Academic Research
Reparative Consumption: The Role of Racial Identity and White Guilt in Consumer Preferences
In light of recent social and political movements advocating for racial equity and calls for more research on interracial marketplace interactions, this research explores the role racial identity plays in the consumption domain. Specifically, we investigate the marketplace consequences of U.S.-based White consumers’ feelings about their own racial identity by measuring and manipulating white guilt, defined as the sense of guilt and remorse that emerges among White consumers who hold their racial ingroup responsible for historical and ongoing racial injustices and perceive that Whites, as a racial group, benefit from unearned privileges. Consistent with the reparation-oriented action profile of guilt, six studies (all pre-registered, two with incentive-compatible designs) show that white guilt motivates reparative behaviors toward Black-owned businesses in various service contexts: Consumers with high white guilt express greater willingness to patronize and promote a business when it is Black-owned (vs. White-owned, family-owned, or when there is no information on ownership) and feel more moral for doing so, whereas this effect is non-existent, or sometimes reversed, for those low in white guilt. Our findings reveal the complex dynamics of race, identity, and intergroup relations in the marketplace, and demonstrate a contemporary exception to ingroup favoritism among some White consumers.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaf019
Authors: Rishad Habib, Ekin Ok, Karl Aquino, Siddhanth Mookerjee, Yann Cornil
ABSTRACT
In light of recent social and political movements advocating for racial equity and calls for more research on interracial marketplace interactions, this research explores the role racial identity plays in the consumption domain. Specifically, we investigate the marketplace consequences of U.S.-based White consumers’ feelings about their own racial identity by measuring and manipulating white guilt, defined as the sense of guilt and remorse that emerges among White consumers who hold their racial ingroup responsible for historical and ongoing racial injustices and perceive that Whites, as a racial group, benefit from unearned privileges. Consistent with the reparation-oriented action profile of guilt, six studies (all pre-registered, two with incentive-compatible designs) show that white guilt motivates reparative behaviors toward Black-owned businesses in various service contexts: Consumers with high white guilt express greater willingness to patronize and promote a business when it is Black-owned (vs. White-owned, family-owned, or when there is no information on ownership) and feel more moral for doing so, whereas this effect is non-existent, or sometimes reversed, for those low in white guilt. Our findings reveal the complex dynamics of race, identity, and intergroup relations in the marketplace, and demonstrate a contemporary exception to ingroup favoritism among some White consumers.
When and Why Consumers (Erroneously) Believe Income Impacts the Enjoyment of Consumption Experiences
We examine how people (as observers) anticipate levels of happiness from psychological consumption experiences (e.g., learning a new language or visiting a park). All else being equal, we propose and demonstrate that people expect differences in happiness based on income. Specifically, we show that relative to observers themselves, individuals simultaneously expect low-income consumers to enjoy psychological consumption experiences less and high-income consumers to enjoy them more. This is because consumers hold a lay theory that human needs must be fulfilled in a sequential, linear manner, which leads to income-based inferences of need prioritization. Thus, observers simultaneously believe that low-income consumers do (and should) prioritize their low-level physical needs first, but high-income consumers (who have presumably already fulfilled their physical needs) can prioritize their high-level psychological needs. Critically, we demonstrate that these lay theory-driven inferences are faulty, showing that the priority level assigned to these needs and the actual happiness resulting from psychological consumption experiences do not follow the predicted pattern. Namely, income either has no relationship with actual happiness (visitors to theme parks, sporting events, and concerts), or the reverse relationship, such that lower-income consumers report greater happiness than higher-income consumers (secondary data from a major league professional sports team).
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaf002
Authors: Jenny G Olson, Brent McFerran, Andrea C Morales, Darren W Dahl
ABSTRACT
We examine how people (as observers) anticipate levels of happiness from psychological consumption experiences (e.g., learning a new language or visiting a park). All else being equal, we propose and demonstrate that people expect differences in happiness based on income. Specifically, we show that relative to observers themselves, individuals simultaneously expect low-income consumers to enjoy psychological consumption experiences less and high-income consumers to enjoy them more. This is because consumers hold a lay theory that human needs must be fulfilled in a sequential, linear manner, which leads to income-based inferences of need prioritization. Thus, observers simultaneously believe that low-income consumers do (and should) prioritize their low-level physical needs first, but high-income consumers (who have presumably already fulfilled their physical needs) can prioritize their high-level psychological needs. Critically, we demonstrate that these lay theory-driven inferences are faulty, showing that the priority level assigned to these needs and the actual happiness resulting from psychological consumption experiences do not follow the predicted pattern. Namely, income either has no relationship with actual happiness (visitors to theme parks, sporting events, and concerts), or the reverse relationship, such that lower-income consumers report greater happiness than higher-income consumers (secondary data from a major league professional sports team).
