Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Luxury Pre-Commitment

Prior research has examined consumers' use of self-control to avoid hedonic (myopic) temptations, such as overbuying and smoking. This paper proposes that consumers often exercise the opposite form of self-control, whereby they attempt to avoid default forms of spending on necessities and savings in favor of luxury, hedonic purchases. In particular, given the difficulty of choosing hedonic luxury items over necessities and cash in everyday (local) decisions, under certain conditions, consumers pre-commit to hedonic luxury consumption. Such precommitments to hedonic luxuries are more likely to occur when their psychological cost is less concrete. These propositions were tested in a series of studies involving real and hypothetical choices as well as process measures. The results indicate that a substantial segment of consumers choose hedonic luxury prizes over cash of equal or greater value; most of these consumers explain such choices as motivated by the need to pre-commit in order to guarantee a hedonic luxury experience and that the award does not end up in the pool of money used for necessities. In addition, consistent with our analysis, the likelihood of pre-committing to hedonic luxuries is enhanced when (a) the consequences of the decision will be realized farther in the future, (b) the odds of winning the reward are lower, and (c) consumers anticipate how they will use each possible award. We also show that hedonic luxury awards are more effective than cash as incentives for participation in a (real) lottery. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed

The Role of Effort Advantage in Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs: The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic

Over the past few years, customer relationship management and loyalty programs (LPs) have been widely adopted by companies and have received a great deal of attention from marketers, consultants, and, to a lesser degree, academics. In this research, we examine the effect of the level of effort required to obtain a LP's reward on consumers' perception of the LP's attractiveness. We propose that, under certain conditions, increasing the program requirements can enhance consumers' likelihood of joining the program, thus leading consumers to prefer a dominated option. Specifically, we hypothesize that consumers often evaluate LPs based on their individual effort to obtain the reward relative to the relevant reference effort (e.g., the effort of typical other consumers). When consumers believe they have an effort advantage relative to typical others (i.e., an idiosyncratic fit with the LP), higher program requirements magnify this perception of advantage and can therefore increase the overall perceived value of the program. This proposition was supported in a series of studies in which the perceived idiosyncratic fit was manipulated either by reducing the individual effort or by raising the reference effort. The findings also indicate that (a) idiosyncratic fit considerations are elicited spontaneously, (b) idiosyncratic fit mediates the effect of effort on consumer response to LPs, and (c) an alternative account for the results based on signaling is not supported. We conclude that these findings are part of a broader phenomenon, which we term the idiosyncratic fit heuristic, whereby a key factor that affects consumers' response to marketing programs and promotional offers is the perceived relative advantage or fit with the individual's idiosyncratic conditions and preferences

Justification and Indulgence: Determinants of Justification and Indulgence

The decision to indulge is often painful because it evokes guilt and requires sacrificing prudence and necessities. While prior research and common sense suggest that people will allow themselves to indulge when they have a compelling justification, we still know very little about the determinants of such justification and consequent indulgence. Building on prior analyses in the social sciences, the authors propose two complementary routes to justifying indulgence: one through hard work or excellent performance (an entitlement justification) and the second through the attainment of indulgence without depleting income or monetary resources. A synthesis of these two routes leads to several hypotheses, which are tested using actual effort tasks and real choices. Consistent with the two routes to justification, we demonstrate that (a) higher required effort enhances preference for indulgence rewards, but a reverse effect is observed when the interchangeability of effort and income is implied; (b) providing (bogus) excellence feedback on an effort task enhances choices of indulgence over a more prudent necessity, unless the interchangeability of effort and income is suggested; (c) willingness-to-pay in effort is greater for indulgences than necessities, but willingness-to-pay in money or in effort framed as income is higher for necessities than indulgences; and (d) sensitivity to the type and magnitude of the perceived resource is greater for individuals with stronger indulgence guilt. We conclude by discussing the automaticity of justification and indulgence and the ability of the discovered justification routes to explain the findings of prior research

Complicating Decisions: The Work Ethic Heuristic and the Construction of Effortful Decisions

The notion that effort and hard work yield desired outcomes is ingrained in many cultures and affects our thinking and behavior. However, could valuing effort complicate our lives? In the present article, the authors demonstrate that individuals with a stronger tendency to link effort with positive outcomes end up complicating what should be easy decisions. People distort their preferences and the information they search and recall in a manner that intensifies the choice conflict and decisional effort they experience before finalizing their choice. Six experiments identify the effort-outcome link as the underlying mechanism for such conflict-increasing behavior. Individuals with a stronger tendency to link effort with positive outcomes (e.g., individuals who subscribe to a Protestant Work Ethic) are shown to complicate decisions by: (a) distorting evaluations of alternatives (Study 1); (b) distorting information recalled about the alternatives (Studies 2a and 2b); and (3) distorting interpretations of information about the alternatives (Study 3). Further, individuals conduct a superfluous search for information and spend more time than needed on what should have been an easy decision (Studies 4a and 4b)

Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products

Although consumers report positive attitudes toward ethical goods, their intentions and behaviors often do not follow suit. Just-world theory highlights the conditions under which consumers are most likely to prefer fair-trade products. This theory proposes that people are motivated to construe the world as a just place where people get what they deserve. In the current research, when people are confronted with high levels of injustice (communicated need is high) and avenues for justice restoration seem uncertain or unavailable, assisting others by supporting fair trade decreases. However, highlighting how injustice can be redressed through purchases enhances fair-trade support under conditions of high need. The effects are moderated by justice sensitivity factors, such as just-world beliefs and whether the product type (indulgence vs. necessity) makes the injustice of consumer privilege salient. The results suggest that communicating high need when requesting consumer prosocial actions can sometimes backfire. Marketers employing high need appeals should heighten perceptions of justice restoration potential and activate fairness-related thoughts through product positioning to encourage fair-trade purchases

The effects of loyalty programs on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty toward high- and low-end fashion retailers

This study examines the differential effects of the benefits customers receive from a loyalty program (LP) on satisfaction with the LP, trust in the LP, and store loyalty for high- and low-end fashion retailers. With survey data from U.S. LP subscribers, the study tests the relationships using multiple regressions and analysis of covariance. The results show that symbolic benefits are more important for high-end fashion store consumers' satisfaction with the LP; conversely, utilitarian benefits increase consumers' satisfaction with the LP more in low-end fashion retailing, whereas hedonic benefits increase consumers' satisfaction with the LP in both types of retailers. All benefits in both types of retailers affect trust in the LP. Finally, satisfaction with and trust in the LP are important drivers of loyalty to the retailer. The findings have important implications on how managers of high- and low-end fashion retailing can effectively design their LP rewards to maximize loyalty

Tightwads and spendthrifts: An interdisciplinary review

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146280/1/cfp21010_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146280/2/cfp21010.pd