Consumers prefer products that deliver benefits for a longer time. For instance, caffeinated drinks are consumed for energy, but the key characteristic that performs this benefit—caffeine—tends to wear off in its effects. How can marketers communicate the lasting performance of product characteristics? This work proposes that numbers used in conveying product characteristics—round (200 mg) or precise (203 mg)—influence consumers' perception of lasting performance and product attitudes. More specifically, product characteristics described in round (vs. precise) numbers are perceived as performing for a longer time, and this effect is driven by a symbolic association between round numbers and stability. This finding is important because numbers are commonly used in conveying product benefits and past work has mainly documented the advantages of using precise numbers (e.g., higher competence), whereas less is known about when and why using round numbers boosts product attitudes. Three studies, including one with actual consumption, offer triangulating evidence for this prediction and its underlying psychological mechanism. Overall, this work contributes to research on product perception, numerical cognition, and persuasion

This research shows that making a precise (vs. round) offer in a negotiation may lead to diverging outcomes. On the one hand, past literature has demonstrated a precision advantage wherein offer precision reduces the amount by which offer recipients counter. On the other hand, building on the notion that round numbers symbolize completion and previous findings that individuals tend to set goals at round numbers, we hypothesize a roundness advantage wherein offer roundness increases the bargainer's willingness to accept an offer. Five studies provide convergent evidence for our proposition and reconcile the present results with previous findings. We found that participants receiving a round offer are more (less) likely to accept (counter) than those who receive comparable precise offers. However, if they counter, participants in the precise condition counter by a smaller amount than those in the round condition. Furthermore, in agreement with our explanation, we find that the roundness advantage is more likely to manifest when participants subscribe to the association between round numbers and the feeling of completion.

Does fear create a bias in favor of high-priced stocks? An analysis of the S&P 500 stock prices during the COVID-19 market crash showed that high-priced stocks outperformed lowpriced ones (Study 1). Experimental data further confirmed that fear induced by thoughts about the pandemic increased individuals' preference for high-priced stocks when they were forced to choose one stock from a set of alternatives (Study 2). Although fear generally decreased the preference for stocks when the market trended downward, this decrease was less for high-priced stocks than for low-priced ones (Study 3). Reasons for and implications of this bias are discussed.

Estimations that include numerical information are ubiquitous in our daily lives, for example, housing prices, calories, etc. In the present work, we investigate how the type of information used in an estimate, particularly its level of imprecision, influences evaluations of source trustworthiness after the target value of the estimate is revealed. Specifically, building upon prior work suggesting that (a) imprecise estimates are perceived to be less accurate than precise estimates and (b) performing below expectations results in negative source evaluations, we hypothesize that if the estimate is revealed to be incorrect, imprecise estimates (i.e., 400) elicit higher source trustworthiness than precise estimates (i.e., 417), even if the imprecise estimate is objectively more incorrect (i.e., target value: 570). In addition, we find that this effect also influences consumers’ loyalty toward the source of the estimate. Four studies and a single‐paper meta‐analysis offer triangulating evidence for this prediction and its underlying psychological mechanism. Overall, this work contributes to research on estimates, source evaluations, numerical information, and the influence of errors on consumer behavior.

This research examines how the weighting of an attribute is jointly affected by attribute precision and decision stage. Building on prior work suggesting (a) that less (more) precise numerical values are easier to process (more accurate), (b) that decision‐makers' motivation to be efficient (accurate) is greater when creating a consideration set (making a final choice), and (c) that decision‐makers tend to overweight information that is compatible with their goals, we hypothesize that when creating a consideration set (making a choice) participants tend to assign greater weight to less (more) precise attributes. Five studies (two of them reported in the Appendix S1) offer triangulating evidence for these predictions. Overall, this work contributes to research on numerical cognition, efficiency versus accuracy trade‐offs, attribute weighting, and two‐stage decisions.