering to norms (Baumeister and Leary 1995;Hechter and Opp 2001;Maslow 1968) and are law-abiding for normative reasons, tending not to commit intentional offenses (Jackson et al. 2012). Evidence suggests further that consumers sometimes adjust their behavior precisely to avoid offending others (Adams, Flynn, and Norton 2012;Liu et al. 2013;Norton et al. 2012). Nonetheless, identifying factors that drive perceptions of the intentionality of the violation is critical for understanding the intensity and consequences of consumption-based offense. ...
... Many consumption-based offenses, especially of the relationship-based type, may involve choosing products for others or for both self and others as a cause of offense. Thus, although most work in these areas has focused on positive aspects of gift giving, choosing for others, and joint consumption (Caprariello and Reis 2013;Chan and Mogilner 2017;Etkin 2016;Min, Liu, and Kim 2018;Ruth et al. 1999), our conceptualization suggests that such consumption acts may generate consumption-based offense and points toward the circumstances that increase the occurrence of offense and the consequences of such offenses (Liu et al. 2013;Ward and Broniarczyk 2011). ...
When do consumers experience offense due to another individual’s choice, use, display, gifting, sharing, or disposal of a product? Why do they experience offense, and does it matter if they do? In this article, we first draw from past work in multiple disciplines to offer a unique conceptualization of consumption-based offense. We then develop a framework of types of violations that may generate consumption-based offense and propose a set of affective, consumption, and cognitive outcomes we anticipate may follow. We close by offering an agenda for future research that may establish the antecedents and consequences of different types of consumption-based offense, glean new insights from past findings through integration of this novel construct, and offer practical insights into the effects and management of consumption-based offense both in consumers’ lives and in the marketplace.
... Chartrand et al., 2005). Similarly, Liu et al. (2013) suggest that social factors can influence individual choice. They found that matching was higher when required to make decisions for stigmatized others, because they wanted to reduce the possibility of offending them. ...
... For example, we found a group referencing effect in price or calorie. This pattern is related to recent research which suggested that people might match their choice in order to make another person feel better or to avoid offending another person (i.e., Lee, Yi, & Kim, 2017;Liu et al., 2013). In addition, the impact of physical location was also an important factor for menu choice. ...
Using real data acquired from transaction receipts at a cafe, the present research examined individuals’menu choices made in a group setting. Building on previous research, the present research proposed and examined what we call the group referencing effect, and found that individuals’ menu choices were more likely to conform to the precedent menu choices made by the others in their group. A unique empirical contribution of the present research is that conformity was assessed and emerged at two levels: end-choice level (whether the choices are the same) and attribute-level (whether the attribute(s) of the choices are the same, independent of whether the end-choice is the same; i.e., similarity). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
... Chartrand et al., 2005). Similarly, Liu et al. (2013) suggest that social factors can influence individual choice. They found that matching was higher when required to make decisions for stigmatized others, because they wanted to reduce the possibility of offending them. ...
... For example, we found a group referencing effect in price or calorie. This pattern is related to recent research which suggested that people might match their choice in order to make another person feel better or to avoid offending another person (i.e., Lee, Yi, & Kim, 2017;Liu et al., 2013). In addition, the impact of physical location was also an important factor for menu choice. ...
This paper introduces a novel and simple method to identify attribute by covariate interactions in discrete choice models. This is important because incorporating such interactions in choice models can be an effective way to account for systematic taste variation or “observable preference heterogeneity” across individuals. Using simulated data sets to mimic a well-known phenomenon of selective attention to design attributes, we tested our proposed approach in a banking service context. Our proposed approach was successful in detecting the attribute by covariate interactions implied by the data generation process and outperformed a model with all covariate interactions. The proposed method contributes to the choice modelling literature by providing one of the “tricks of trade” to model observed preference heterogeneity. The simplicity of this approach has advantages for both academics and practitioners in marketing, transportation, healthcare and other fields that use choice modelling.
... Consumers must also decide the speed of consumption, which could lead to sacrifices of preferences in joint consumption contexts if, for example, they would prefer to eat much more quickly but want to match their partner's consumption speed so that their partner has the expected direct benefit of not having to sit at the table by themselves at the end of dinner (Tanner et al., 2008). Finally, consumers may decide to sacrifice their preferences by forgoing consumption of a product entirely so that their partner has the expected direct benefit of not experiencing disgust and offense or conversely, temptation (Liu et al., 2013;Liu, Lamberton, et al., 2019). For example, a consumer who craves a juicy steak might avoid consuming it in front of a friend who identifies as a vegetarian or who is recovering from wisdom tooth removal. ...
Much marketing research focuses on what individual consumers need or want for consumption and how they satisfy these needs or wants themselves. However, consumers often give up money, time, or preferences to help others address their consumption needs and wants across the customer journey. The authors introduce the unifying construct of “consumption sacrifice,” defined as the willing and intentional act of incurring a cost to the self—in money, time, or preferences—when making a consumption decision, with expected direct benefits to one's partner. The authors offer examples of consumption sacrifices along the customer journey and suggest that this construct offers a new lens through which to examine the existing literature on choices involving others. The authors put forward the view that sacrifices are often invisible to recipients—and thus underrecognized and underappreciated—failing to achieve their full potential. At the same time, different sacrifice motives (partner-focused, relationship-focused, self-focused) may affect the extent to which actors care about making sacrifices visible to recipients. Finally, the authors propose future research questions, including what leads consumers to perform more visible sacrifices, what drives the invisibility of sacrifices among recipients, and what are the consequences of performing and receiving invisible sacrifices.
... People are especially sensitive to this when dining with a stigmatized other. As one illustration, when participants chose whether to order fries or a salad as a side dish for themselves and an overweight person, they were more likely to choose matching dishes (e.g., both have fries or both have salad) relative to when choosing a side dish for themselves and a normal weight person (Liu et al., 2013;Study 2). Whereas participants expected the normal weight person's feelings to be unaffected by their food choice, participants were concerned that the overweight person would feel more negatively about themselves if non-matching side dishes were selected (e.g., one person had fries, and another person had a salad). ...
For centuries, the preparation and eating of a meal has brought people together, making food consumption an inherently social process. Yet the way in which people connect over food is changing. Rising health concerns, due in part to the increase in food allergies and obesity, have shifted attention away from the social aspects of food to food's nutritional aspects. Recognizing the social context in which food consumption takes place, this article reviews research highlighting the interpersonal consequences of joint food consumption. We first examine research on how sharing food connects people together, both via the type of food consumed (e.g., incidental food similarity) and the manner in which people serve and eat food (e.g., from shared vs. separate plates). We then turn to research that addresses the opposite side of the coin, discussing how the inability to share in a meal can be isolating, as well as how people navigate conflicting preferences when making food decisions with others. We conclude with a discussion of promising future directions for research on joint food consumption.