The Beneficent and Maleficent Effects of Simplification on Retirement Savings
Considerable research suggests making information simpler is better. Simplification improves the efficiency of information extraction and lowers psychological frictions, leading to its popularity with policymakers and practitioners worldwide. However, it remains unclear when and how simplification can be utilized most effectively, or if there are contexts where simplification may produce unintended maleficent effects. Using two large-scale field experiments (N = 126,673), we test whether simplifying account statements helps encourage retirement savings in Mexico. We partner with two retirement firms, one ranked high in rate of returns and the other ranked lower. We find that simplifying retirement account statements improves contribution rates for consumers in the high-ranking firm but reduces contribution rates for consumers in the low-ranking firm. Five follow-up experiments provide evidence consistent with a fluency amplification account. Simplifying information improves processing fluency making it easier to accurately recall firm rank relative to the control, which amplifies behavior bidirectionally: High-ranking (low-ranking) firm consumers more accurately recall their firm’s rank, subsequently increasing (decreasing) contributions. However, if simplification is harnessed in ways that improve processing fluency and lower perceived switching costs, then simplification can improve retirement savings for everyone either by boosting contributions or encouraging people to switch to higher performing alternatives.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae067
Authors: Avni M Shah, Matthew Osborne, Jaclyn Lefkowitz, Andrew Fertig, Alissa Fishbane, Dilip Soman
ABSTRACT
Considerable research suggests making information simpler is better. Simplification improves the efficiency of information extraction and lowers psychological frictions, leading to its popularity with policymakers and practitioners worldwide. However, it remains unclear when and how simplification can be utilized most effectively, or if there are contexts where simplification may produce unintended maleficent effects. Using two large-scale field experiments (N = 126,673), we test whether simplifying account statements helps encourage retirement savings in Mexico. We partner with two retirement firms, one ranked high in rate of returns and the other ranked lower. We find that simplifying retirement account statements improves contribution rates for consumers in the high-ranking firm but reduces contribution rates for consumers in the low-ranking firm. Five follow-up experiments provide evidence consistent with a fluency amplification account. Simplifying information improves processing fluency making it easier to accurately recall firm rank relative to the control, which amplifies behavior bidirectionally: High-ranking (low-ranking) firm consumers more accurately recall their firm’s rank, subsequently increasing (decreasing) contributions. However, if simplification is harnessed in ways that improve processing fluency and lower perceived switching costs, then simplification can improve retirement savings for everyone either by boosting contributions or encouraging people to switch to higher performing alternatives.
Market Sensemaking for Consumers’ Collective Political Agency
Employing the theoretical lens of Weick’s work on sensemaking, this article explains how consumers collectively decipher and pursue their political interests. Based on historiographic data among Gaúchos in Southern Brazil, the findings detail how improvised enactments of consumer culture trigger interpretive capacities that decipher the effects of the enactments on the group and how articulation of hot conflict and cool inference interpretations politicizes such enactments. Ultimately, such socially engaged articulation informs committed interpretation, compromise, and consensus, which in turn motivate and justify subsequent enactments advancing group interests. The discussion elaborates the importance of sensemaking capacities and articulation, and the significance of committed interpretation in enabling and blocking collective compromise and consensus. This research contributes to knowledge of: (1) meso-level processes of collectively reasoned action among members of a consumer culture, (2) group structure that enhances consumers’ collective market sensemaking, and (3) particular market sensemaking challenges for consumption politics in a postcolonial context. The article closes with suggestions for further research in other forms of consumer culture in postcolonial conditions.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae072
Authors: Marlon Dalmoro, Lisa Peñaloza
ABSTRACT
Employing the theoretical lens of Weick’s work on sensemaking, this article explains how consumers collectively decipher and pursue their political interests. Based on historiographic data among Gaúchos in Southern Brazil, the findings detail how improvised enactments of consumer culture trigger interpretive capacities that decipher the effects of the enactments on the group and how articulation of hot conflict and cool inference interpretations politicizes such enactments. Ultimately, such socially engaged articulation informs committed interpretation, compromise, and consensus, which in turn motivate and justify subsequent enactments advancing group interests. The discussion elaborates the importance of sensemaking capacities and articulation, and the significance of committed interpretation in enabling and blocking collective compromise and consensus. This research contributes to knowledge of: (1) meso-level processes of collectively reasoned action among members of a consumer culture, (2) group structure that enhances consumers’ collective market sensemaking, and (3) particular market sensemaking challenges for consumption politics in a postcolonial context. The article closes with suggestions for further research in other forms of consumer culture in postcolonial conditions.
