This research shows in a series of studies that exposing consumers to functional products evokes the naive theory of popularity, whereas exposing them to self‐expressive products induces belief in the naive theory of exclusivity. The research further demonstrates that when the naive theory elicited by product type is matched by the appropriate contextual purchasing cues regarding the interest of others, it results in greater purchase intentions than when those cues are mismatched. The research specifies that the matching effect for functional products is mediated by consumers' perceptions of product quality, whereas mediation for self‐expressive products occurs through consumers' self‐perceptions regarding the extent to which the product conveys uniqueness. Finally, the research illustrates that an explicit signal of product quality (e.g., a favorable rating in Consumer Reports) attenuates the effect associated with the contextual cues regarding the interest of others.

No abstract

Consumers often imagine themselves in a scene and engage in such self-imagery while processing information. The goals that they have when they engage in such imagery (e.g., a goal to construct a story of the experience vs. a goal to acquire information) can influence how the mental images they generate affect judgments. When pictures from very different perspectives are provided, those trying to imagine themselves in the scene in order to create a story of the experience have to shift visual perspectives in order to imagine the entire experience. This shift in visual perspective can increase processing difficulty and decrease evaluations of the product or service being described. When individuals are simply imagining themselves acquiring information about the product or service, however, presenting information from different perspectives has a positive impact on evaluations. Four experiments confirmed these effects and the assumptions underlying their conceptualization.

Investment decisions play a crucial role in the way consumers manage their wealth, and therefore, it is important to understand how consumers make these decisions. This research contributes to this attempt by examining consumers’ investment decisions in response to new information about changes in uncertainty in financial markets. The authors identify possible conditions under which consumers, despite having new information about changes in market uncertainty, are less likely to assimilate the new information and consequently do not make investment decisions that are in line with their risk-aversion levels. Specifically, in a series of studies, the authors show that high rather than low need for cognitive closure can lead to a lack of openness to new information and therefore may dilute consumers’ tendency to update their investment portfolios in a way that reflects their risk preferences. In addition, the authors address possible ways to influence consumers’ assimilation of new information, to help even those with high need for cognitive closure make investment decisions that are in line with their levels of risk aversion.

This research examines the impact of irrelevant information and its valence (positive or negative) on consumers' evaluations, choices, and post‐choice satisfaction, within the context of online reviews. We demonstrate that seemingly irrelevant online reviews can enhance positive impressions, but only if they are labeled with a negative valence (e.g., with a one‐star rather than a five‐star rating). A series of studies provides support for this positive effect of negatively valenced irrelevant information; namely, the inclusion of a negatively valenced irrelevant review alongside positive reviews leads to greater product preferences, as consumers feel confident that the information they have about the product is more complete. We also demonstrate the moderating role of review source.