IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v170y2022ics0749597822000176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A voice inside my head: The psychological and behavioral consequences of auditory technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Lieberman, Alicea
  • Schroeder, Juliana
  • Amir, On

Abstract

People spend over four hours listening to auditory media daily, providing an important outlet for organizations, marketers, and policymakers to influence behavior. Headphones and speakers are the two most ubiquitous auditory media used. Five experiments demonstrate that because headphones localize sound inside a listener’s head (i.e., in-head localization, the sensation that the sound is originating from within one’s own head), they increase listeners’ felt closeness to the communicators of a message. Consequently, listeners perceive the communicators as warmer, feel and behave more empathically toward them, and are more persuaded by them. Consistent with our theorized mechanism, the difference in felt closeness between headphones and speakers attenuates when headphone listeners hear audio designed to create a “surround sound” experience which reduces the in-head localization of sound. This research sheds light on how, and why, different auditory technologies influence judgments, attitudes, and behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Lieberman, Alicea & Schroeder, Juliana & Amir, On, 2022. "A voice inside my head: The psychological and behavioral consequences of auditory technologies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:170:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000176
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000176
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer J. Argo & Darren W. Dahl & Rajesh V. Manchanda, 2005. "The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(2), pages 207-212, September.
    2. Raveendhran, Roshni & Fast, Nathanael J., 2021. "Humans judge, algorithms nudge: The psychology of behavior tracking acceptance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 11-26.
    3. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    4. Xu, Alison Jing & Rodas, Maria A. & Torelli, Carlos J., 2020. "Generosity without borders: The interactive effect of spatial distance and donation goals on charitable giving," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 65-78.
    5. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Jennifer Aaker & Kathleen D. Vohs & Cassie Mogilner, 2010. "Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 224-237, August.
    7. Majid Ghorbani & Yuan Liao & Sinan Çayköylü & Masud Chand, 2013. "Guilt, Shame, and Reparative Behavior: The Effect of Psychological Proximity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 311-323, May.
    8. Small, Deborah A & Loewenstein, George, 2003. "Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, January.
    9. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    10. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    11. Amy Orben & Andrew K. Przybylski, 2019. "The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 173-182, February.
    12. Aaker, Jennifer & Vohs, Kathleen D. & Mogilner, Cassie, 2010. "Non-profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Research Papers 2047, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Tom van Laer & Ko de Ruyter & Luca M. Visconti & Martin Wetzels, 2014. "The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers' Narrative Transportation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(5), pages 797-817.
    14. Kurt P. Munz & Minah H. Jung & Adam L. Alter, 2020. "Name Similarity Encourages Generosity: A Field Experiment in Email Personalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1071-1091, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rai, Tage S. & Diermeier, Daniel, 2015. "Corporations are Cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 18-26.
    2. Chen Yang & Jing Hu, 2022. "When do consumers prefer AI-enabled customer service? The interaction effect of brand personality and service provision type on brand attitudes and purchase intentions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 167-189, March.
    3. Liu, Stephanie Q. & Bogicevic, Vanja & Mattila, Anna S., 2018. "Circular vs. angular servicescape: “Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 47-56.
    4. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    5. Noval, Laura J. & Molinsky, Andrew & Stahl, Günter K., 2018. "Motivated dissimilarity construal and self-serving behavior: How we distance ourselves from those we harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 145-158.
    6. Li, Jian & Huang, Jinsong & Li, Yaqi, 2023. "Examining the effects of authenticity fit and association fit: A digital human avatar endorsement model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Jan S. Krause & Gerrit Nanninga & Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt & Daniel Schunk, 2020. "The Influence of Ambient Temperature on Social Perception and Social Behavior," Working Papers 2013, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    8. Hermann, Erik & Puntoni, Stefano, 2024. "Artificial intelligence and consumer behavior: From predictive to generative AI," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    9. Murphy Patrick J. & Pollack Jeff & Nagy Brian & Rutherford Matthew & Coombes Susan, 2019. "Risk Tolerance, Legitimacy, and Perspective: Navigating Biases in Social Enterprise Evaluations," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Claudia Townsend & Darren DahlEditor & Page MoreauAssociate Editor, 2017. "The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 794-815.
    11. Sohyun Bae, 2021. "Holding an entity mind-set deters consumption of recycled content products: the role of perceived product quality," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(4), pages 553-571, December.
    12. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Yeomans, Mike, 2017. "Do people donate more when they perceive a single beneficiary whom they know? A field experimental test of the identifiability effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 96-103.
    13. Ki, Chung-Wha (Chloe) & Cuevas, Leslie M. & Chong, Sze Man & Lim, Heejin, 2020. "Influencer marketing: Social media influencers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    14. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    15. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    16. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    17. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    18. Canh Thien Dang & Trudy Owens, 2017. "What motivates Ugandan NGOs to diversify: Risk reduction or private gain?," Discussion Papers 2017-11, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:449-451 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    21. Anne Hamby & Niusha Jones & Guohong Yu, 2021. "Exploring the effects of for‐profit and nonprofit size congruency: An exchange perspective on cause‐related marketing," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 274-292, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:170:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.