Seeking Structure in Collections: Desire for Control Motivates Engagement in Collecting
Across six studies, we provide converging and robust lab and field evidence that the fundamental human desire for control motivates consumer engagement in collecting, defined as the act of acquiring items that belong to an existing collection. This is because consumers who desire control seek structure, which is created when interconnected components form a holistic entity. A collection can provide such a structure, as it comprises related items that together create a whole set. Hence, as consumers add items to a collection, they are also manifesting a structure. Indeed, we demonstrate that desire for control’s motivating effect on engagement diminishes when structure-seeking is hindered or when the collection is far from completion. This work contributes to extant consumer research by identifying desire for control as a fundamental motivation of collecting behavior, explaining when and why consumers work toward completing their collections, and explicating the structured nature of collecting. Of practical relevance, we provide implications for the enhancement of consumer well-being; the design, positioning, and communication of collectible products; and the creation of policies regulating the collectibles market.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae071
Authors: C Clark Cao, Merrie Brucks, Martin Reimann
ABSTRACT
Across six studies, we provide converging and robust lab and field evidence that the fundamental human desire for control motivates consumer engagement in collecting, defined as the act of acquiring items that belong to an existing collection. This is because consumers who desire control seek structure, which is created when interconnected components form a holistic entity. A collection can provide such a structure, as it comprises related items that together create a whole set. Hence, as consumers add items to a collection, they are also manifesting a structure. Indeed, we demonstrate that desire for control’s motivating effect on engagement diminishes when structure-seeking is hindered or when the collection is far from completion. This work contributes to extant consumer research by identifying desire for control as a fundamental motivation of collecting behavior, explaining when and why consumers work toward completing their collections, and explicating the structured nature of collecting. Of practical relevance, we provide implications for the enhancement of consumer well-being; the design, positioning, and communication of collectible products; and the creation of policies regulating the collectibles market.
Means-Goal Conflict and Novel Brand Choice
Globalization and technological advancements have spurred a rapid increase in the number of novel brands in the marketplace. When and why consumers choose a novel brand are increasingly important questions for marketers. The present research explores these questions and posits that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand depending upon the choice context. Specifically, we theorize that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand under means-goal conflict (as opposed to means-goal congruence). We suggest this effect occurs because, in contexts involving means-goal conflict, consumers are motivated to justify their choice, and novel brands afford consumers the opportunity to do so. That is, unlike familiar brands, novel brands lack strong associations in consumers’ minds, which allows consumers the ability to interpret them as less impedimental (i.e., less harmful) to their goal (a choice-justification strategy), thereby increasing choice. We test and find support for our hypotheses about novel brand choice across eight studies. The present research contributes to the literatures on branding, consumer goals and choice, and means-goal associations and has implications for managers launching new brands into the competitive global marketplace.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae070
Authors: Jessica Gamlin, Danielle J Brick
ABSTRACT
Globalization and technological advancements have spurred a rapid increase in the number of novel brands in the marketplace. When and why consumers choose a novel brand are increasingly important questions for marketers. The present research explores these questions and posits that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand depending upon the choice context. Specifically, we theorize that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand under means-goal conflict (as opposed to means-goal congruence). We suggest this effect occurs because, in contexts involving means-goal conflict, consumers are motivated to justify their choice, and novel brands afford consumers the opportunity to do so. That is, unlike familiar brands, novel brands lack strong associations in consumers’ minds, which allows consumers the ability to interpret them as less impedimental (i.e., less harmful) to their goal (a choice-justification strategy), thereby increasing choice. We test and find support for our hypotheses about novel brand choice across eight studies. The present research contributes to the literatures on branding, consumer goals and choice, and means-goal associations and has implications for managers launching new brands into the competitive global marketplace.
