Priya Raghubir

We examine how heterogeneity among investors' goals, personality, and motivations affect their current portfolio allocation and future portfolio plans. We asked 1347 investors from a national US sample the extent to which they agreed with 28 statements that reflected their investment strategy (adapted from Hoffmann and Shefrin, 2011; e.g., "My investment decisions are driven by hope for a positive outcome"), susceptibility to normative influence (Bearden et al., 1989), risk attitude and confidence (Wood and Zaichowsky, 2004). We used cluster analysis to categorize investors into different groups, leading to the emergence of four types of investors: The Hopeful, the Fearful, the Experts, and the Socially Conscious. These four categories of investors differ in terms of their current portfolio allocation (ranging from checking accounts, and mutual funds to commodities and ETFs). They have very different motivations to invest. For example, the "fearful" investor has the highest economic motivation to invest (e.g., "I want to safeguard my retirement," Hoffmann 2007), and the "hopeful" investor has the lowest psychological motivation to invest (e.g., "It makes me feel smart," Chandon et al. 1990). The investor segments also vary in terms of the importance associated with investment features such as fees versus volatility of returns. These preferences are strongly related to stable personality constructs such as investors' overall optimism and pessimism (Schreier et al., 1994), as well as their promotion and prevention focus (Carver & White, 1994).

This article applies the heuristic-systematic dual-process model (HSM) for researching how source credibility and visualization can influence the way consumers comprehend advertising messages and evaluate advertised product. Findings of Study 1 reveal that consumers rely on source credibility in heuristic processing to comprehend a product’s attributes, consequences, and value. Specifically, mediation analysis indicates that comprehension does play an important role in mediating attitudes toward advertisements. Findings of Study 2 show that heuristic and systematic processing can co-occur. When an advertising message is presented by verbalization, consumers are more likely to engage in heuristic processing, relying on source credibility as a heuristic cue to arrive at a judgment. However, when information is presented by visualization, the influence of systematic processing tends to dominate over heuristic processing.

It is well known that respondents view themselves in a more positive light than others. Prominent domains include personal traits (“better-than-average effect,” Alicke et al. 1995), abilities (“above-average effect,” Dunning, Meyerowitz, and Holzberg 1989), and likelihood judgments (“unrealistic optimism,” Weinstein 1980; “self-positivity bias,” Raghubir and Menon 1998). However, as everyone cannot be above average, these comparative self-reports are biased. An important theoretical and managerial question is: “How best can self-reports be de-biased?” A common technique to elicit reliable responses to sensitive questions is projection: ask about other people and use this information as a proxy for self-judgments. For socially sensitive questions, these (de-biased) proxy-reports have been shown to have higher predictive validity for behavioral intentions than the (biased) self-reports (Fisher 1993). This paper presents an alternate method that leverages projection to “de-bias” (vs. “replace”) self-reports by utilizing contextual manipulations: When other-judgments precede self-judgments (i.e., other-self order) projection should be greater as the other is judged to be more similar and, hence, self-other differences should be attenuated (vs. when self-judgments are elicited first, i.e., self-other order, Raghubir and Menon 1998). The key question is whether other-judgments (projection techniques) or self-judgments elicited after other-judgments (our method) are better predictors of future behavior. To assess this question we first ran three field experiments (Ns=957, 789, and 1095) among participants at an international marathon. Prior to the race, the runners were asked for their motivations to run marathon that were grouped into signaling-related (more sensitive) and fitness-related (less sensitive) reasons. Respondents rated their reasons either before or after rating reasons for the average runner (Studies 1 and 2). In Study 3, we additionally manipulated the referent other (average, similar, inferior, or superior runner). We further assessed the perceived self-other similarity and the extent to which judgments of the other person were anchored on the self (Studies 2 and 3). After the race, we contacted the participants again and in Study 2 and 3 (Ns=552 and 764 matched observations) assessed the stated importance of signaling-related products (e.g., finisher medal, finisher t-shirt). “I run for fitness, not for fame”. In all three studies runners believed that they ran more for fitness rather than signaling motives (ΔFitnessSelf–SignalingSelf, ΔMSelf =.78, .94, and .80 all >0, Motive main effect: Fs>245, ps 229, ps ΔFitnessOther–SignalingOther) was lower in the other-self condition (ΔMSelf=.57, .86, and .66 vs. ΔMOther=.19, .17, and -.14) than in the self-other condition (ΔMSelf=.99, 1.02, and .93 vs. ΔMOther=-.01, -.06, and -.34, TargetxMotivexOrder interaction: Fs>16, ps 5, ps .10) compared to superior or inferior peers (Fs>5, ps≤.02), which corroborates that perceived similarity drives the order effects. Role of projection. Studies 2 and 3 also revealed that the respondents anchored less on themselves when judging the average other in the self-other order (Mself-other=2.94 and 2.66 vs. Mother-self =3.40 and 3.47, Fs>13, ps 2, ps<.10), but not for similar others (Mself-other=3.27 vs. Mother-self=3.42, F<1). Taken together, the findings suggest that eliciting responses about others first makes them appear more similar, and leads to greater projection of own motives onto judgments of others, unless the other person is similar to begin with. Predictive validity. Pooling the data across studies, we regressed the importance of signaling-related products onto the fitness and signaling motives projected for others (projection technique: Only Other), the fitness and signaling motives given for oneself (Only Self), and all four predictors together (Both Self and Other), separately for each order condition. First, we find that the motives people give for themselves are better at predicting the importance they assign to signaling-related products as compared to the motives that they give to others and do so parsimoniously, particularly in the other-self order (R2 Only_Other =.03, R2 Both_Self_and_Other =.09, and R2 Only_Self=.09) versus the self-other order (R2 Only_Other=.02, R2 Both_Self_and_Other=.07, and R2 Only_Self=.06). Second, in the other-self order, it is the (de-biased) signaling motives people give for themselves that drive how important signaling-related products are perceived rather than the projections for others (which are not significant once self-values are entered to the regression), suggesting that eliciting self-reports after other-reports is a superior alternative to only using other reports (projection techniques). Generalizability. Study 4 (N=230 mTurk) replicated the findings for luxury purchases. Consumers judged that they purchase luxury brands more for quality than status reasons…

