Articles:
Week 1 The Physological Core
1. Introduction Video Physological Core
Perception
2. Bornstein, Robert F., and Paul R. D'agostino. (1992) "Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545..
Attention
3. Atalay, A. Selin, H. Onur Bodur, and Dina Rasolofoarison (2012), "Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice." Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (4), 848-866.
Memory
4. Dimofte, Claudiu V., and Richard F. Yalch. (2011), "The mere association effect and brand evaluations." Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (1), 24-37.
Seminar | Sensory Marketing
5. Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
22(3), 332-351.
Week 2 Consumer Rationality
6. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(3), 374-378
7. Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical
analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125(5), 576
8. Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing science, 26(6), 742-757
Additional paper: Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-
1099
VIDEOS
9. System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking
10. Decision-making Heuristics
11. Biases
12. Framing
13. Anchoring Bias and the Zero Price Effect
14. Absence vs. Presence
Week 3 Affective and Emotional Consumer Reactions
15. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205
16. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer research, 15(3), 379-
385
, 17. Pham, M. T., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). The influence of ad-evoked feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses
to more than 1000 TV commercials. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 383-394
Additional paper: Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2012). An arousal regulation explanation of mood effects on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3),
574-584
VIDEOS
18. Consumers' emotional system, and Appraisal theory of emotion
19. Affect, Mood, and Emotion
20. Emotions: Valence and Arousal
21. Ad evoked Emotions: Positive Emotions
22. Ad evoked Emotions: Negative emotions
Week 4 Social Influences
Value expressive social influence and groups
23. McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Andrea C. Morales. (2010), "I’ll have what she’s having: Effects of social influence and body type on the
food choices of others." Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 915-929.
a. Video Social Influence and introduction
b. Video Groups
c. Video Impact of others on consumers' food choice:
Normative Social Influence (retailing)
24. Argo, J. J., & Dahl, D. W. (2020), “Social Influence in the Retail Context: A Contemporary Review of the Literature.“ Journal of Retailing, 96(1), 25-39.
a. Video Sources of (Utilitarian) Normative Influence
b. Video Normative Social Influence (retailing)
Normative Social Influence (audience size)
25. Barasch, Alixandra, and Jonah Berger (2014), "Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share." Journal of Marketing Research ,
51(3), 286-299.
a. Video Normative Social Influence (audience size)
Assigned reading for next class: Berger, Jonah. (2014), "Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research." Journal of
Consumer Psychology 24,(4) 586-607. Download Berger, Jonah. (2014), "Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future
research." Journal of Consumer Psychology 24,(4) 586-607.
Week 5 Cultural Consumption and Consumers' Lifestyle
26. Video Intro to Consumer Culture
27. Consumer Culture Normative Standards of beauty: Argo, Jennifer J., and Darren W. Dahl (2018), "Standards of beauty: The impact of mannequins in the retail
context." Journal of Consumer Research, 44(50), 974-990.
a. Video Consumer Culture Normative Standards of beauty (discussing the article)
, b. Video Consumer Culture Status
28. Consumer Culture Status: Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), "Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence." Journal of
Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.
29. Consumer Culture Self-concept and lifestyle: Puntoni, Stefano, Steven Sweldens, and Nader T. Tavassoli (2011), "Gender identity salience and perceived vulnerability
to breast cancer." Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 413-424.
a. Video Consumer Culture Self-concept and Lifestyle
Assigned reading to the class: Reed II, Americus, Mark R. Forehand, Stefano Puntoni, and Luk Warlop (2012),"Identity-based consumer behavior." International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 310-321.
Week 6 Consumers and Marketing for a “Better World”
30. Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention.
Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58.Download Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration,
illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58.
Note: It is not required to go over the modeling part of the paper.
31. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482
32. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
33. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of marketing research, 43(2), 259-266.
VIDEOS
34. Motivation and consumer behavior
35. Needs and consumer behavior
36. Goals and Self-control
37. Self-control Failure
38. How to change behavior for the better
, Hypothesis – Main Research Methods Studies Conceptual Model
2 About… Experimental procedure Experiment one Theoretical Framework
- How we perceive what we perceive - Different stimuli (abstract, - 120 participants
- Elements of consumer perception meaningful, social stimuli) - Stimulus 25 polygons and 25
Article: - Different exposures photographs of women
Bornstein 1989 the mere exposure effect produced by (0,1,5,10,20 repetition per
stimuli that are not recognized at better-than chance stimulus - Important part is seeing the
accuracy are substantially larger than mere exposure - Random assigned to different effect of the two
effects produced by clearly recognized stimuli. conditions - Mere exposure effect:
Half were exposed at a - Different stimuli (abstract, repeatedly expose a stimulus.
subliminal exposure duration meaningful social stimuli). - Will the liking of my stimulus
(5ms) - Different exposures (0, 1, 5, 10, 20
RQ Comparing the magnitude of the mere exposure change? And we also want to
Half of the stimuli were repetition per stimulus).
effect produced by subliminal stimuli VS supraliminal observe recognition (seen image
exposed at a supraliminal - Half of the stimuli were exposed at
stimuli that are consciously perceived before).
exposure (500ms) a subliminal exposure duration (5
So… we are even more influenced by - Comparing subliminal vs.
