Academic Research
Rejections Are Stickier Than Choices
Consumers frequently make the same decision repeatedly, by either choosing the products they like more or rejecting the products they like less. Holding everything else constant, does the mere act of choosing versus rejecting influence the extent to which consumers seek variety? Eight studies (N = 2,814) identify a robust effect: Consumers tend to seek less variety across repeated decisions if they make each decision by rejecting than if they make each decision by choosing. This effect occurs because an initial rejection (vs. choice) reduces the liking of the unselected option(s) and thus widens the liking gap between the selected and unselected options. An increased liking gap, in turn, decreases the consumer's likelihood of selecting a previously unselected option(s) in subsequent decisions. The findings also show that the enlarged liking gap is driven by increased negative inferences about the unselected option(s). Theoretically, this research extends the literatures on variety seeking and choosing versus rejecting. Practically, it offers implications for consumer welfare: The rejection task can improve (worsen) the decision quality in situations in which consumers typically seek too much (too little) variety.
Paper Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00222437241301417?ai=2b4&mi=ehikzz&af=R
Authors: Minzhe Xu, Yang Yang, Chris Janiszewski
ABSTRACT
Consumers frequently make the same decision repeatedly, by either choosing the products they like more or rejecting the products they like less. Holding everything else constant, does the mere act of choosing versus rejecting influence the extent to which consumers seek variety? Eight studies (N = 2,814) identify a robust effect: Consumers tend to seek less variety across repeated decisions if they make each decision by rejecting than if they make each decision by choosing. This effect occurs because an initial rejection (vs. choice) reduces the liking of the unselected option(s) and thus widens the liking gap between the selected and unselected options. An increased liking gap, in turn, decreases the consumer's likelihood of selecting a previously unselected option(s) in subsequent decisions. The findings also show that the enlarged liking gap is driven by increased negative inferences about the unselected option(s). Theoretically, this research extends the literatures on variety seeking and choosing versus rejecting. Practically, it offers implications for consumer welfare: The rejection task can improve (worsen) the decision quality in situations in which consumers typically seek too much (too little) variety.
That's So Cringeworthy! Understanding What Cringe Is and Why We Want to Share It
What does it mean for something to be cringeworthy? To date, research studying this phenomenon has been lacking. Across six studies, this research seeks to provide a better understanding of cringe, both in terms of what it is as an emotion and what it does via its downstream consequences on consumer behavior. The authors delineate conceptually and empirically how cringe is a unique form of vicarious embarrassment (i.e., embarrassment experienced in response to someone else). Specifically, they show that cringe occurs when one observes an actor—an individual, group of people, or even a brand—commit a social transgression by making an awkward attempt to form a positive impression on others in a way that is not excusable from the observer's perspective. The authors also demonstrate a novel effect of cringe: consumers respond to cringeworthy experiences by wanting to share them with others via word of mouth. This effect occurs because the act of sharing cringeworthy experiences gives consumers an opportunity for self-enhancement by engaging in a favorable downward social comparison to the actor committing the social transgression that elicited cringe. Theoretical contributions, managerial implications, and future research directions pertaining to emotion and word-of-mouth behavior are discussed.
Paper Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00222437241305104?ai=2b4&mi=ehikzz&af=R
Authors: Brianna Escoe, Nathanael S. Martin, Anthony Salerno
ABSTRACT
What does it mean for something to be cringeworthy? To date, research studying this phenomenon has been lacking. Across six studies, this research seeks to provide a better understanding of cringe, both in terms of what it is as an emotion and what it does via its downstream consequences on consumer behavior. The authors delineate conceptually and empirically how cringe is a unique form of vicarious embarrassment (i.e., embarrassment experienced in response to someone else). Specifically, they show that cringe occurs when one observes an actor—an individual, group of people, or even a brand—commit a social transgression by making an awkward attempt to form a positive impression on others in a way that is not excusable from the observer's perspective. The authors also demonstrate a novel effect of cringe: consumers respond to cringeworthy experiences by wanting to share them with others via word of mouth. This effect occurs because the act of sharing cringeworthy experiences gives consumers an opportunity for self-enhancement by engaging in a favorable downward social comparison to the actor committing the social transgression that elicited cringe. Theoretical contributions, managerial implications, and future research directions pertaining to emotion and word-of-mouth behavior are discussed.