... Additionally, social discomfort can arise if consumers choose things that differ from their companions on "ordinal" (i.e., ranked) dimensions (e.g., healthiness, portion sizes, or price; . Indeed, research on consumers choosing on behalf of themselves and others finds that consumers avoid choosing options mismatched on ordinal dimensions when choosing for stigmatized others (e.g., consumers avoid choosing different healthiness foods for a heavy person and themselves), as a way to avoid offending one's companions (Liu et al., 2013;Liu, Lamberton, et al., 2019). Altogether, then, the prospect of different consumption preferences from others or engaging in different consumption from others can pose costs in shared consumption. ...
In the last two years, consumers have experienced massive changes in consumption – whether due to shifts in habits; the changing information landscape; challenges to their identity, or new economic experiences of scarcity or abundance. What can we expect from these experiences? How are the world's leading thinkers applying both foundational knowledge and novel insights as we seek to understand consumer psychology in a constantly changing landscape? And how can informed readers both contribute to and evaluate our knowledge? This handbook offers a critical overview of both fundamental topics in consumer psychology and those that are of prominence in the contemporary marketplace, beginning with an examination of individual psychology and broadening to topics related to wider cultural and marketplace systems. The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology, 2nd edition, will act as a valuable guide for teachers and graduate and undergraduate students in psychology, marketing, management, economics, sociology, and anthropology.
... Additionally, social discomfort can arise if consumers choose things that differ from their companions on "ordinal" (i.e., ranked) dimensions (e.g., healthiness, portion sizes, or price; . Indeed, research on consumers choosing on behalf of themselves and others finds that consumers avoid choosing options mismatched on ordinal dimensions when choosing for stigmatized others (e.g., consumers avoid choosing different healthiness foods for a heavy person and themselves), as a way to avoid offending one's companions (Liu et al., 2013;Liu, Lamberton, et al., 2019). Altogether, then, the prospect of different consumption preferences from others or engaging in different consumption from others can pose costs in shared consumption. ...
People often engage in shared consumption experiences with other people, including romantic partners, friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, and acquaintances. Although the field of consumer psychology has traditionally focused on the perspective of an individual consumer, researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance and relevance of studying shared consumption (also known as joint consumption, dyadic consumption, or group consumption). In this chapter, we first discuss common methodological paradigms for studying shared consumption, given that studying shared consumption poses unique methodological challenges relative to studying solitary consumption. We then discuss prior research on shared consumption, organizing our review around the potential benefits and potential costs involved in shared consumption as compared to solitary consumption. Finally, we delineate four main areas for future research on shared consumption that we view as particularly promising.
... It needs to be noted that a different stream of research highlights situations in which low DS individual benefit from their status position. So, do high DS individuals may follow the decision of low DS individuals in order to not stigmatize or offend them (Liu, Campbell, Fitzsimons, & Fitzsimons, 2013). Further, contributions of individuals low in DS might be less criticized despite being perceived as less competent, because low DS individuals are perceived as warm (Jeffries, Hornsey, Sutton, Douglas, & Bain, 2012). ...
Fruitful communications are necessary for many organizations to perform effectively. In order to draw rich inferences from communications, it is important that individuals’ contributions are valued to the extent that their contributions are competent and help to reach the organizational goal. Recent literature now highlight that two different statuses, namely status based on demographic and organizational characteristics, might affect the influential power of individuals’ contributions. This review wants to summarise the literature on these two statuses and investigate whether they affect the influential power of individuals’ contributions differently. After reviewing the literature, it seems that organizational status raises expectations that contributions of high status individuals are, unrelated to their actual content, of higher expertise and competence. Thus, identical contributions are valued more if communicated by high organizational status individuals. On the other hand, contributions of low demographic status individuals are processed biasedly, especially in situations that make stereotypes salient. Ultimately, this undermines low demographic status individuals’ influential power. To overcome potential biased inferences, organizational, individual and societal aspects that are beneficial to avoid unreliable processing are presented. Finally, it is concluded with an outlook for future research.
... Thus, the stigma may be a core aspect of an individual's identity in some contexts but not in others. The fourth characteristic of stigma, disruptiveness, is the degree to which the stigma is perceived as a threat to others in society ( Jones et al. 1984, Liu et al. 2013, Stone et al. 1992. The fifth characteristic, malleability, is the extent to which the stigma changes over time ( Jones et al. 2016, Stone et al. 1992. ...
Stigmas pervade organizational life. A stigma is a discrediting social evaluation that devalues an individual or group. We review research on stigmatized work and stigmatized workers, with a particular emphasis on how people become stigmatized and what they (and others) do about it. To do so, we connect stigma to other concepts in its nomological net and compare multiple models of stigma dynamics. We consider the intertwining nature of stigma and identity/image, how context affects stigma, and how stigma is managed by both the stigmatized and the nonstigmatized. We also offer critiques of key blind spots in workplace stigma research and point toward future research in this area that is more interconnected with other literatures and more inclusive of overlooked populations. Our vantage point is that workplace stigma continues to be an exciting domain of research with a high potential for theoretical discoveries and practical applications.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... Do they persist in choosing a small portion despite a companion choosing a larger one but then use communication strategies such as explaining that they are not hungry to minimize social discomfort? Or, might they anticipate the pressure to match others on ordinal attributes and thus actively seek to be the first to choose or to preemptively make choices for both themselves and others that are matched on ordinal attributes (Liu et al. 2013) as a way to minimize social discomfort or offense (Liu et al. 2019)? ...
The authors propose a new conceptual basis for predicting when and why consumers match others’ consumption choices. Specifically, they distinguish between ordinal (“ranked”) versus nominal (“unranked”) attributes and propose that consumers are more likely to match others on ordinal than on nominal attributes. Eleven studies, involving a range of different ways of operationalizing ordinal versus nominal attributes, collectively support this hypothesis. The authors’ conceptualization helps resolve divergent findings in prior literature and provides guidance to managers on how to leverage information about prior customers’ choices and employees’ recommendations to shape and predict future customers’ choices. Further, the authors find process evidence that this effect is driven in part by consumers’ beliefs that a failure to match on ordinal (but not nominal) attributes will lead to social discomfort for one or both parties. Although the primary focus is on food choices, the effects are also demonstrated in other domains, extending the generalizability of the findings and implications for managerial practice and theory. Finally, the conceptual framework offers additional paths for future research.
... Consumers are also more satisfied selecting among many (vs. a few) options for others (themselves; Polman 2012) and are guided by different objectives such as seeking pleasure (Laran 2010) and maintaining self-presentation motives (Liu et al. 2013). Yet, previous work predominantly examined how individuals make choices on behalf of others in situations where consumption is not shared. ...