- After exposure subjects made ms), half of the stimuli were
unrecognized stimuli supraliminal. Does effect change
affect (liking) and recognition exposed at a supraliminal exposure
What is the mere exposure effect produced when we when I am aware/not aware of
judgements) duration (500 ms).
perceived it consciously vs. unconsciously. stimulus.
- After exposure subjects made
affect (liking) and recognition
judgments.
- People were randomly assigned to
different condition (subliminal or
supraliminal exposure).
- Supraliminal – enough time
exposed – realise they were looking
at an image.
3 Research Gap (Article) The Studies The model
Research in visual perception (Locher and Nodine Study 1
1973,1989( demonstrated that individuals have a The participants get exposed to different brands of products and these brands were
propensity to look longer at the axis of symmetry when vitamins
exposed to a symmetric picture The measurements
Preference for symmetry - Choice (DV)
Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009) proposed the center- - Quality (Meditor)
stage effect. According to the centre-stage effect - Popularity (Mediator)
consumers hold the lay belief that in retail contexts the - Attractiveness (Mediator)
products placed in central positions are more popular, - Attention (eye-tracker (mediator) - Inference: we know best
reflecting the overall quality of the product, which leads products are placed in centre
consumers to systematically prefer items in the center How do they measure and we choose them.
Preference for centrality The location of the brands changes. Some participants were exposed to a different - Increased visual attention:
combination preference for centre (opposite
This article… What they want to test: Whenever the brand is positioning the center in a display(doesn’t of inference).
Examination of consumers tendency to choose the matter what the name is), participants should look at the brand more, they should - Participants were exposed to
option in the center in an array and the perceive the brand is a higher quality of product and they would devote it more popular. different combinations of brands
underlying process of this effect They measure also attention with Eyetracking to make sure that the order
does not affect the effect.
Week 1 The Physological Core
1. Introduction Video Physological Core
Perception
2. Bornstein, Robert F., and Paul R. D'agostino. (1992) "Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545..
Attention
3. Atalay, A. Selin, H. Onur Bodur, and Dina Rasolofoarison (2012), "Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice." Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (4), 848-866.
Memory
4. Dimofte, Claudiu V., and Richard F. Yalch. (2011), "The mere association effect and brand evaluations." Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (1), 24-37.
Seminar | Sensory Marketing
5. Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
22(3), 332-351.
Week 2 Consumer Rationality
6. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(3), 374-378
7. Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical
analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125(5), 576
8. Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing science, 26(6), 742-757
Additional paper: Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-
1099
VIDEOS
9. System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking
10. Decision-making Heuristics
11. Biases
12. Framing
13. Anchoring Bias and the Zero Price Effect
14. Absence vs. Presence
Week 3 Affective and Emotional Consumer Reactions
15. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205
16. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer research, 15(3), 379-
385
, 17. Pham, M. T., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). The influence of ad-evoked feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses
to more than 1000 TV commercials. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 383-394
Additional paper: Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2012). An arousal regulation explanation of mood effects on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3),
574-584
VIDEOS
18. Consumers' emotional system, and Appraisal theory of emotion
19. Affect, Mood, and Emotion
20. Emotions: Valence and Arousal
21. Ad evoked Emotions: Positive Emotions
22. Ad evoked Emotions: Negative emotions
Week 4 Social Influences
Value expressive social influence and groups
23. McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Andrea C. Morales. (2010), "I’ll have what she’s having: Effects of social influence and body type on the
food choices of others." Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 915-929.
a. Video Social Influence and introduction
b. Video Groups
c. Video Impact of others on consumers' food choice:
Normative Social Influence (retailing)
24. Argo, J. J., & Dahl, D. W. (2020), “Social Influence in the Retail Context: A Contemporary Review of the Literature.“ Journal of Retailing, 96(1), 25-39.
a. Video Sources of (Utilitarian) Normative Influence
b. Video Normative Social Influence (retailing)
Normative Social Influence (audience size)
25. Barasch, Alixandra, and Jonah Berger (2014), "Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share." Journal of Marketing Research ,
51(3), 286-299.
a. Video Normative Social Influence (audience size)
Assigned reading for next class: Berger, Jonah. (2014), "Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research." Journal of
Consumer Psychology 24,(4) 586-607. Download Berger, Jonah. (2014), "Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future
research." Journal of Consumer Psychology 24,(4) 586-607.
