34.3 Interpersonal perception and consumer lay beliefs

(Folkes and Patrick 2003)

  • Info valence: Negativity bias for products (negative info about a product has greater influence on brand perceptions than positive info). (Herr, Kardes, and Kim 1991)

  • Positivity bias for services (positive experience from a service provider can lead customers to infer positivity about the brand as a whole than negative experience).

    • Could be because service is more heterogeneous.

    • this effect is greater for novice consumer.

  • Study 1: First time car insurance buyers

    • Alternative explanation: Subtyping (R. Weber and Crocker 1983), or occupational stereotype consistency, question order are all ruled out.
  • Study 2: replicate study 1: compare the effect of info about individual service provider to that of others who is not from the firm.

    • Subjects perceive focal firm employee more positively and consider negative experience from the other firms’ agents as outliers.
  • Because consumers are predisposed to think that a service encounter in general should be more positive than negative (Fornell 2005), this assumption could explain why consumers consider positive experience as typical and generalize it to the brand, and negative experience as outliers.

  • 3 sources that affect consumers’ beliefs:

    • general perceptions of services

    • beliefs specific to a firm

    • beliefs specific to an occupation

  • Study 3 used a critical incident method to examine the following hypothesis: the positive effect is moderated by consumer experience (e.g., stronger for less experience consumers).

    • Valence affects perceived typicality , but experience with a firm did not influence typicality (cant find support for H3)
  • Study 4: Replicate study 1 and 2 in a natural setting

(Brough et al. 2016)

  • Men are less likely to buy environmentally friendly products than women because the close association between green behavior and femininity (perceived by both men and women, and both users and observers).

    • Prior research attribute this gap to personality traits (women are more prosocial altruistic (J. A. Lee and Holden 1999), and stronger ethic of care (Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000))

    • The link between greenness and femininity could be explained by

      • target of green marketing usually involved women (e.g., cleaning, laundry).

      • caring and nurturing from greenness are feminine traits

  • Since men are more concerned with gender -identity maintenance (which is kinda surprising from my view), they avoid purchasing green products which might jeopardize their macho image.

    • From social-identity theory: self-concept is also derived from perceived group membership (Turner and Oakes 1986)

(Ze Wang et al. 2016)

  • Smile affects 2 social judgments: warmth and competence

    • Broader smile leads to more warmth, but less competent

      • Consumers focus moderates this effect

        • Promotion-focused consumers (and low-risk consumption) like bigger smile on warmth

        • Prevention-focused consumers (and high-risk consumption) like slight smile (signal competent)

  • Based on stereotype content model (SCM) of social judgments (Fiske et al. 2002)

  • Facial configuration has evolutionary proposes.

(Haws, Reczek, and Sample 2017)

  • Consumers believe healthier foods are more expensive than less healthy foods.

  • Due to the dual process model, intuitions based on biased information (processed heuristically) will lead consumers evaluating healthy claims with higher standard (e.g., higher standard for intuition-inconsistent than consistent claim).

  • Lay theories or lay beliefs about food = expensive intuition affects consumer decision making process, because this process is low involvement one.

References

Brough, Aaron R., James E. B. Wilkie, Jingjing Ma, Mathew S. Isaac, and David Gal. 2016. “Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Research 43 (4): 567–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.
Folkes, Valerie S., and Vanessa M. Patrick. 2003. “The Positivity Effect in Perceptions of Services: Seen One, Seen Them All?: Table 1.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (1): 125–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/374693.
Fornell, Claes. 2005. “American Customer Satisfaction Index, 1996.” ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political; Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04208.
Haws, Kelly L., Rebecca Walker Reczek, and Kevin L. Sample. 2017. “Healthy Diets Make Empty Wallets: The Healthy = Expensive Intuition.” Journal of Consumer Research, January, ucw078. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw078.
Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes, and John Kim. 1991. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4): 454. https://doi.org/10.1086/208570.
Lee, Julie Anne, and Stephen J. S. Holden. 1999. “Understanding the Determinants of Environmentally Conscious Behavior.” Psychology and Marketing 16 (5): 373–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199908)16:5<373::aid-mar1>3.0.co;2-s.
Turner, John C., and Penelope J. Oakes. 1986. “The Significance of the Social Identity Concept for Social Psychology with Reference to Individualism, Interactionism and Social Influence.” British Journal of Social Psychology 25 (3): 237–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x.
Wang, Ze, Huifang Mao, Yexin Jessica Li, and Fan Liu. 2016. “Smile Big or Not? Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions of Warmth and Competence.” Journal of Consumer Research, October, ucw062. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw062.
Weber, Rene?, and Jennifer Crocker. 1983. “Cognitive Processes in the Revision of Stereotypic Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (5): 961–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961.
Zelezny, Lynnette C., Poh-Pheng Chua, and Christina Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177.