Traditional practice prominently presents offers (e.g., “50% Off”) followed by a quantity (“When you buy two”), duration (“Today only”), or other conditional restriction as a scarcity appeal to increase urgency. Placing a hurdle to clear before purchase eligibility presents the good news of the offer followed by the bad news of the restriction. We propose and test a sales promotion framework for admission-based experiences showing that leading with the bad news first (the restriction) followed by the good news (the discount) is consistent with consumer news order preferences and changes perceptions of the deal. Our first study confirms consumer preference for bad news before good news in general and ticket offers in particular. The next two studies examine the process by which leading with the bad news (of the restriction first, discount later) increases the salience of the deal (% off). This in turn makes the customer feel in greater control over the offer, thereby making the deal appear to be fairer and more attractive, leading to increased purchase intentions. A fourth study in the field shows presenting the restriction followed by a discount improves click-through and potential revenue compared to presenting the identical offer with the discount preceding the restriction.

... Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599222. The Denomination Effect. Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava. Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 36, No. 4 (December 2009), pp. ... The Denomination Effect. Priya Raghubir Joydeep Srivastava*. ...

... Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett, New York: North Holland, 267-286. Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyer's Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review," Journal of ...

With the revolution in technology, the internet offers opportunity to be a “web wizard,” but its overuse could be problematic. Problematic internet use, also called internet addiction disorder (IAD), is typically self-diagnosed and has been linked to other comorbidities, such as gambling, alcoholism, and mood disorders. Psychiatrists have not reached agreement on how to define or measure it, and estimates of its prevalence vary widely. Five studies examine how people self-diagnose using the accessibility-diagnosticity model. We propose that risk perceptions are based on at least two inputs: estimated internet use, and IAD symptoms, estimates of both being malleable and contingent on context. Results show that (a) the range-of-response alternatives used to elicit internet usage affects reported internet use affecting risk perceptions; (b) self-risk perceptions are lower when IAD symptoms are elicited prior to risk estimates. We conclude by discussing the implications for context effects and self-diagnosis for health risk assessment.

Facing the profusion of the offer in most of the markets, brands have to be creative to emerge on the shelves. Consequently many brands use package design as a distinctive cue, sometimes radically breaking with the traditional codes of their market. However, one can question the effectiveness of package which uses unexpected shapes. Is it useful to adopt a disruptive package design? Under which conditions is this true and why can it work better?

The authors investigate the conditions in which price promotions affect pretrial brand evaluations. A price promotion is theorized to be informative about brand quality when it stands out because it deviates from either its own past behavior or industry norms. Product category experts, who have alternative sources of information to make quality judgments, are expected to make less use of price promotions as a quality cue than novices are. The authors describe three laboratory studies in the context of a price promotion that is designed to increase trial in a service industry. Results suggest that consistency with past promotional behavior, distinctiveness in terms of how common it is to promote in an industry, and consumer expertise are important variables that moderate when price promotions have an unfavorable effect on brand evaluations. The authors highlight implications for service providers that are offering promotions to attract new customers in industries in which promotions are uncommon and discuss the theoretical implications of the finding that expertise moderates the effects of distinctiveness and consistency on evaluations in the context of price promotions.

This research aims to advance the understanding of audio branding by investigating the effect of the understudied auditory attribute “timbre” in the context of brand audio logos. Specifically, the authors propose, and provide evidence in ten studies, that timbral sound quality in audio logos (i.e., roughness/ smoothness) informs abstract judgments of brand personality (i.e., ruggedness/ sophistication). Study 1 shows that the industry practice of altering instrumentation, and thus timbre, in audio logos can change personality perceptions of even well-known brands. This effect persists keeping sound source constant using various instruments (Studies 2A-D), a combination of instruments (Study 3), and in the absence of an identifiable sound source (Study 4). The authors test specific acoustic underpinnings of timbral sound quality perceptions (Study 4) and show that the effect on brand personality judgments is counteracted by incongruent sensory information from another modality (Study...