Evaluating Ambiguous Offerings

Abstract

This paper studies how audience members categorize and evaluate ambiguous offerings. Depending on whether audience members categorize ambiguous offerings based on prototypes or goals, they activate two distinct cognitive mechanisms and evaluate differently ambiguous offerings. We expect that when audiences engage in goal- versus prototype-based categorization, their evaluation of ambiguous products increases. We theorize that, under goal-based categorization, the perceived utility of unclear attributes increases for audiences, which leads them to evaluate more positively ambiguous product offerings. We test and find support for these direct and mediated relationships through a series of laboratory, online, and field experiments. Overall, this study offers important implications for research on product and market categories, optimal distinctiveness, and market agents’ cognitive ascription of value.

Communication frames and beneficiary engagement in corporate social initiatives: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in France

“…Third, the Empathy and Simplicity frames proved superior to Goal framing, itself commanding a weakly greater, but insignificant impact on take‐up than the base treatment condition ( Charity treatment—see Table 3). That Goal frame triggered a slightly more positive reaction than the prototypical Charity frame is congruent with recent research that found that goal‐based categorization provides more positive evaluations in ambiguous contexts (e.g., Barsalou, 1991; Boulongne & Durand, 2021). Still, the Goal frame alone failed to drastically raise take‐up (relative to Charity frame)—its effectiveness was surpassed by the Simplicity and Empathy frames.…”

“…The frame emphasizes goal congruence, that is, the fit between the goals of the target beneficiaries and those of Program P. When a beneficiary perceives goal congruence, she is more motivated to engage with Program P (Barsalou, 1991; Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991), leading to higher take‐up rates. Relatedly, goal‐based categorization has been shown to generate positive behavioral attitudes toward products when communication includes information about unusual cues (Barlow, Verhaal, & Angus, 2019; Boulongne & Durand, 2021). As such, the Goal frame is a natural candidate to contrast with the typical Charity communication frame used as our base treatment group and traditionally employed in CSI communication.…”

“…Then, drawing on research in categorization, psychology, and behavioral economics (Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002; Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, 1981; Cialdini, 2006; Durand & Paolella, 2013), the second paragraph for the other treatments emphasized that Program P helps its beneficiaries meet their goals ( Goal treatment group) or that Program P understands and cares about its beneficiaries ( Empathy treatment group), or that Program P provides answers to simple practical questions that beneficiaries may have ( Simplicity treatment group). Each of these factors, namely goal alignment, empathy, and simplicity, have been found to facilitate evaluation and choice of products and social goods (Allcott & Sunstein, 2015; Batson, 2011; Boulongne & Durand, 2021; Chetty, 2015). Finally, we estimated that the target population counted enough members to add two additional treatments.…”

Multilevel optimal distinctiveness: Examining the impact of within‐ and between‐organization distinctiveness of product design on market performance

“…Research suggests that audiences can categorize a product according to their needs and goals (Barsalou, 1983; Durand & Paolella, 2013). Therefore, even an ambiguous product can receive a relatively positive evaluation if it serves certain functions and fulfills the goals of consumers (Boulongne & Durand, 2021). Taking the furniture industry as an example, although furniture produced by different manufacturers has distinct design styles (e.g., modern, country, traditional, etc.…”

“…Strategy scholars have emphasized how differentiation helps organizations establish competitive advantages and reduce competition (Barney, 1991; Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003; Porter, 1987), while institutional theorists have stressed how conformity enables organizations to achieve legitimacy and avoid penalties caused by deviance in behavior (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Durand & Kremp, 2016; Zucker, 1977). In response, a robust body of work has emerged in strategy and organization research around the notion of “optimal distinctiveness” (OD), which focuses on identifying the optimal level of distinctiveness that positively shapes stakeholder perceptions and enhances performance (Boulongne & Durand, 2021; Haans, 2019; Navis & Glynn, 2011; Semadeni, 2006; Zhao, Fisher, Lounsbury, & Miller, 2017; Zuckerman, 2016). To date, most OD research has focused on the organizational level by examining what constitutes an optimal level of distinctiveness of an organization as compared to its peers in terms of organizational level attributes such as strategies (Deephouse, 1999; McNamara, Deephouse, & Luce, 2003), innovation activities (Jennings, Jennings, & Greenwood, 2009; Roberts & Amit, 2003), business models (Zott & Amit, 2007), and organizational narratives (Haans, 2019; Taeuscher, Bouncken, & Pesch, 2021).…”