Seven studies covering diverse contexts show an underappreciated benefit of teasing in information acquisition: first creating and then resolving an uncertainty can generate a net positive experience, yet laypeople do not seek out this process. For example, trivia readers report better hedonic experiences if they are first teased with some missing information and then given that information than if they receive all the information at the same time; however, when given a choice, readers prefer to receive all information at the same time. The authors further show that teasing is hedonically beneficial because uncertainty engenders curiosity and thereby builds a potential for a positive experience, whereas uncertainty resolution satisfies the curiosity and thereby realizes that potential. This research yields practical implications by demonstrating that imbuing an ad with an uncertainty creation–resolution process improves the viewer's attitude toward and increases the viewer's willingness to try the advertised product.

The solicitation of charitable donations costs billions of dollars annually. Here, we introduce a virtually costless method for boosting charitable donations to a group of needy persons: merely asking donors to indicate a hypothetical amount for helping one of the needy persons before asking donors to decide how much to donate for all of the needy persons. We demonstrated, in both real fund-raisers and scenario-based research, that this simple unit-asking method greatly increases donations for the group of needy persons. Different from phenomena such as the foot-in-the-door and identifiable-victim effects, the unit-asking effect arises because donors are initially scope insensitive and subsequently scope consistent. The method applies to both traditional paper-based fund-raisers and increasingly popular Web-based fund-raisers and has implications for domains other than fund-raisers, such as auctions and budget proposals. Our research suggests that a subtle manipulation based on psychological science can generate a substantial effect in real life.

We live in a dynamic world, surrounded by moving stimuli-moving people, moving objects, and moving events. The current research proposes and finds an approach aversion effect-individuals feel less positively (or more negatively) about a stimulus if they perceive it to be approaching rather than receding or static. The effect appears general, occurring whether the stimulus is initially negative or nonnegative and whether it moves in space (toward or away from "here"), in time (toward or away from "now"), or in probability (toward or away from "sure"). This research complements extensive existing research on perceived static distance of stimuli (near vs. far) by exploring perceived dynamic movement of stimuli (approaching vs. receding), showing that the effect of movement is distinct from the effect of distance.

How people choose gifts is a widely studied topic, but what happens next is largely understudied. In two preregistered studies, one field experiment, and an analysis of secondary data, we show that giving gifts has a dark side, as it can negatively affect subsequent interpersonal behavior between givers and receivers. In Study 1, we found that giving a gift to one's romantic partner changes givers' interpretation of which behaviors constitute infidelity. Specifically, we found that givers (vs. nongivers) classified their questionable behaviors (e.g., sending a flirtatious text to someone other than their partner) less as a form of cheating on their partner. In Study 2, we examined how politely participants behave when delivering bad news to a friend. We found that givers (vs. nongivers) wrote significantly less polite messages to their friend. In Study 3, we tested real gifts that people give to friends and found givers (vs. nongivers) subsequently made more selfish decisions at their friends' expense. In all, our research refines the oft-cited axiomatic assumption that gift giving strengthens relationships and illuminates the potential for future research to examine how decision making can alter interpersonal, romantic relationships.

Willingness to pay (WTP—how much one is willing to pay for something) and willingness to buy (WTB—whether one is willing to buy something at a given price) are two common methods to elicit valuations and normatively should yield the same valuation order between two options. However, this research finds that WTP and WTB can yield opposite valuation orders between the regular offer and the promotional offer of a product. Specifically, it demonstrate that, (a) if the valuation of a product is only elicited with WTP, consumers value the product less when it is offered with a price promotion than when it is not; (b) if the valuation of a product is only elicited with WTB, consumers value the product more when it is offered with a price promotion than when it is not; and (c) if the valuation of a product is first elicited with WTP and then elicited with WTB, consumers always value the product less when it is offered with a price promotion than when it is not. A value‐inference account is proposed for the above findings, according to which, consumers infer the value of a promoted product differently when the valuation is elicited only with WTP or only with WTB. Theoretically, this research extends prior literature on sales promotion, showing that the valuation of a promotion is subject to the elicitation method. Practically, this research suggests how to help consumers manage their purchase intentions for promoted products.