Across three studies, we investigate how consumers in romantic relationships make decisions when choosing an item to share with their partner. We show that consumers will forgo their preferred alternative for an option that is more aligned with the preferences of their partner when consuming the same item together vs. separately. We theorize and show that when consuming together (vs. separately), consumers’ purchase motivation shifts from being utilitarian (e.g., satisfying one’s hunger) to hedonic (e.g., having an enjoyable evening). Consequently, when consuming together (vs. separately), consumers weigh more highly their partner’s affective reactions to the item and overall experience—leading them to pick a less preferred option in an effort to please their partner. In sum, we provide a framework that contributes novel insight into the trade-offs consumers make between their preferences and the preferences of others.
... The second control variable was public knowledge of the stigma. Even though the stigma is concealable, others in the workplace may know about it, and this knowledge may shape how they socially categorize and treat the employee (Blascovich et al., 2001;Liu, Campbell, Fitzsimons, & Fitzsimons, 2013). Employees completed a three-item measure using a 5-point Likert scale (1 ϭ "not at all likely" and 5 ϭ "extremely likely") to rate the likelihood that others in the workplace were aware of the stigma. ...
In the workplace, employees must choose what personal information they share with others. Employees with concealable stigmas (e.g., sexual orientation, mental illness, and certain religious beliefs) face the added pressure of having to carefully manage information about a potential social liability. Yet it remains unclear how managing a concealable stigma may influence colleagues’ perceptions and reactions. Using theory about impression management and social cognition, we investigated how employees strategically manage information about their concealable stigmas and the impact of these behaviors on colleague reactions. Based on a multiple-time, multiple-source study of 196 employees, we compared 4 specific strategies for managing concealable stigmas: assimilating, decategorizing, integrating, and confirming. Consistent with our theorizing, these strategies had unique effects in how they influenced the treatment that an employee received from others. These findings have implications for research about stigmas, social cognition, and impression management, as well as for practices focused on creating diverse and supportive work environments.
... According to the above, hence, it might be that high-BMI people change their social behaviour in the presence of others, or of cues of being watched (in the general population, these types of cues have been found to influence, for instance, cooperation behaviour; see [4]), or that other individuals display differential patterns when they know that their partner is obese (e.g. [50]). ...
Over the past few decades obesity has become one of the largest public policy concerns among the adult population in the developed world. Obesity and overweight are hypothesized to affect individuals' sociability through a number of channels, including discrimination and low self-esteem. However, whether these effects translate into differential behavioural patterns in social interactions remains unknown. In two large-scale economic experiments, we explore the relationship between Body Mass Index (BMI) and social behaviour, using three paradigmatic economic games: the dictator, ultimatum, and trust games. Our first experiment employs a representative sample of a Spanish city's population (N = 753), while the second employs a sample of university students from the same city (N = 618). Measures of altruism, fairness/equality, trust and reciprocity are obtained from participants' experimental decisions. Using a variety of regression specifications and control variables, our results suggest that BMI does not exert an effect on any of these social preferences. Some implications of these findings are discussed.
... Therefore, future work One finding that might be particularly relevant in a vice-virtue bundles context is the finding that consumers believe that others prefer more variety than they themselves would prefer (Choi, Kim, Choi, & Yi, 2006). This finding suggests that in a context in which consumers are either choosing food for others (Laran 2010b;Liu, Campbell, Fitzsimons, & Fitzsimons, 2013) or in a context in which they want others to approve of their choices (Willemyns, Gallois, & Callan, 2003), then they might be more likely to choose vice-virtue bundle options (which contain more variety) over all virtue or all vice options (which contain less variety). Another potential social benefit of vice-virtue bundles over all virtue or all vice options is that they may send a less clear signal about whether one is pursuing healthiness. ...
Given the prevalence and rising rates of obesity in many countries, including the United States, much food decision-making research ultimately aims at understanding how consumers can make healthier choices. The two predominant choice paradigms used in food decision-making research ask consumers to choose (a) between a "vice" (or unhealthy food) and a "virtue" (or healthy food) or (b) among varying portion sizes of "vice." We propose a new food choice paradigm that encourages consumers to jointly consider both food type(s) choice and food portion size at each decision point. The purpose of this paradigm is two-fold. First, it aims to allow examination of more comprehensive eating behavior (e.g., to examine the overall composition of a plate of food rather than choice of a single food). Second, it aims to shift consumers towards including large proportions of virtues and smaller proportions of vice in their overall consumption portfolios. For this paradigm, we draw upon a recently introduced food product innovation called "vice-virtue bundles" (Liu, Haws, Lamberton, Campbell, & Fitzsimons, 2015) that illustrates the basis of this new food choice paradigm, in which food type(s) and portion decisions are made simultaneously. Accordingly, we first discuss relevant findings on vice-virtue bundles as well as the differences between simultaneous and sequential choice of multiple products. Second, we examine the benefits for managing and controlling one's consumption that are provided by vice-virtue bundles and this joint food choice paradigm more generally. Third and finally, we point out opportunities for future research by discussing (a) multiple factors that influence food choices, (b) decision processes affected by food choice paradigms, and (c) issues of generalizability related to the presence of vice-virtue bundles.
We explore gift givers’ and gift recipients’ preferences concerning gifts that compare unfavorably to givers’ own products. Across eight studies, we demonstrate that givers refrain from giving gifts that compare unfavorably to their own possessions more often than recipients prefer. This effect emerges because givers are more prevention‐focused (less promotion‐focused) than recipients and wish to avoid offending recipients by violating a corresponding social norm that our results suggest is of less concern to those receiving their gift. We find evidence for this two‐stage process through both mediation and moderation. This research adds to the gift giving literature by examining a new type of gifting decision, documenting a novel giver‐recipient preference asymmetry, and shedding light on the roles that social norms, regulatory focus, and offensiveness play in gift giving.
Over a decade ago, Rosette, Leonardelli, and Phillips (2008) conducted a study on race and business leader prototypes and discovered that participants held an implicit “white leadership standard”. As revealed in that study, such a standard introduces racial bias into the leadership categorization process, and places employees from racial minority groups at a disadvantage as they seek to attain leadership roles. However, in the last decade, broader trends and events in American society (e.g., the Obama presidency; the Harris Vice Presidency; an increase in minority business leader representation; changing demographics) have altered the socio-cultural context in which implicit leadership theories (ILTs) develop, hence offering the possibility that leadership models may have become amenable to change. The present study set out to retest the theoretical hypotheses of Rosette et al. (2008) in a direct/close replication study to examine the extent to which the findings generalize to a new sample within this new era. Across four experimental studies, results reveal more racially inclusive leadership perceptions than previously observed, as well as a weakened and context-dependent white leadership standard.