Consumers Prefer Products That Work Using Directionally Consistent Causal Chains
Products often aim to help consumers achieve desired outcomes such as increasing energy levels or removing fabric stains. These products typically work via rich causal paths. The current research suggests that the structure of these paths influences consumer judgments of product efficacy. In particular, sequential steps in these paths can evoke distinct directionalities—either increasing or decreasing variables in each step along the way. For example, a face cream could be described as “increasing the turnover of skin cells to reduce wrinkles.” Under our framework, the action influencing skin cells would correspond to increasing directionality, while the action influencing wrinkles would correspond to decreasing directionality. Ten experiments provide evidence that consumers prefer products with directionally consistent causal chains (i.e., all steps evoking the same directionality) over those with directionally inconsistent ones (i.e., steps evoking contrasting directionalities). This occurs because consumers find directionally consistent causal chains easier to process, which in turn leads them to infer higher efficacy from products working via such consistent chains. These findings advance our understanding of how consumers evaluate product descriptions and provide prescriptions for marketers tasked with composing product descriptions to convey efficacy.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae066
Authors: Soaham Bharti, Abigail B Sussman
ABSTRACT
Products often aim to help consumers achieve desired outcomes such as increasing energy levels or removing fabric stains. These products typically work via rich causal paths. The current research suggests that the structure of these paths influences consumer judgments of product efficacy. In particular, sequential steps in these paths can evoke distinct directionalities—either increasing or decreasing variables in each step along the way. For example, a face cream could be described as “increasing the turnover of skin cells to reduce wrinkles.” Under our framework, the action influencing skin cells would correspond to increasing directionality, while the action influencing wrinkles would correspond to decreasing directionality. Ten experiments provide evidence that consumers prefer products with directionally consistent causal chains (i.e., all steps evoking the same directionality) over those with directionally inconsistent ones (i.e., steps evoking contrasting directionalities). This occurs because consumers find directionally consistent causal chains easier to process, which in turn leads them to infer higher efficacy from products working via such consistent chains. These findings advance our understanding of how consumers evaluate product descriptions and provide prescriptions for marketers tasked with composing product descriptions to convey efficacy.
Consumer Moral Decision Making: The Impact of Alignable Versus Nonalignable Differences
Consumer choice decisions often involve a tradeoff between an alignable difference (a difference along a shared attribute) and a nonalignable difference (a difference between unique attributes of each alternative). For example, Café A provides friendly service, while Café B offers unwelcoming service (an alignable difference). However, Café A occasionally makes billing errors, and Café B has comfortable seating (a nonalignable difference). Prior research shows that alignable differences tend to have a greater impact on choice than nonalignable differences (known as the “alignability effect”). Yet, little research has examined tradeoffs involving moral attributes. Contrary to the prevailing evidence, eight studies (N = 2,861) demonstrate that in moral attribute tradeoffs, nonalignable (vs. alignable) differences have a greater impact on choice (termed the “nonalignability effect”). Consequently, consumers prefer an alternative that is superior on a nonalignable moral difference but inferior on an alignable moral difference. Moreover, in moral–quality tradeoffs, where one alternative is more ethical but is of lower quality, consumers show a stronger preference for the ethical alternative when its moral superiority is represented by a nonalignable (vs. alignable) difference. The nonalignability effect is driven by consumers’ unique decision process in making moral attribute tradeoffs, characterized by categorical valence coding and attribute-by-attribute win–loss counting.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae065
Authors: Sang Kyu Park, Young Joo Cho, Jungkeun Kim, Jin Yong Lee, Jongwon Park
ABSTRACT
Consumer choice decisions often involve a tradeoff between an alignable difference (a difference along a shared attribute) and a nonalignable difference (a difference between unique attributes of each alternative). For example, Café A provides friendly service, while Café B offers unwelcoming service (an alignable difference). However, Café A occasionally makes billing errors, and Café B has comfortable seating (a nonalignable difference). Prior research shows that alignable differences tend to have a greater impact on choice than nonalignable differences (known as the “alignability effect”). Yet, little research has examined tradeoffs involving moral attributes. Contrary to the prevailing evidence, eight studies (N = 2,861) demonstrate that in moral attribute tradeoffs, nonalignable (vs. alignable) differences have a greater impact on choice (termed the “nonalignability effect”). Consequently, consumers prefer an alternative that is superior on a nonalignable moral difference but inferior on an alignable moral difference. Moreover, in moral–quality tradeoffs, where one alternative is more ethical but is of lower quality, consumers show a stronger preference for the ethical alternative when its moral superiority is represented by a nonalignable (vs. alignable) difference. The nonalignability effect is driven by consumers’ unique decision process in making moral attribute tradeoffs, characterized by categorical valence coding and attribute-by-attribute win–loss counting.
