Marketers know that persuasion is very hard. So, why are consumers determined that marketers can manipulate them? Across five studies, we show that the beliefs about marketing manipulation have deep psychological roots: Consumers higher in motivations to make sense of their environments tend to not only detect persuasion where it exists, but also where there is none. Such beliefs can be weakened when consumers think of themselves (vs. other consumers) in persuasion situations (study 3) and read concrete (vs. abstract) descriptions of these situations (study 4), but only in consumers with low sense-making drives. Whereas higher sense-making motives manifest in greater false-positive manipulation detection, corresponding abilities negatively affect false-positives and result in more accurate persuasion detection (study 5). The studies also revealed how manipulation beliefs are related to conspiracy ideation, personality traits, beliefs about free will, gender, and age. Implications for marketing segmentation and strategies for attenuating false-positive manipulation detection are discussed.
Consumers are often shown investment returns with high levels of precision, which could lead them to misunderstand the inherent uncertainty. We test whether consumers are drawn to precision—that is offset the uncertainty in investment decisions by over-relying on precise numerical information. Five incentivized experiments compared decisions when expected growth is presented in precise forecasts as opposed to ranges. Consumers are more likely to prefer and invest more in precise forecasts when they are evaluated jointly with ranges and when the range features a potential loss. Under these circumstances, precise forecasts give consumers more confidence to invest. This effect holds when consumers are told investment returns are uncertain. On the other hand, experiencing discrepancies between expected and actual growth dissipates the preference for precise forecasts. We identify conditions under which consumers are more likely to favor precise forecasts and how this could be avoided if necessary.
Consumers tend to dislike companies that use immoral marketing persuasion tactics. How do consumers decide what persuasion is morally acceptable and what persuasion is not? Three studies show that morality of marketing persuasion depends on consumers’ beliefs about information processing—Dual Process Intuitions. If consumers think persuasion aims at emotions and intuition—bypassing deliberative reasoning—they will evaluate it as more immoral and manipulative than persuasion believed to be processed deliberately. This is because consumers find system 1 processing (fast and effortless; e.g., encountering fear appeal ad) more automatic than system 2 processing (slow and effortful; e.g., reading about a product). Since system 2 (rather than system 1) persuasion is considered less immoral, it yields greater positive attitude change than that of system 1. These findings contribute to the literature on lay theories about persuasion, beliefs about information processing, and morality in marketing. Practitioners may use these results to better tailor their persuasion messages, especially if their customers are usually sensitive to persuasion—by creating the perception of autonomous choice using system 2 persuasion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.