People constantly and effortlessly acquire information about one another’s decisions, and use this information to form impressions (and judgments) of others. We review research on this process of choice perception—how people come to make sense of others’ choices. We suggest that choice perception consists of observers’ inferences about (a) what was chosen, (b) why it was chosen, (c) how (or through what process) it was chosen, and (d) broader impressions about who chose it. These inferences can affect observers in multiple ways—including erroneous beliefs about the actor due to interpersonal errors (i.e., mistakes in how observers perceive actors) and cue-perception errors (i.e., mistakes in how observers perceive chosen options), as well as changes in one’s own behavior.
Consumers frequently make choices for family members they take care of or from whom they receive care (e.g., their children or partner), yet marketing research has given little attention to how these other-oriented choices might impact the chooser’s self-indulgence. In this research we consider familial caregiving relationships as a relevant and ubiquitous context of other-oriented choices and identify the role of the chooser (i.e., caregiver versus care-receiver) as an important moderator that determines when virtuous other-oriented choices within caregiving relationships lead to licensing and when they encourage consistent virtuous consumption behaviors.
Three studies demonstrate that making virtuous food choices for others affect the chooser’s subsequent self-regulatory behavior in two ways: After making a virtuous choice for a care-receiving other (e.g., a young child), caregivers (e.g., parents) are more likely to license, and thus to subsequently self-indulge (Study 1, 3). In contrast, care-receivers are more likely to act consistently with an initial virtuous choice for the caregiver and thus are less likely to self-indulge (Study 2, 3).
Our findings extend research on moral licensing and consistency effects by demonstrating that—within familial caregiving relationships—the degree to which one receives and provides care may determine when choosers engage in licensing and when they act consistently with an initial virtuous other-oriented choice.
This research examines how consumers make unilateral decisions on behalf of the self and multiple others, in situations where the chosen option will be shared and consumed jointly by the group—for instance, choosing wine for the table. Results across six studies using three different choice contexts (wine, books, and movies) demonstrate that such choices are shaped by the decision-maker’s self-construal (independent vs. interdependent) and by the size of the group being chosen for (large vs. small). Specifically, we find that interdependent consumers consistently make choices that balance self and others’ preferences, regardless of group size. In contrast, the choices of independent consumers differ depending on group size: for smaller groups, independents make choices that balance self and others’ preferences, while for larger groups, they make choices that more strongly reflect their own preferences. Via mediation and moderation, the data show that differential attention to others underlies the combined effect of self-construal and group size on the joint consumption choices that consumers make for the self and others.
Stigma has become an increasingly significant challenge for society. Recognition of this problem is indicated by the growing attention to it within the management literature which has provided illuminating insights. However, stigma has primarily been examined at a single level of analysis: individual, occupational, organizational, or industry. Yet, cultural understandings of what is discreditable or taboo do not come from the individual, occupation, organization, or industry that is stigmatized; on the contrary, they come from particular sources that transcend levels. As such, we propose that current silos within the literature may not only be preventing engagement with insights from different levels of analysis, but, importantly, may be preventing us from truly understanding stigmatization as a social process. To address this issue, we review the stigma literature and then present an across level integrative framework of the sources, characteristics, and management strategies. Our framework provides a common language that integrates insights across these levels and enables a shift in attention from how actors respond to stigma to broader processes of stigmatization.
Are choices for others riskier than choices people make for themselves? This question has been asked by economists, psychologists, and other researchers in the social sciences – which has generated a diversity of research accounts and results. For example, a number of studies have found strong instances of a risky shift in choices for others, while other studies have found no such effect or have found that choices for others instead generate a cautious shift. In a meta-analysis of 128 effects from 71 published and unpublished papers (totaling 14,443 observations), we found a significant though small effect size (d = 0.105) in favor of a risky shift when people choose for others. Moreover, we found considerable variance between studies (Q = 1106.25), suggesting that the net effect is susceptible to moderating factors or study characteristics, which we identify and discuss as well (viz. choice recipient, decision frame, decision reciprocity, theoretical perspective, study design). Thus, we document not only whether decisions for others are riskier, but when (and when such decisions are less risky). We further discuss what is distinctly unique about decision making for others – how such choices are not just different in degree from personal choices but different in kind.
When people make choices, they both identify their options and research the unique details that comprise their options. Respectively, these two search behaviors are called alternative- and attribute-search. The literature treats these separate information search behaviors as a trade-off: Choosing to examine extant alternatives (alternative-search) means suffering the costs of not analyzing the details of alternatives (attribute-search), and vice versa. Here, we found that in choices people make for others, they search for more alternatives and more attributes than in choices people make for themselves. Moreover, we found that when people face a trade-off between searching for alternatives and attributes, people choosing for others will favor alternatives, whereas people choosing for themselves will favor attributes. Thus, we found that the pursuit of information is different when people choose for others (vs. themselves), suggesting a novel pivot to a range of areas in decision making where the alternative-attribute trade-off is ubiquitous.
This research demonstrates that a consumer's physical appearance—and, more specifically, his or her body size—predictably influences the product(s) that the consumer is recommended. Four studies conducted in both field and lab settings show that agents more frequently recommend round (vs. angular) shaped products to heavier targets, notably for products and categories in which body size is irrelevant (e.g., lamps and perfume). We attribute this to a combination of shape‐congruency and trait‐congruency, whereby individuals choose products for others based on shared dimensions of the person and product.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Consumers often make choices for joint consumption with committed relationship partners, and these choices may include more or less variety. When planning a weekend for oneself and one's spouse, for example, a person could choose more varied activities (e.g., going out to dinner, to a movie, and to a concert) or less varied activities (e.g., seeing several different movies). What might affect how much variety people choose? Five experiments demonstrate that how much variety consumers prefer for joint consumption in committed relationships depends on their relationship time perspective (i.e., the perceived time ahead in the relationship). When consumers perceive more (vs. less) time ahead in a committed relationship, they prefer more variety for joint consumption with their partners. This increased preference for variety is driven by a shift in how much excitement is valued within the relationship and is unique to choices for joint consumption with the specific relationship partner. The findings demonstrate that variety preferences depend not just on personal or situational factors but also on aspects of consumers' social relationships.
People prefer to make changeable decisions rather than unchangeable decisions because they do not realize that they may be more satisfied with the latter. Photography students believed that having the opportunity to change their minds about which prints to keep would not influence their liking of the prints. However, those who had the opportunity to change their minds liked their prints less than those who did not (Study 1). Although the opportunity to change their minds impaired the postdecisional processes that normally promote satisfaction (Study 2a), most participants wanted to have that opportunity (Study 2b). The results demonstrate that errors in affective forecasting can lead people to behave in ways that do not optimize their happiness and well-being.