The Contrast Pressures on Consumer-Level Food Waste in a Pandemic: The Impact of Infection Salience Versus Lockdown Salience
Consumer food waste, with its extensive social, economic, and environmental implications, gained heightened attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted food supply chains and exacerbated food insecurity. Amidst conflicting reports on the pandemic’s influences on consumer-level food waste, this research differentiates between the infection and lockdown facets of a pandemic. Specifically, we demonstrate that infection salience amplifies safety–health concerns, leading to increased consumer food waste, while lockdown salience raises concerns over resource scarcity, resulting in reduced consumer food waste. Considering that most pandemics or infectious diseases primarily increase infection salience without inducing lockdowns, we propose a safety–health intervention to mitigate the rise in consumer food waste driven by infection salience and the associated safety–health concerns. Through a large-scale field study, a lab experiment measuring real food waste, a country-level secondary dataset, and three supplementary experiments, we provide converging supports for our theory. These studies also showcase various implementations of the safety–health intervention, such as table tents, napkins, and to-go boxes. This research reconciles divergent perspectives on the pandemic’s impact on consumer-level food waste, enriches the understanding of pandemics and associated food waste dynamics, and offers actionable strategies for businesses and policymakers to address consumer food waste during pandemics.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae063
Authors: Huachao Gao
ABSTRACT
Consumer food waste, with its extensive social, economic, and environmental implications, gained heightened attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted food supply chains and exacerbated food insecurity. Amidst conflicting reports on the pandemic’s influences on consumer-level food waste, this research differentiates between the infection and lockdown facets of a pandemic. Specifically, we demonstrate that infection salience amplifies safety–health concerns, leading to increased consumer food waste, while lockdown salience raises concerns over resource scarcity, resulting in reduced consumer food waste. Considering that most pandemics or infectious diseases primarily increase infection salience without inducing lockdowns, we propose a safety–health intervention to mitigate the rise in consumer food waste driven by infection salience and the associated safety–health concerns. Through a large-scale field study, a lab experiment measuring real food waste, a country-level secondary dataset, and three supplementary experiments, we provide converging supports for our theory. These studies also showcase various implementations of the safety–health intervention, such as table tents, napkins, and to-go boxes. This research reconciles divergent perspectives on the pandemic’s impact on consumer-level food waste, enriches the understanding of pandemics and associated food waste dynamics, and offers actionable strategies for businesses and policymakers to address consumer food waste during pandemics.
Quality-Quantity Tradeoffs in Consumption
Tradeoffs between quality and quantity are widespread in consumer decision-making. While existing research has focused on situational and contextual factors driving choices of higher-quality or higher-quantity purchases, in the current work, we find that consumers possess generalized preferences for quality or quantity across purchase categories. Some consumers systematically prefer quality over quantity, and others systematically prefer quantity over quality. In 32 studies (N = 24,404) that use correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, and proprietary data from the Federal Reserve Bank, the current research introduces quality–quantity preferences as a novel facet of consumer decision-making. Studies 1–3 demonstrate quality–quantity preferences as an individual difference, develop the “quality-quantity tradeoffs” scale to measure it, and demonstrate that it is different from related existing constructs. Studies 4A–5 show that consumers who prefer quantity over quality spend more money, borrow more, and accrue more debt, indicating that quality–quantity preferences are consequential. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of quality–quantity preferences as a driver of consumer behavior and pave the way for future research investigating the causes and consequences of consumers’ dispositions toward quality or quantity.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae059
Authors: Rodrigo S Dias, Eesha Sharma, Gavan J Fitzsimons
ABSTRACT
Tradeoffs between quality and quantity are widespread in consumer decision-making. While existing research has focused on situational and contextual factors driving choices of higher-quality or higher-quantity purchases, in the current work, we find that consumers possess generalized preferences for quality or quantity across purchase categories. Some consumers systematically prefer quality over quantity, and others systematically prefer quantity over quality. In 32 studies (N = 24,404) that use correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, and proprietary data from the Federal Reserve Bank, the current research introduces quality–quantity preferences as a novel facet of consumer decision-making. Studies 1–3 demonstrate quality–quantity preferences as an individual difference, develop the “quality-quantity tradeoffs” scale to measure it, and demonstrate that it is different from related existing constructs. Studies 4A–5 show that consumers who prefer quantity over quality spend more money, borrow more, and accrue more debt, indicating that quality–quantity preferences are consequential. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of quality–quantity preferences as a driver of consumer behavior and pave the way for future research investigating the causes and consequences of consumers’ dispositions toward quality or quantity.
