IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v29y2018i3d10.1007_s11002-018-9463-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Besting the status quo: the effect of abstract versus concrete mindsets on emotional trade-off difficulty and avoidant coping behavior

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Alexander

    (University of St. Thomas)

  • Ashley Stadler Blank

    (University of St. Thomas)

Abstract

Building on past emotional trade-off difficulty and construal level research, we investigate the conditions under which consumers engage in avoidant coping behavior to reduce negative emotions that arise from trading off valued attributes (e.g., quality and price). Results from three studies offer evidence that an abstract (vs. concrete) mindset systematically decreases avoidant coping behavior (e.g., the selection of a status quo option) by reducing the intensity of the negative emotion consumers experience. This effect replicates across construal level manipulations and product categories. Thus, in addition to the harmful effects of negative emotions and coping behavior on consumer choice identified in past research, we find that an abstract (vs. concrete) mindset can help consumers make better (i.e., more normative) choices. Together, these findings have implications for marketers of new or unfamiliar products as well as products that are not incumbents or category leaders (i.e., status quo options) when consumers face difficult trade-offs.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Alexander & Ashley Stadler Blank, 2018. "Besting the status quo: the effect of abstract versus concrete mindsets on emotional trade-off difficulty and avoidant coping behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 351-362, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9463-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-018-9463-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-018-9463-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-018-9463-8?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. Lawrence E. Williams & Randy Stein & Laura Galguera, 2014. "The Distinct Affective Consequences of Psychological Distance and Construal Level," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(6), pages 1123-1138.
    2. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    3. Debora Viana Thompson & Rebecca W. Hamilton & Petia K. Petrova, 2009. "When Mental Simulation Hinders Behavior: The Effects of Process-Oriented Thinking on Decision Difficulty and Performance," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 562-574, December.
    4. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    5. Manoj Thomas & Claire I. Tsai, 2012. "Psychological Distance and Subjective Experience: How Distancing Reduces the Feeling of Difficulty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 324-340.
    6. Adrian Brügger & Suraje Dessai & Patrick Devine-Wright & Thomas A. Morton & Nicholas F. Pidgeon, 2015. "Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1031-1037, December.
    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. Blut, Markus & Chowdhry, Nivriti & Mittal, Vikas & Brock, Christian, 2015. "E-Service Quality: A Meta-Analytic Review," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 679-700.
    2. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    3. Poushneh, Atieh, 2021. "How close do we feel to virtual product to make a purchase decision? Impact of perceived proximity to virtual product and temporal purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Mourali, Mehdi & Yang, Zhiyong & Pons, Frank & Hassay, Derek, 2018. "Consumer power and choice deferral: The role of anticipated regret," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 81-99.
    5. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    6. Sören Köcher & Hartmut H. Holzmüller, 2014. "Zu viel des Guten? Eine Analyse der Wirkung von Verbraucherschutzinformation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 306-343, June.
    7. Lange, Jens & Krahé, Barbara, 2014. "The effects of information form and domain-specific knowledge on choice deferral," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 92-104.
    8. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Herter, Márcia Maurer & Borges, Adilson & Pinto, Diego Costa, 2021. "Which emotions make you healthier? The effects of sadness, embarrassment, and construal level on healthy behaviors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 147-158.
    10. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Woojin Choi & Yan (Lucy) Liu & Haoying Sun & Fu Liu, 2021. "More or Less? Consumer Goal Orientation and Product Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 16-26, June.
    11. Bohee Jung & Jaewoo Joo, 2021. "Blind Obedience to Environmental Friendliness: The Goal Will Set Us Free," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Cervi, Cleber & Brei, Vinicius Andrade, 2022. "Choice deferral: The interaction effects of visual boundaries and consumer knowledge," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Kurt Carlson & Chris Janiszewski & Ralph Keeney & David Krantz & Howard Kunreuther & Mary Luce & J. Russo & Stijn Osselaer & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2008. "A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 241-254, December.
    14. Ran Duan & Christian Bombara, 2022. "Visualizing climate change: the role of construal level, emotional valence, and visual literacy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-22, January.
    15. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.
    16. Pham, Michel Tuan & Sun, Jennifer J., 2020. "On the Experience and Engineering of Consumer Pride, Consumer Excitement, and Consumer Relaxation in the Marketplace," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 101-127.
    17. Didi Alaoui, Mohamed & Valette-Florence, Pierre & Cova, Véronique, 2022. "How psychological distance shapes hedonic consumption: The moderating role of the need to justify," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 57-69.
    18. Botti, Simona & Hsee, Christopher K., 2010. "Dazed and confused by choice: How the temporal costs of choice freedom lead to undesirable outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 161-171, July.
    19. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia, 2003. "Effect Propensity: The Location of the Reference State in the Option Space as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice," Research Papers 1788, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    20. Young Eun Lee & Izak Benbasat, 2011. "Research Note ---The Influence of Trade-off Difficulty Caused by Preference Elicitation Methods on User Acceptance of Recommendation Agents Across Loss and Gain Conditions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 867-884, December.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9463-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.