Conducted 2 experiments with a total of 64 undergraduates to demonstrate a general strategy for detecting motives that people wish to conceal. The strategy involves having people choose between 2 alternatives, one of which happens to satisfy the motive. By counterbalancing which one does so, it is possible to distill the motive by examining the pattern of choice that people make. The motive employed was the desire to avoid the physically handicapped. It was predicted that because most people would not wish to reveal this desire, they would be more likely to act on it if they could appear to be choosing on some other basis. Results show that Ss avoided the handicapped more often if the decision to do so was also a decision between 2 movies and avoidance of the handicapped could masquerade as a movie preference. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Although most research on the control of automatic prejudice has focused on the efficacy of deliberate attempts to suppress or correct for stereotyping, the reported experiments tested the hypothesis that automatic racial prejudice is subject to common social influence. In experiments involving actual interethnic contact, both tacit and expressed social influence reduced the expression of automatic prejudice, as assessed by two different measures of automatic attitudes. Moreover, the automatic social tuning effect depended on participant ethnicity. European Americans (but not Asian Americans) exhibited less automatic prejudice in the presence of a Black experimenter than a White experimenter (Experiments 2 and 4), although both groups exhibited reduced automatic prejudice when instructed to avoid prejudice (Experiment 3). Results are consistent with shared reality theory, which postulates that social regulation is central to social cognition.
A person perception paradigm was used to test 86 young and 84 older Ss for evidence of a double standard in appraising everyday memory failures of young and older targets. Vignettes were judged on separate Likert scales for possible attributions for the failure (ability, effort, task difficulty, chance, and 2 measures of attention), signs of mental difficulty, need for memory training, and indications of need for professional evaluation. Results confirmed a double standard used by young and old: The failures of older targets were judged as signifying greater mental difficulty and greater need for memory training than were the identical failures of young targets. Older Ss were more lenient overall than young Ss in their appraisals. Young Ss judged target persons' memory failures as signifying more mental difficulty, and they more readily recommended professional evaluation.
Three studies tested basic assumptions derived from a theoretical model based on the dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice. Study 1 supported the model's assumption that high- and low-prejudice persons are equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype. The model suggests that the stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of a member (or some symbolic equivalent) of the stereotyped group and that low-prejudice responses require controlled inhibition of the automatically activated stereotype. Study 2, which examined the effects of automatic stereotype activation on the evaluation of ambiguous stereotype-relevant behaviors performed by a race-unspecified person, suggested that when subjects' ability to consciously monitor stereotype activation is precluded, both high- and low-prejudice subjects produce stereotype-congruent evaluations of ambiguous behaviors. Study 3 examined high- and low-prejudice subjects' responses in a consciously directed thought-listing task. Consistent with the model, only low-prejudice subjects inhibited the automatically activated stereotype-congruent thoughts and replaced them with thoughts reflecting equality and negations of the stereotype. The relation between stereotypes and prejudice and implications for prejudice reduction are discussed.
The current research explores the effects of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Males had more negative evaluations of, and were less inclined to choose, a product associated with a dissociative (i.e., female) reference group than a neutral product (Study 1). This finding was moderated by whether the product was consumed in public or private (Study 2) and public self-consciousness (Study 3). We suggest the mechanism underlying our effects is a desire to present a positive self-image to others. The role of dissociative reference groups in marketing communications is discussed.
Discusses mediation relations in causal terms. Influences of an antecedent are transmitted to a consequence through an intervening mediator. Mediation relations may assume a number of functional forms, including nonadditive, nonlinear, and nonrecursive forms. Although mediation and moderation are distinguishable processes, with nonadditive forms (moderated mediation) a particular variable may be both a mediator and a moderator within a single set of functional relations. Current models for testing mediation relations in industrial and organizational psychology often involve an interplay between exploratory (correlational) statistical tests and causal inference. It is suggested that no middle ground exists between exploratory and confirmatory (causal) analysis and that attempts to explain how mediation processes occur require specified causal models. (57 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Three studies tested basic assumptions derived from a theoretical model based on the dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice. Study 1 supported the model's assumption that high- and low-prejudice persons are equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype. The model suggests that the stereotype is automatically activated in the presence of a member (or some symbolic equivalent) of the stereotype group and that low-prejudice responses require controlled inhibition of the automatically activated stereotype. Study 2, which examined the efforts of automatic stereotype activation on the evaluation of ambiguous stereotype-relevant behaviors performed by a race-unspecified person, suggested that when subjects' ability to consciously monitor stereotype activation is precluded, both high- and low-prejudice subjects produce stereotype-congruent evaluations of ambiguous behaviors. Study 3 examined high- and low-prejudice subjects' responses in a consciously directed thought-listing task. Consistent with the model, only low-prejudice subjects inhibited the automatically activated stereotype-congruent thoughts and replaced them with thoughts reflecting equality and negations of the stereotype. The relation between stereotypes and prejudice and implications for prejudice reduction are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Prior research has established that consumers are motivated to purchase identity-consistent products. We extend consumer identity research into an important consumer context, gift giving, in which individuals may make product choices that run counter to their own identities in order to fulfill the desires of the intended recipient. We find that purchasing an identity-contrary gift for a close (vs. distant) friend who is an integral part of the self can itself cause an identity threat to the giver. Four experiments in a gift registry context show that after making an identity-contrary gift choice for a close (vs. distant) friend, givers subsequently engage in behaviors that reestablish their identity such as indicating greater identity affiliation with the threatened identity and greater likelihood to purchase identity-expressive products. This research highlights the opposing forces that product purchase may exert on consumer identity as both a potential threat and means of self-verification.
This study examined whether automatic stereotypes captured by the implicit association test (IAT) can predict real hiring discrimination against the obese. In an unobtrusive field experiment, job applications were sent to a large number of real job vacancies. The applications were matched on credentials but differed with respect to the applicant's weight. Discriminatory behavior was quantified by the extent to which the hiring managers invited normal-weight versus obese applicants to a job interview. Several months after the behavioral data were obtained, the hiring managers completed an obesity IAT and explicit hiring preference measures. Only the IAT scores reliably predicted interview decisions. More specifically, hiring managers holding more negative automatic stereotypes about the obese were less likely to invite an obese applicant for an interview. The present research is the first to show that automatic bias predicts labor market discrimination against obese individuals. Practical implications are discussed.
This research examines how the body type of consumers affects the food consumption of other consumers around them. We find that consumers anchor on the quantities others around them select but that these portions are adjusted according to the body type of the other consumer. We find that people choose a larger portion following another consumer who first selects a large quantity but that this portion is significantly smaller if the other is obese than if she is thin. We also find that the adjustment is more pronounced for consumers who are low in appearance self-esteem and that it is attenuated under cognitive load. (c) 2009 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
Efforts to explain negative attitudes toward obese people have centered on beliefs about the controllability of body weight, whereas other processes (such as the emotion of disgust) have been largely ignored. This study examined the role of disgust in evaluations of obese people, as well as other social groups (for example smokers, drug addicts, women, homosexuals, politicians).