Hitting the Target but Missing the Point: How Donors Use Cost Information
Charities often advertise the cost of a given impact (e.g., $5 provides a meal). Though often intended to demonstrate cost-effectiveness, we find that donors also use the cost as a target. Therefore, the impact cost can be too low, reducing donation amounts, or too high, deterring donors from donating altogether. We propose that, whenever donors have a reference point for a reasonable donation, the revenue-maximizing impact cost is at or just below this reference point, due to loss aversion. We examined these predictions across two online studies (N = 1,711) and one field experiment conducted within a US non-profit’s mailing appeal (N = 141,161). Study 1 demonstrates that donors target impact costs; participants report giving more when the cost of a mosquito net is higher. Study 2, the field experiment, reveals the pernicious effect of setting a target too high. Study 3 tests how the reference donation amount informs the revenue-maximizing impact cost. Supplemental studies robustly support our optimal-target recommendation, while demonstrating that cost information is ubiquitous and theoretically distinct from other types of targets. Together, these results shed light on an often-unintended side effect of providing cost information, with practical insight on how to leverage it for higher donation revenue.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae061
Authors: Joshua Lewis, Deborah A Small
ABSTRACT
Charities often advertise the cost of a given impact (e.g., $5 provides a meal). Though often intended to demonstrate cost-effectiveness, we find that donors also use the cost as a target. Therefore, the impact cost can be too low, reducing donation amounts, or too high, deterring donors from donating altogether. We propose that, whenever donors have a reference point for a reasonable donation, the revenue-maximizing impact cost is at or just below this reference point, due to loss aversion. We examined these predictions across two online studies (N = 1,711) and one field experiment conducted within a US non-profit’s mailing appeal (N = 141,161). Study 1 demonstrates that donors target impact costs; participants report giving more when the cost of a mosquito net is higher. Study 2, the field experiment, reveals the pernicious effect of setting a target too high. Study 3 tests how the reference donation amount informs the revenue-maximizing impact cost. Supplemental studies robustly support our optimal-target recommendation, while demonstrating that cost information is ubiquitous and theoretically distinct from other types of targets. Together, these results shed light on an often-unintended side effect of providing cost information, with practical insight on how to leverage it for higher donation revenue.
How the Materials of Objects Shape Consumption: An Affordance Theory Perspective
Glasses and stones, metals and textiles, leathers and plastics…The materials of objects can shape consumption in a variety of ways. Drawing on affordance theory, the authors conceptualize materials as prominent drivers of object affordances, that is, action (im)possibilities with and around objects. First, the authors explain when, how, and what materials drive object affordances. Second, they explain how consumers actualize (or put to use) materials-driven object affordances. This research makes three contributions. First, we propose post-hylomorphism as a novel principle of understanding materiality that recognizes matter as a prominent driver of object affordances. Second, we explicate how the matter-ness of objects increases object agency and reduces consumer agency. Third, we introduce object affordance management as a novel way to understand how consumers manage object affordances by increasing action possibilities while reducing action impossibilities via a range of processes and micro-practices.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae064
Authors: Roman Pavlyuchenko, Delphine Dion
ABSTRACT
Glasses and stones, metals and textiles, leathers and plastics…The materials of objects can shape consumption in a variety of ways. Drawing on affordance theory, the authors conceptualize materials as prominent drivers of object affordances, that is, action (im)possibilities with and around objects. First, the authors explain when, how, and what materials drive object affordances. Second, they explain how consumers actualize (or put to use) materials-driven object affordances. This research makes three contributions. First, we propose post-hylomorphism as a novel principle of understanding materiality that recognizes matter as a prominent driver of object affordances. Second, we explicate how the matter-ness of objects increases object agency and reduces consumer agency. Third, we introduce object affordance management as a novel way to understand how consumers manage object affordances by increasing action possibilities while reducing action impossibilities via a range of processes and micro-practices.
