No abstract

No abstract

How are financial decisions compromised as scarcity increases? Extant research focuses mostly on the consequences of financial scarcity; moreover, this factor is treated simply as a lack of liquidity. Using a mixed-method approach, the authors investigate the dimensions of perceived scarcity and the ways they work in tandem to negatively influence perceptions and decisions. Internal influences (including perceived consequences) and external influences (including decreased lending options) lead to results described in this article as the "triple scarcity effect." Experimental results show how perceived financial scarcity undermines loan decisions, particularly for consumers at the greatest financial risk. Next, qualitative data collected from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are used for a between-method triangulation of the earlier findings. Understanding the multidimensionality of perceived financial scarcity is important for designing preventive measures that improve decisions (e.g., not reborrowing) and decision making (e.g., accurately calculating cost). Results from two interventions demonstrate how these improvements are made when consumers' perceptions of scarcity are reduced. Finally, the authors discuss the welfare impact for lenders, marketers, and policy makers, and they offer an agenda for future research.

Purpose This paper aims to examine consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions toward foods labeled as containing genetically modified (GM) (transgenic) ingredients across plant and animal-based categories. In light of marketplace changes (i.e. labeling requirements), we explore behavioral measures based on labeling options. Design/methodology/approach Three studies, one online projective survey using a convenience sample of consumers and two experiments conducted with Amazon mTurk adult US participants, are included. Findings Consumers have negative associations with GM products vs non-GM and are more likely to purchase unlabeled GM products. GM products may offer positive economic, societal and environmental benefits. However, the need for labeling overshadows these benefits and presence of GM labeling increased avoidance. Furthermore, changes in product opinion mediate consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay. Research limitations/implications GM labeling negatively influences consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions. This is important for legislators and marketers concerned with counter-labeling effects (e.g. Non-GMO Project Verified). Practical implications Debates on efficacy of labeling, inclusion disclosure of ingredients, short-term risks and long-term implications are ongoing globally. Consumer reception and purchase intention can only be changed through governmental and corporate transparency. Social implications Widespread misinformation about GM foods, presence in our food supply, impact on health, economy, environment and the marketplace still exists. The findings reflect consumers’ responses to changes proposed by the 2016 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard legislation. Originality/value With the paucity of research on consumer response to the release of a GM animal product into the food supply, this work breaks new ground as the first to examine the impact of disclosure of GM animal-based food type.

Purpose This paper aims to examine how product knowledge influences consumers to consider available information before choosing between organic and non-organic options. As “certified organic” is based on a complex standard in the USA, many consumers have only partial understanding of the term. This research shows how that knowledge influences consumer evaluation of the options presented in the market. Design/methodology/approach A two-study experimental survey that offers respondents a choice between two canned soups, one organic and one not, along with front- and back-of-label information which they can decide to use is utilized. The two studies differ in inclusion of national brand. Findings Consumer behavior with respect to information significantly affects rationale for product choice, and higher levels of knowledge are associated with choice rationale. Objective and subjective knowledge influence information processing differently. Inaccurate knowledge displayed by consumers influences their information processing behavior. Research limitations/implications While the survey stimuli are a realistic representation of two products, the online survey abstracts from in-store distractors that might influence behavior. The product chosen, while familiar and commonly consumed, is a low-involvement product which may reduce consumer effort. Practical/implications Marketers of organic foods must understand the level of knowledge held by consumers, as well as the information that most influences their choices if the industry is to grow further. Originality/value This study contrasts subjective and objective knowledge about organic foods and calculates the degree to which consumers under- versus over-estimate “organic” in their ignorance. As such, the research offers insight into a well-established label claim that has yet to achieve significant market share.