A marked individual difference is the morningness-eveningness preference or chronotype. Presenting its high relevance in predicting human behavior, we stress the need to control for this dimension in different studies, suggesting that this can be easily and succinctly done since individuals are aware of their chronotypes. We tested this hypothesis selecting the self-assessment item from the rMEQ scale, demonstrating that the item by itself is capable of classifying individuals in the same category as the score obtained through the original scale.

No abstract

Consumer products are widely used as stimuli across several research fields. The use of consumer products as experimental stimuli lacks, however, the support of normative data regarding product features variability. In this work, we provide a first set of norms for people's perceptions of 150 consumer products regarding six relevant dimensions: product perceived complexity, quality objectivity, material/experiential nature, perceived price, familiarity and attitude. Products available in this normative database showed good overall distribution across the range of the dimensions evaluated. Obtained correlations between some of these dimensions provided evidence of how they can be confounded across products, further justifying the need to control for these dimensions. These norms should aid future research by allowing researchers to select products according to specific attributes and achieve appropriate experimental control. The norms here provided should also aid consumer behavior practitioners (such as marketers and advertisers) by providing insights as to how consumers perceive products along relevant dimensions.

In this paper, we approach the relationship between believing that affect informs about the validity of a claim and believing that one persuasive strategy will be more or less efficient in changing one's own attitude. In one study, participants were asked to select from a set of features of a persuasive context those they perceived to have more persuasive power. Results showed that these selections were clearly clustered in two groups, suggesting that individuals tend to select either more cognitive features or more experiential affective features. Individual measures regarding participants' need for cognition and faith in intuition did not explain the tendency to select more one type of cluster or another, but this selection was determined by how much people generally believe that affect informs about the validity or goodness of a claim.Key words: Affect as information, Persuasion, Rational-experiential personalities.Everywhere we look, we are constantly submitted to different types of advertisements. This makes us all feel like experts regarding what may influence our own and others' attitudes and what is less likely to be relevant in promoting such influences. Those introspections may not allow us to access what, in fact, impacts our behaviors and what doesn't, but they seem to be relevant in our social interactions. In fact, there are several contexts in which we act as naïve marketers and advertisers, given our opinions regarding what may be, or not, convincing in an ad. This paper approaches how the individual differences in perceived affect as information relates with how people believe to be influenced by different ad features. More specifically, we test if individuals' beliefs regarding affect as informing about the validity of a claim is related with their beliefs that one affective persuasive strategy will be more efficient in changing one's own attitude. Additionally, we test how these differences relate with how participants process information, either more rationally or intuitively. Feelings as informationThe approach to feelings as information has been developed to explain why and how our feelings impact our judgments (see Schwarz & Clore, 1996, for a review). It states that individuals "attempt to determine the informational value of their affective reactions to the judgment at hand" and that "if they believe that their feelings are a sound basis for judgment, they use them in forming 73This article was supported by FCT -Fundação Portuguesa de Ciência e Tecnologia (project PTDC/PSI-PCO/121925/2010) A correspondência relativa a este artigo deverá ser enviada para: Teresa Garcia-Marques, ISPA -Instituto Universitário, Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34, 1149-041, Lisboa,

No abstract