Can people feel worse off as the options they face increase? The present studies suggest that some people-maximizers-can. Study 1 reported a Maximization Scale, which measures individual differences in desire to maximize. Seven samples revealed negative correlations between maximization and happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, and positive correlations between maximization and depression, perfectionism, and regret. Study 2 found maximizers less satisfied than nonmaximizers (satisficers) with consumer decisions, and more likely to engage in social comparison. Study 3 found maximizers more adversely affected by upward social comparison. Study 4 found maximizers more sensitive to regret and less satisfied in an ultimatum bargaining game. The interaction between maximizing and choice is discussed in terms of regret, adaptation, and self-blame.

The current research explores the effects of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Males had more negative evaluations of, and were less inclined to choose, a product associated with a dissociative (i.e., female) reference group than a neutral product (Study 1). This finding was moderated by whether the product was consumed in public or private (Study 2) and public self-consciousness (Study 3). We suggest the mechanism underlying our effects is a desire to present a positive self-image to others. The role of dissociative reference groups in marketing communications is discussed.Consider the following experience of the first author: One evening, my husband and I went to a high-end restaurant for dinner. As we sat deliberating over the menu, the server asked if we had made any selections. My husband looked up at the server in anguish and said that he felt like steak, but that he wasn't all that hungry. The server suggested that my husband select the smaller of the two steaks offered on the menu. My husband admitted that he had considered that option, but did not want to be perceived to "be a lady." Sure enough, I looked at the menu and saw that the smaller steak had been given the name "ladies' cut." Although my husband managed to overcome the negative associations of the ladies' cut and ended up choosing the smaller steak (only after ensuring that the server understood he was not a lady), the server told us that his intuition was that sales of the larger steak had increased since the renaming of the smaller steak.Anecdotally, there are many examples of consumers avoiding products associated with particular groups: the teenager who doesn't want to wear his dad's aftershave, the baby boomer who won't use products that are associated with being "elderly," the college student who avoids dressing "geeky," and so forth. These examples demonstrate that groups can serve as points of reference for how consumers think and behave.

The market share of brands positioned using ethical attributes typically lags behind brands that promote attributes related to product performance. Across four studies, the authors show that situational factors that heighten consumers' self-accountability (i.e., activation of their desire to live up to their self-standards) lead to increased preferences for products promoted through their ethical attributes. They investigate their predictions regarding self-accountability in multiple ways, including examining the moderating roles of awareness of the discrepancy between a person's internal standards and actual behavior, self-accountability priming, and the presence of others in the decision context. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the subtle activation of self-accountability leads to more positive reactions to ethical appeals than explicit guilt appeals. Finally, they show that preference for a product promoted through ethical appeals is driven by the desire to avoid anticipated guilt, beyond the effects of impression management. Taken together, the results suggest that marketers positioning products through ethical attributes should subtly activate consumer self-accountability rather than using more explicit guilt appeals.

This is the published version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. 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. Permanent repository link

Three studies examined the relation between cultural background and social comparison seeking. Compared to European Canadians, Asian Canadians sought more social comparisons, particularly those that were upward (Study 1), more social comparisons after failure (Study 2), and more social comparisons after failure when the opportunity for self-improvement was made salient (Study 3). Taken together, these data spotlight Asian Canadians' interest in social comparisons that allow for self-improvement.