In three studies, participants (total N=524) made ratings of how much they believe that obesity is a matter of personal control, indicated how disgusted they are with obese people, and reported their attitudes toward obese people. In Study 1, participants also made similar ratings (perceptions of control over group membership, disgust, and attitudes) for 15 additional social groups.
Disgust was the strongest predictor of negative attitudes toward obese people, and disgust fully mediated the association between perceptions of control and attitudes toward obese people. In addition, obese people were rated less favorably, and as more disgusting, than almost all social groups. Across all social groups, perceived control over group membership was positively correlated with disgust ratings, and disgust mediated the link between perceived control and favorability ratings.
These findings indicate that disgust is an important, yet understudied, component of weight bias. Furthermore, these findings situate representations of obesity in a broader context by establishing similarities with other social groups.
Our possessions are a major contributor to and reflection of our identities. A variety of evidence is presented supporting this simple and compelling premise. Related streams of research are identified and drawn upon in developing this concept and implications are derived for consumer behavior. Because the construct of extended self involves consumer behavior rather than buyer behavior, it appears to be a much richer construct than previous formulations positing a relationship between self-concept and consumer brand choice.
Past research finds that consumers exhibit weak self-brand connections to brands associated with out-groups. We extend this work by demonstrating that products associated with dissociative reference groups have a greater impact on consumers' negative self-brand connections, product evaluations, and choices than do products associated with out-groups more generally. In addition, both situational priming and chronic identification with one's in-group moderate the avoidance of products associated with dissociative reference groups. Further, we demonstrate the conditions under which dissociative influence does not occur and discuss the implications of the research. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
We propose that consumers purchase brands in part to construct their self-concepts and, in so doing, form self-brand connections. We focus on reference groups as a source of brand meaning. Results from two studies show that brands with images consistent with an ingroup enhance self-brand connections for all consumers, whereas brands with images that are consistent with an outgroup have a stronger negative effect on independent versus interdependent consumers. We propose that this differential effect is due to stronger self-differentiation goals for consumers with more independent self-concepts. We also find greater effects for more symbolic than for less symbolic brands. (c) 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
Two consumer strategies for the purchase of multiple items from a product class are contrasted. In one strategy (simultaneous choices/sequential consumption), the consumer buys several items on one shopping trip and consumes the items over several consumption occasions. In the other strategy (sequential choices/sequential consumption), the consumer buys one item at a time, just before each consumption occasion. The first strategy is posited to yield more variety seeking than the second. The greater variety seeking is attributed to forces operating in the simultaneous choices/sequential consumption strategy, including uncertainty about future preferences and a desire to simplify the decision. Evidence from three studies, two involving real products and choices, is consistent with these conjectures. The implications and limitations of the results are discussed.
It has been said that obese persons are the last acceptable targets of discrimination.1-4 Anecdotes abound about overweight individuals being ridiculed by teachers, physicians, and complete strangers in public settings, such as supermarkets, restaurants, and shopping areas. Fat jokes and derogatory portrayals of obese people in popular media are common. Overweight people tell stories of receiving poor grades in school, being denied jobs and promotions, losing the opportunity to adopt children, and more. Some who have written on the topic insist that there is a strong and consistent pattern of discrimination, 5 but no systematic review of the scientific evidence has been done.
The chameleon effect refers to nonconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, facial expressions, and other behaviors of one's interaction partners, such that one's behavior passively rind unintentionally changes to match that of others in one's current social environment. The authors suggest that the mechanism involved is the perception-behavior link, the recently documented finding (e.g., J. A. Bargh, M. Chen, & L. Burrows, 1996) that the mere perception of another' s behavior automatically increases the likelihood of engaging in that behavior oneself Experiment 1 showed that the motor behavior of participants unintentionally matched that of strangers with whom they worked on a task. Experiment 2 had confederates mimic the posture and movements of participants and showed that mimicry facilitates the smoothness of interactions and increases liking between interaction partners. Experiment 3 showed that dispositionally empathic individuals exhibit the chameleon effect to a greater extent than do other people.
In eight studies, we tested the prediction that making choices for others involves less loss aversion than making choices for the self. We found that loss aversion is significantly lessened among people choosing for others in scenarios describing riskless choice (Study 1), gambling (Studies 2 and 3), and social aspects of life, such as likeably and status (Studies 4a–e). Moreover, we found this pattern in relatively realistic conditions where people are rewarded for making desirable (i.e., profitable) choices for others (Study 2), when the other for whom a choice is made is physically present (Study 3), and when real money is at stake (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we found loss aversion is moderated when factors associated with self–other differences in decision making are taken into account, such as decision makers’ construal level (Study 4a), regulatory focus (Study 4b), degree of information seeking (Study 4c), omission bias (Study 4d), and power (Study 4e).
We predicted that able-bodied individuals and White Americans would have a difficult time saying no to persuasive appeals offered by disabled individuals and Black Americans, due to their desire to make such interactions proceed smoothly. In two experiments, we show that members of stigmatized groups have a peculiar kind of persuasive “power” in face-to-face interactions with non-stigmatized individuals. In Experiment 1, wheelchair-bound confederates were more effective in publicly soliciting donations to a range of charities than confederates seated in a regular chair. In Experiment 2, Whites changed their private attitudes more following face-to-face appeals from Black than White confederates, an effect mediated by their increased efforts to appear agreeable by nodding and expressing agreement. This difference was eliminated when impression management concerns were minimized – when participants viewed the appeals on video.
According to system justification theory, people internalize and perpetuate systemic forms of inequality, even though it sometimes means harboring preferences for members of higher status outgroups. In Study 1, students from a high status (but not a low status) university exhibited significant ingroup favoritism on the IAT, an automatic evaluative measure. Furthermore, for students at the high status university, implicit ingroup bias was positively correlated with implicit self-esteem. For students at the low status university, implicit acceptance of consensual stereotypes concerning academic and extracurricular characteristics was associated with implicit outgroup favoritism. In Study 2, Latinos and Asian Americans exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on an unobtrusive behavioral measure by choosing White interaction partners over members of their own groups. In Study 3, parents named newborn children disproportionately after their fathers (compared with their mothers) and published birth announcements for boys slightly more often than for girls. Thus, we observed evidence of system justification on implicit or unobtrusive measures in three different socially disadvantaged groups.
This article presents the rationale and procedures for conducting a process analysis in evaluation research. Such an analysis attempts to identify the process that mediates the effects of some treatment, by estimating the parameters of a causal chain between the treatment and some outcome variable. Two different procedures for estimating mediation are discussed. In addition we present procedures for examining whether a treatment exerts its effects, in part, by altering the mediating process that produces the outcome. Finally, the benefits of process analysis in evaluation research are underlined.