Week 5 Cultural Consumption and Consumers' Lifestyle
26. Video Intro to Consumer Culture
27. Consumer Culture Normative Standards of beauty: Argo, Jennifer J., and Darren W. Dahl (2018), "Standards of beauty: The impact of mannequins in the retail
context." Journal of Consumer Research, 44(50), 974-990.
a. Video Consumer Culture Normative Standards of beauty (discussing the article)
, b. Video Consumer Culture Status
28. Consumer Culture Status: Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), "Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence." Journal of
Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.
29. Consumer Culture Self-concept and lifestyle: Puntoni, Stefano, Steven Sweldens, and Nader T. Tavassoli (2011), "Gender identity salience and perceived vulnerability
to breast cancer." Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 413-424.
a. Video Consumer Culture Self-concept and Lifestyle
Assigned reading to the class: Reed II, Americus, Mark R. Forehand, Stefano Puntoni, and Luk Warlop (2012),"Identity-based consumer behavior." International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 310-321.
Week 6 Consumers and Marketing for a “Better World”
30. Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention.
Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58.Download Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration,
illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58.
Note: It is not required to go over the modeling part of the paper.
31. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482
32. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
33. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of marketing research, 43(2), 259-266.
VIDEOS
34. Motivation and consumer behavior
35. Needs and consumer behavior
36. Goals and Self-control
37. Self-control Failure
38. How to change behavior for the better
, Hypothesis – Main Research Methods Studies Conceptual Model
2 About… Experimental procedure Experiment one Theoretical Framework
- How we perceive what we perceive - Different stimuli (abstract, - 120 participants
- Elements of consumer perception meaningful, social stimuli) - Stimulus 25 polygons and 25
Article: - Different exposures photographs of women
Bornstein 1989 the mere exposure effect produced by (0,1,5,10,20 repetition per
stimuli that are not recognized at better-than chance stimulus - Important part is seeing the
accuracy are substantially larger than mere exposure - Random assigned to different effect of the two
effects produced by clearly recognized stimuli. conditions - Mere exposure effect:
Half were exposed at a - Different stimuli (abstract, repeatedly expose a stimulus.
subliminal exposure duration meaningful social stimuli). - Will the liking of my stimulus
(5ms) - Different exposures (0, 1, 5, 10, 20
RQ Comparing the magnitude of the mere exposure change? And we also want to
Half of the stimuli were repetition per stimulus).
effect produced by subliminal stimuli VS supraliminal observe recognition (seen image
exposed at a supraliminal - Half of the stimuli were exposed at
stimuli that are consciously perceived before).
exposure (500ms) a subliminal exposure duration (5
So… we are even more influenced by - Comparing subliminal vs.
- After exposure subjects made ms), half of the stimuli were
unrecognized stimuli supraliminal. Does effect change
affect (liking) and recognition exposed at a supraliminal exposure
What is the mere exposure effect produced when we when I am aware/not aware of
judgements) duration (500 ms).
perceived it consciously vs. unconsciously. stimulus.
- After exposure subjects made
affect (liking) and recognition
judgments.
- People were randomly assigned to
different condition (subliminal or
supraliminal exposure).
- Supraliminal – enough time
exposed – realise they were looking
at an image.
3 Research Gap (Article) The Studies The model
Research in visual perception (Locher and Nodine Study 1
1973,1989( demonstrated that individuals have a The participants get exposed to different brands of products and these brands were
propensity to look longer at the axis of symmetry when vitamins
exposed to a symmetric picture The measurements
Preference for symmetry - Choice (DV)
Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009) proposed the center- - Quality (Meditor)
stage effect. According to the centre-stage effect - Popularity (Mediator)
consumers hold the lay belief that in retail contexts the - Attractiveness (Mediator)
products placed in central positions are more popular, - Attention (eye-tracker (mediator) - Inference: we know best
reflecting the overall quality of the product, which leads products are placed in centre
consumers to systematically prefer items in the center How do they measure and we choose them.
Preference for centrality The location of the brands changes. Some participants were exposed to a different - Increased visual attention:
combination preference for centre (opposite
This article… What they want to test: Whenever the brand is positioning the center in a display(doesn’t of inference).
Examination of consumers tendency to choose the matter what the name is), participants should look at the brand more, they should - Participants were exposed to
option in the center in an array and the perceive the brand is a higher quality of product and they would devote it more popular. different combinations of brands
underlying process of this effect They measure also attention with Eyetracking to make sure that the order
does not affect the effect.
