Journal of Consumer Psychology

This research presents a new scale, the health regulatory focus scale, which measures an individual's tendency to use promotion or prevention strategies in the pursuit of health goals. We conducted five studies in France to develop the scale which is made up of two subscales for prevention and promotion. We also tested the scale's psychometric properties and demonstrated its two‐factor dimensionality, internal and test–retest reliability, and convergent, nomological, predictive and discriminant validity. The health subscales showed good predictive validity in that they correlated with health behaviors better than the general regulatory focus subscales. For instance, health promotion focus predicted dentist visits while general promotion focus did not, and health prevention focus predicted the use of prescription and over‐the‐counter drugs while general prevention focus did not. Also as expected, general prevention focus predicted avoidance of risky vacation behaviors while health prevention focus did not. The health subscales either did not correlate or correlated weakly with positive and negative affectivity and general risk aversion indicating good discriminant validity. The one‐year test–retest reliabilities were adequate for both subscales.

Baumeister, Sparks, Stillman, and Vohs [Baumeister, R. F., Sparks, E. A., Stillman, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Free will in consumer behavior: Self‐control, ego depletion, and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology] provide new insights on consumer free will by linking it to self‐regulation within the context of culture, the market system, and ego depletion. They imply that free will is strong and widespread, as consumers set their goals and budgets and choose products and brands according to self‐interests. However, the article gives little attention to the forces that substantially constrain consumer free will. These include the structure and power of international corporations, the role of socioeconomic status and biography, and the 24/7, high‐speed, multitasking, hyperchoice lifestyle of millions of people. I identify some consumer behaviors that appear higher in free will than brand choices per se. I then outline additional research on belief in free will, the experience of free will, the association between wisdom and free will, and the roles of nonconscious factors and marketplace metacognition in exercising free will.

Nhiều quyết định quan trọng mà người tiêu dùng phải đối mặt liên quan đến việc chọn giữa những lựa chọn không hấp dẫn hoặc không mong muốn—cái gọi là "cái xấu hơn trong hai cái xấu". Những người tiêu dùng, chẳng hạn, gặp phải những hạn chế về ngân sách hoặc địa lý, cuối cùng chỉ có những bộ lựa chọn phần lớn không mong muốn; tuy nhiên, một sự lựa chọn là cần thiết. Chúng tôi xem xét vai trò của tính hấp dẫn của bộ lựa chọn trong bối cảnh của hiệu ứng thu hút đã được thiết lập. Qua năm nghiên cứu, chúng tôi cho thấy hiệu ứng thu hút xảy ra trong các lĩnh vực hấp dẫn nhưng bị loại bỏ khi tất cả các lựa chọn đều không hấp dẫn (Thí nghiệm 1–4). Chúng tôi cũng tìm thấy rằng hiệu ứng bất đối xứng này nhất quán với sự thay đổi trong phong cách xử lý của người ra quyết định. Những người ra quyết định cho thấy phong cách xử lý cẩn thận hơn khi đưa ra lựa chọn giữa những lĩnh vực không hấp dẫn (so với những lĩnh vực hấp dẫn) (Thí nghiệm 3A và 3B), dẫn đến hiệu ứng thu hút bị suy giảm (Thí nghiệm 4). Kết quả của chúng tôi chỉ ra rằng hiệu ứng thu hút có thể không bền vững như người ta thường nghĩ và thiết lập tính (không) hấp dẫn như một điều kiện biên quan trọng.

Building on the Stereotype Content Model, this paper introduces and tests the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework. A growing body of research suggests that consumers have relationships with brands that resemble relations between people. We propose that consumers perceive brands in the same way they perceive people. This approach allows us to explore how social perception theories and processes can predict brand purchase interest and loyalty. Brands as Intentional Agents Framework is based on a well‐established social perception approach: the Stereotype Content Model. Two studies support the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework prediction that consumers assess a brand's perceived intentions and ability and that these perceptions elicit distinct emotions and drive differential brand behaviors. The research shows that human social interaction relationships translate to consumer–brand interactions in ways that are useful to inform brand positioning and brand communications.

Considerable effort has been devoted towards the understanding of the ways in which people interact with brands. However, little attention has been paid to the personal differences that may impact these interactions. The framework for brands as intentional agents by Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone (this issue) is the groundbreaking application of almost three decades of research on warmth and competence as predictors of interpersonal stereotypes to the realm of brands. Our paper argues that demographic differences impact interactions with brands and offer additional explanatory power to the framework. Findings support conclusions of Kervyn et al., but they also suggest the importance of age, education, and income on warmth and competence evaluations.

Much is understood about loss aversion (the tendency for losses to have greater hedonic impact than comparable gains), but open questions remain. First, there is debate about whether loss aversion is best understood as the byproduct of a single system within the brain that treats losses and gains asymmetrically or the interaction of separate deliberative and emotional systems. Second, some have questioned whether loss aversion alone is the best account for the endowment effect. Alternative accounts, based on the differential focus induced by buying versus selling, the order in which buyers and sellers consider positive and negative aspects of the good, the extent to which ownership induces liking, and the desire to avoid making a bad deal, have been proposed. Third, it is unclear whether losses are actually experienced more intensely than comparable gains, or whether people simply behave as if they were. Some have argued that loss aversion is nothing more than an affective forecasting error, while others have argued that there are many situations in which losses are actually more impactful than comparable gains. This review synthesizes the insights that behavioral researchers and neuroeconomists have contributed to each debate, and highlights potential avenues for future research.