Two consumer strategies for the purchase of multiple items from a product class are contrasted. In one strategy (simultaneous choices/sequential consumption), the consumer buys several items on one shopping trip and consumes the items over several consumption occasions. In the other strategy (sequential choices/sequential consumption), the consumer buys one item at a time, just before each consumption occasion. The first strategy is posited to yield more variety seeking than the second. The greater variety seeking is attributed to forces operating in the simultaneous choices/sequential consumption strategy, including uncertainty about future preferences and a desire to simplify the decision. Evidence from three studies, two involving real products and choices, is consistent with these conjectures. The implications and limitations of the results are discussed.
Two experiments investigated the moderation of behavioral mimicry effects as a function of the to-be-mimicked target. In each experiment participants completed an ice cream taste test in the presence of a confederate who was instructed to either eat a lot of ice cream (high consumption condition) or very little ice cream (low consumption condition). The extent to which participants mimicked the ice cream consumption of the confederate was recorded. In addition two confederates were employed; one of the confederates in each experiment had a visual stigma. In Experiment 1 the confederate was either obese or not. In Experiment 2 the confederate had, or did not have, a facial birthmark. Results showed mimicry of the confederate's ice cream consumption except for the obese confederate in Experiment 1. Stigmatization of the to-be-mimicked target does inhibit mimicry effects but only when the nature of the Stigmatization is linked to the critical task. Results are discussed in terms of non-conscious elicitation and inhibition of behavior. Implications for social interaction are also discussed.
Along with race and gender, people commonly use age to categorize—and form stereotypes about—others. Of the three categories, age is the only one in which the members of the in-group (the young) will eventually join the out-group (the old). Although ageism is found cross-culturally, it is especially prevalent in the United States, where most people regard growing older with depression, fear, and anxiety. Older people in the United States are stigmatized and marginalized, with often devastating consequences.
Although researchers have paid a great deal of attention to racism and sexism, there has been a dearth of research on ageism. A major reason for this neglect is that age prejudice is still considered socially acceptable. As baby boomers approach retirement age, however, there has been increased academic and popular interest in aging. This volume presents the current thinking on age stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination by researchers in gerontology, psychology, sociology, and communication. The book presents theoretical and empirical findings on the origins and effects of ageism, as well as suggestions on how to reduce ageism for the approaching "graying of America."
Bradford Books imprint
Psychologists have long assumed that the motivation for all intentional action, including all action intended to benefit others, is egoistic. People benefit others because, ultimately, to do so benefits themselves. The empathy-altruism hypothesis challenges this assumption. It claims that empathic emotion evokes truly altruistic motivation, motivation with an ultimate goal of benefiting not the self but the person for whom empathy is felt. Logical and psychological distinctions between egoism and altruism are reviewed, providing a conceptual framework for empirical tests for the existence of altruism. Results of empirical tests to date are summarized; these results provide impressive support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. We conclude that the popular and parsimonious explanation of prosocial motivation in terms of universal egoism must give way to a pluralistic explanation that includes altruism as well as egoism. Implications of such a pluralism are briefly noted, not only for our understanding of prosocial motivation but also for our understanding of human nature and of the emotion-motivation link.
This chapter examines one factor that contributes to the current frustrations of black Americans: the operation of a subtle form of racism among individuals that is less overt but just as insidious as old-fashioned racism.
Despite encouraging trends in the intergroup attitudes of white Americans, there are still reasons for concern. One reason is that, across a variety of surveys and polls, 10%–15% of the white population still expresses the old-fashioned, overt form of bigotry. These respondents consistently describe blacks as innately less intelligent than whites, say that they will not vote for a well-qualified presidential candidate simply because of that person's race, and oppose programs designed to ensure full integration and equal opportunity. Another reason for concern is that a substantial portion of the white population expresses merely racial tolerance but not true openness to or enthusiasm for full racial equality. A third reason for concern, which is this chapter's current focus, is that there is also evidence that many of the people who are part of the 85%–90% of the white population who say and probably believe that they are not prejudiced may nonetheless be practicing modern, subtle form of bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
explore the different sources and forms of intergroup tension, in order to achieve a fuller understanding of their possible impact on interpersonal intergroup interactions / review and evaluate what social psychologists have learned about the nature of intergroup dynamics and intergroup tension / a central theme of [the authors'] approach is that a key obstacle to positive intergroup relations is the potential for miscommunication between majority and minority group members, which arises out of the expectations and concerns each interactant brings to the encounter / consider the motives participants bring to intergroup interactions, their concerns and expectations, and the implications of these motivations and cognitions for the outcome of the encounter (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This paper investigates how people's food choices can be shaped by the body type of others around them. Using a professionally constructed obesity prosthesis, we show that the body type of a (confederate) server in a taste test study was sufficient to alter both the quantity (Experiment 1) and specific choices (Experiment 2) participants made but that chronic dieters and non-dieters exhibited opposite effects. While non-dieters ate more snacks when the server was thin, dieters ate more when the server was heavy. Dieters were also more persuaded by a heavy (vs. a thin) server, choosing both a healthy and unhealthy snack more often when she recommended it to them. We suggest these results may be attributable to identification with the server.
This article takes an interdisciplinary approach to the issue of weight-based discrimination in employment, drawing on diverse literatures (psychology, law, sociology, economics), and integrating a review of empirical research and a traditional legal analysis. First, empirical research that focuses on the extent of bias against overweight individuals in employment contexts is reviewed and evaluated. Second, current legal requirements relevant to weight-based discrimination in employment are identified and discussed, and those requirements are applied to the research findings to assess the extent to which the weight-based bias identified in the reviewed studies involves illegal discrimination. Third, based on the results of the review of the research and legal literatures, future research directions are offered and practical implications for employers and policy makers are identified.
What are the differences in exerting self-control in sequential choices when consumers choose for others (family or friends) rather than for themselves? Sequential choices represent an opportunity to manage the pursuit of one's multiple personal goals. Consumers typically manage these personal goals by combining indulgent and virtuous choices. When choosing for others, however, this is not the case. Consumers then focus on a pleasure-seeking goal, which leads to indulgent choices for others. Six experiments demonstrate this phenomenon and uncover conditions that encourage more virtuous choices for others. (c) 2010 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
Many of the options available to decision makers, such as college majors and romantic partners, can become unavailable if sufficient effort is not invested in them (taking classes, sending flowers). The question asked in this work is whether a threat of disappearance changes the way people value such options. In four experiments using "door games," we demonstrate that options that threaten to disappear cause decision makers to invest more effort and money in keeping these options open, even when the options themselves seem to be of little interest. This general tendency is shown to be resilient to information about the outcomes, to increased experience, and to the saliency of the cost. The last experiment provides initial evidence that the mechanism underlying the tendency to keep doors open is a type of aversion to loss rather than a desire for flexibility.
