Less Is More (Natural): The Effect of Ingredient Quantity on Preferences and Naturalness Perceptions
Kim, Michelle Y., Tianqi Chen, Rachel Gershon, Sydney Scott, Daniella Kupor, and Remi Trudel
Under Review at JMR, SSRN Research Box
Less Is More (Natural): The Effect of Ingredient Quantity on Preferences and Naturalness Perceptions
Kim, Michelle Y., Tianqi Chen, Rachel Gershon, Sydney Scott, Daniella Kupor, and Remi Trudel
Under Review at JMR, SSRN Research Box
Despite the ubiquity of ingredient quantity information in the marketplace, prior literature has yet to examine whether ingredient quantity shapes consumer choice. We present and test a novel framework that charts when, how, and why this pervasive ingredient quantity information distorts consumers’ food decisions. Across eight experiments, including field studies, consumers are more interested in food products framed as containing few (vs. many) ingredients, even when the same ingredient list is displayed across products. We find that consumers believe that products with few ingredients have undergone less processing and are therefore more natural, which leads consumers to prefer food products containing few ingredients. We also build an overarching theoretical framework that illuminates when ingredient quantity information can have opposing effects on consumer behavior: When consumers’ common goal to consume natural products is overshadowed by other consumption goals (e.g., the goal to seek indulgent or unique products), the effect of ingredient quantity information on preferences reverses. This research sheds light on consumers’ lay beliefs about naturalness, uncovers how the ingredient quantity information that pervades the marketplace biases consumers’ daily food product decisions, and provides easily implementable guidance for marketers seeking to increase consumers’ likelihood of purchasing their products.
Pulling Up the Ladder: Prior Adversity Reduces Support For Others
Kim, Michelle Y., Ayelet Gneezy and Alex Imas
In preparation for submission ResearchBox
It is commonly assumed that those who have previously overcome adversity are more likely to empathize and assist others facing similar challenges. This intuition is contradicted by phenomena like recent immigrants' support for anti-immigration policies or the strongest opposition to minimum wage increases amongst near-minimal wage earners. This research suggests that having experienced adversity can reduce support for removing similar obstacles for others due to the social construction of value: enduring hardships is intimately linked to the perceived value of achievement, and easing similar hardships for others can threaten this value. We provide evidence for this "pulling up the ladder" effect, the phenomenon of strong support for exclusionary policies from those who have overcome adversity, through a series of studies. First, we show that recent immigrants are less likely to advocate for easing immigration restrictions compared to a matched group of US-born citizens from the same ethnic background, despite the former showing greater compassion toward potential immigrants. In controlled laboratory experiments, individuals who attained a reward through hardship were less inclined to ease the path for others, compared to those who were endowed with the same outcome before experiencing the same hardship. We show that this opposition stems from the view that alleviating the hardships for others will lessen the value of one’s own outcomes and achievements. Our results have implications for understanding the social factors influencing the construction of value and optimizing humanitarian appeals.
How Calls To Action Lead To Asymmetric Consideration Of Action Versus Non-Action Alternatives
Kim, Michelle Y., and On Amir
Under Review at JCR ResearchBox SSRN
This research proposes that framing alternatives in terms of action versus non-action (e.g., buy, cancel) leads to an asymmetric consideration of alternatives, thus biasing choices. Six experiments, across different marketing contexts, demonstrate that consumer choices are altered when consideration of a non-action alternative is subtly cued, or when the same non-action alternative is framed as an action in both incentive-compatible and hypothetical settings. In contrast, when the consideration of an action (vs. non-action) alternative is similarly cued, the choice remains unaltered. Consistent with the positive-testing mechanism, we further show that framing alters the relative accessibility of information for each alternative based on the response time measurement. We demonstrate this effect occurs above and beyond the status quo or inaction-related effects. This research contributes to the understanding of how and why calls to action affect decisions and offers insights for researchers, marketers, and policymakers.
AI Increases Unethical Consumer Behavior Due to Reduced Anticipatory Guilt
Kim, Taewoo, Hyejin Lee, Michelle Y. Kim, Sunah Lee, and Adam Duhachek
Published at JAMS (2022) Link
This research proposes that framing alternatives in terms of action versus non-action (e.g., buy, cancel) leads to an asymmetric consideration of alternatives, thus biasing choices. Six experiments, across different marketing contexts, demonstrate that consumer choices are altered when consideration of a non-action alternative is subtly cued, or when the same non-action alternative is framed as an action in both incentive-compatible and hypothetical settings. In contrast, when the consideration of an action (vs. non-action) alternative is similarly cued, the choice remains unaltered. Consistent with the positive-testing mechanism, we further show that framing alters the relative accessibility of information for each alternative based on the response time measurement. We demonstrate this effect occurs above and beyond the status quo or inaction-related effects. This research contributes to the understanding of how and why calls to action affect decisions and offers insights for researchers, marketers, and policymakers.