Consumptive Work in Coworking: Using Consumption Strategically for Work
Consumption has always been part of the workplace, yet it has traditionally been seen as nonwork—an activity that depletes rather than creates value. In the knowledge and digital economy, however, consumption and work are becoming increasingly intertwined, calling for a relational perspective on consumption’s productive role. We develop this perspective through a four-year ethnography of coworking spaces across Paris and London, supplemented by post-pandemic archival data. We introduce consumptive work as the instrumentalization of consumption activities in the workplace to generate productive value. Consumptive work emerges within a postindustrial societal context where workplace culture is shaped by consumer ideology, leading to 1) customer entitlement in the workplace, 2) consumer desire toward the workplace, and 3) consumer lifestyle aspirations toward work. Consumptive work is characterized by inconspicuousness, boundarilessness, and communal and market exchange. While it can be empowering, it also fosters neo-normative alienation, particularly through performative play and leisure, and the pursuit of productive wellness. Ultimately, consumptive work reinforces evolving consumer desires and aspirations about office work and workplaces. This study advances interdisciplinary research on consumption and consumption ideology in the workplace, workplace alienation, new ways of working, and consumer research connecting work, home, and leisure.
Paper Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaf009
Authors: Adèle Gruen, Fleura Bardhi
ABSTRACT
Consumption has always been part of the workplace, yet it has traditionally been seen as nonwork—an activity that depletes rather than creates value. In the knowledge and digital economy, however, consumption and work are becoming increasingly intertwined, calling for a relational perspective on consumption’s productive role. We develop this perspective through a four-year ethnography of coworking spaces across Paris and London, supplemented by post-pandemic archival data. We introduce consumptive work as the instrumentalization of consumption activities in the workplace to generate productive value. Consumptive work emerges within a postindustrial societal context where workplace culture is shaped by consumer ideology, leading to 1) customer entitlement in the workplace, 2) consumer desire toward the workplace, and 3) consumer lifestyle aspirations toward work. Consumptive work is characterized by inconspicuousness, boundarilessness, and communal and market exchange. While it can be empowering, it also fosters neo-normative alienation, particularly through performative play and leisure, and the pursuit of productive wellness. Ultimately, consumptive work reinforces evolving consumer desires and aspirations about office work and workplaces. This study advances interdisciplinary research on consumption and consumption ideology in the workplace, workplace alienation, new ways of working, and consumer research connecting work, home, and leisure.
Quality Certifications Influence User-Generated Ratings
Platforms present various certifications to signal the quality of their offerings to prospective consumers. For example, Airbnb.com designates some hosts as “Superhosts” to distinguish properties that provide superior experiences. Platforms also present user-generated ratings—typically elicited and presented as “star ratings”—from their customers for the same purpose. This research investigates the interaction of these signals of quality and suggests a potential downside to platform-provided certifications: They decrease subsequent ratings. In an analysis of over 1,500,000 ratings from Airbnb.com and three follow-up studies, we find that properties with the superhost designation receive lower ratings. We assess the robustness of this result in several ways, including comparing ratings on Airbnb with those for the same property of Vrbo. In three follow-up experiments, we find that the net effect of certifications can lead to reduced choice share: The positive effect of signaling quality is more than offset by the negative effect of reduced ratings. This suggests that consumers are not sufficiently aware of this effect of quality certifications on ratings when choosing.
Paper Link: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucaf008/8046664?rss=1
Authors: Matt Meister, Nicholas Reinholtz
ABSTRACT
Platforms present various certifications to signal the quality of their offerings to prospective consumers. For example, Airbnb.com designates some hosts as “Superhosts” to distinguish properties that provide superior experiences. Platforms also present user-generated ratings—typically elicited and presented as “star ratings”—from their customers for the same purpose. This research investigates the interaction of these signals of quality and suggests a potential downside to platform-provided certifications: They decrease subsequent ratings. In an analysis of over 1,500,000 ratings from Airbnb.com and three follow-up studies, we find that properties with the superhost designation receive lower ratings. We assess the robustness of this result in several ways, including comparing ratings on Airbnb with those for the same property of Vrbo. In three follow-up experiments, we find that the net effect of certifications can lead to reduced choice share: The positive effect of signaling quality is more than offset by the negative effect of reduced ratings. This suggests that consumers are not sufficiently aware of this effect of quality certifications on ratings when choosing.