(from the chapter) Considers the social and psychological experience of stigma, from the perspective of both the stigmatizer and the stigmatized individual. The primary focus is on the experience of the stigmatized—how they understand and interpret their stigmatization, how they cope with it, and how it affects their psychological well-being, cognitive functioning, and interactions with nonstigmatized individuals. (chapter)
To understand the predicaments of the stigmatized, and their consequences, one must first consider what it means to be stigmatized and why social stigma is so pervasive, and one must bear in mind some key findings on the nature of stereotyping and prejudice from the view of the stigmatizer. After exploring these issues, this chapter concludes with a consideration of the costs of stigma to the stigmatized individual, to the stigmatizer, and to the broader society. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (chapter)
Patients facing difficult decisions often ask physicians for recommendations. However, little is known regarding the ways that physicians' decisions are influenced by the act of making a recommendation.
We surveyed 2 representative samples of US primary care physicians-general internists and family medicine specialists listed in the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile-and presented each with 1 of 2 clinical scenarios. Both involved 2 treatment alternatives, 1 of which yielded a better chance of surviving a fatal illness but at the cost of potentially experiencing unpleasant adverse effects. We randomized physicians to indicate which treatment they would choose if they were the patient or they were recommending a treatment to a patient.
Among those asked to consider our colon cancer scenario (n = 242), 37.8% chose the treatment with a higher death rate for themselves but only 24.5% recommended this treatment to a hypothetical patient (χ(2)(1) = 4.67, P = .03). Among those receiving our avian influenza scenario (n = 698), 62.9% chose the outcome with the higher death rate for themselves but only 48.5% recommended this for patients (χ(2)(1) = 14.56, P < .001).
The act of making a recommendation changes the ways that physicians think regarding medical choices. Better understanding of this thought process will help determine when or whether recommendations improve decision making.
This article provides researchers with a guide to properly construe and conduct analyses of conditional indirect effects, commonly known as moderated mediation effects. We disentangle conflicting definitions of moderated mediation and describe approaches for estimating and testing a variety of hypotheses involving conditional indirect effects. We introduce standard errors for hypothesis testing and construction of confidence intervals in large samples but advocate that researchers use bootstrapping whenever possible. We also describe methods for probing significant conditional indirect effects by employing direct extensions of the simple slopes method and Johnson-Neyman technique for probing significant interactions. Finally, we provide an SPSS macro to facilitate the implementation of the recommended asymptotic and bootstrapping methods. We illustrate the application of these methods with an example drawn from the Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions, showing that the indirect effect of intrinsic student interest on mathematics performance through teacher perceptions of talent is moderated by student math self-concept.
This paper provides a survey on studies that analyze the macroeconomic effects of intellectual property rights (IPR). The first part of this paper introduces different patent policy instruments and reviews their effects on R&D and economic growth. This part also discusses the distortionary effects and distributional consequences of IPR protection as well as empirical evidence on the effects of patent rights. Then, the second part considers the international aspects of IPR protection. In summary, this paper draws the following conclusions from the literature. Firstly, different patent policy instruments have different effects on R&D and growth. Secondly, there is empirical evidence supporting a positive relationship between IPR protection and innovation, but the evidence is stronger for developed countries than for developing countries. Thirdly, the optimal level of IPR protection should tradeoff the social benefits of enhanced innovation against the social costs of multiple distortions and income inequality. Finally, in an open economy, achieving the globally optimal level of protection requires an international coordination (rather than the harmonization) of IPR protection.
Many individual decisions take place in a group context wherein group members voice their choices sequentially. In this article we examine the impact of this dynamic decision process on individuals' choices and satisfaction with their outcomes. We propose that choices reflect a balancing of two classes of goals: goals that are strictly individual and goals that are triggered by the existence of the group. The latter sometimes results in choices that undermine personal satisfaction and increase regret. We find support for goal balancing in three studies in which we tracked consumers' orders of dishes and drinks. In the Lunch study we found that real groups (tables) choose more varied dishes than would be expected by random sampling of the population of all individual choices across all tables. The Beer study demonstrates that this group-level variety seeking is attributable to the interaction implicit or explicit among group members, and can be dissipated when the group is forced to "disband" and its members make strictly individual choices. Finally, the Wine study demonstrated that individual choices in a group context are also aimed at satisfying goals of information gathering and self-presentation in the form of uniqueness. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.
This investigation explores labeling processes underlying age segmentation cue effects on discount usage intentions. Depth interviews regarding participants' experiences using senior-citizen-type discounts reveal three levels of responsiveness to consumer offerings promoted with age segmentation cues: rejecting senior citizen discounts to avoid self-devaluation, rejecting senior citizen discounts to avoid stigmatization, and assigning positive meanings to the status that promotes senior citizen discount usage. An experimental investigation, undertaken to assess the sequential ordering of these levels of responsiveness, reveals that self-devaluation and perceived stigma mediate age segmentation cue effects on discount usage intention only for younger-aged elderly. Results lend support for a stage model of consumers' progression through phases of responsiveness to "senior citizen" labeling. Copyright 1994 by the University of Chicago.
The role of situational ethnicity in consumption behaivor is examined, and the relationship between ethnicity and consumption is argued to be affected by the situational contexts in which choices are made. Situational effects are proposed to operate through changes in the level of felt ethnicity and in the relationship between felt ethnicity and behavior. An empirical study demonstrates these effects by showing the impact of two situational dimensions--social surroundings and antecedent conditions--on ethnic food choices. Copyright 1989 by the University of Chicago.
This research examines how identity-based interventions can improve consumer health. Results of laboratory and field experiments reveal that associating risky health behaviors with a social identity people do not want to signal can contaminate the behaviors and lead consumers to make healthier choices. College freshman reported consuming less alcohol (experiment 2), and restaurant patrons selected less fattening food (experiment 3), when drinking alcohol and eating junk food were presented as markers of avoidance groups. These findings demonstrate that identity-based interventions can shift the identities associated with real-world behaviors, thereby improving the health of populations. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
We propose that consumers often make choices that diverge from those of others to ensure that they effectively communicate desired identities. Consistent with this identity-signaling perspective, four studies illustrate that consumers are more likely to diverge from majorities, or members of other social groups, in product domains that are seen as symbolic of identity (e.g., music or hairstyles, rather than backpacks or stereos). In identity domains, participants avoided options preferred by majorities and abandoned preferences shared with majorities. The social group associated with a product influenced choice more in identity domains and when a given product was framed as identity relevant. People diverge, in part, to avoid communicating undesired identities. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..