How does foreign language influence consumer dishonesty? We propose a self-diagnosticity theory arguing that compared to one’s native language, using a foreign language makes lying appear less self-diagnostic, thereby increasing or decreasing lying depending on which aspect of the self is salient. In situations where lying reflects an undesirable, dishonest self, using a foreign language increases lying. In contrast, in situations where lying primarily reflects a desirable (e.g., competent or compassionate) self, using a foreign language decreases lying. Ten studies, spanning various languages, consumer contexts, and experimental paradigms, support the theory. The studies establish that the effect of language on lying jointly depends on the self-diagnosticity of lying and on whether lying is diagnostic of a positive or a negative aspect of the self. The findings highlight self-diagnosticity as a valuable lens to understand the behavior of bilingual consumers, and offer practical guidance for addressing dishonesty in the marketplace.

Companies frequently offer product recommendations to customers, according to various algorithms. This research explores how companies should frame the methods they use to derive their recommendations, in an attempt to maximize click-through rates. Two common framings—user-based and item-based—might describe the same recommendation. User-based framing emphasizes the similarity between customers (e.g., “People who like this also like…”); item-based framing instead emphasizes similarities between products (e.g., “Similar to this item”). Six experiments, including two field experiments within a mobile app, show that framing the same recommendation as user-based (vs. item-based) can increase recommendation click-through rates. The findings suggest that user-based (vs. item-based) framing informs customers that the recommendation is based on not just product matching but also taste matching with other customers. Three theoretically derived and practically relevant boundary conditions related to the recommendation recipient, the products, and other users also offer practical guidance for managers regarding how to leverage recommendation framings to increase recommendation click-throughs.

Self-control refers to the ability to choose options with greater long-term benefits over more immediately tempting options. For personal choices that do not affect others, self-control is often conceptualized as morally irrelevant. However, four focal experiments and five supplemental experiments demonstrate that self-control success in apparently nonmoral domains enhances evaluations of moral character, but self-control failure is not regarded as evidence of moral corruption. This asymmetry supports our moral-ability hypothesis: self-control is regarded as the ability to bring about intended outcomes, which is believed necessary for moral goodness but not moral badness.

Research has shown that an effective way of stimulating consumers to make healthier food choices is to have them choose early (i.e., advance ordering). However, the effectiveness of advance ordering remains unknown when consumers choose between regular and light versions of unhealthy food (e.g., regular and low-fat chips), a common situation in daily consumption. We thus investigated the effect of advance ordering on both food choices and consumption of light and regular vices and compared its impact with that of chronic restrained eating. Two experiments demonstrated that advance ordering did not influence calorie intake or encourage consumers to substitute a regular vice with a light vice. Rather, individual differences in restrained eating consistently predicted both choices and consumed calories. We also discuss the implications of our findings for consumer well-being and advance ordering in the context of lighter-vice options.

No abstract