Suchergebnisse

AbstractInterruptions during consumer decision making are ubiquitous. In seven studies, we examine the consequences of a brief interruption during a financial risk decision. We identify a fundamental feature inherent in an interruption's temporal structure—a repeat exposure to the decision stimuli—and find that this re-exposure reduces decision stimuli's subjective novelty. This reduced novelty in turn reduces decision makers' apprehension and increases the amount of risk they take in a wide range of risky financial decision contexts. Consistent with our theoretical framework, this interruption effect disappears when a stimulus's subjective novelty is restored after an interruption. We further find that these consequences are often unique to interruptions are often do not result from other interventions (e.g., time pressure and elongated thinking); this is because an interruption's unique temporal structure (which results in a repeat exposure to the decision stimuli) underlies its consequences. Our findings shed light on how and when interruptions during decision making can influence risk taking.

Abstract
Mistakes are often undesirable and frequently result in negative inferences about the person or company that made the mistake. Consequently, research suggests that information about mistakes is rarely shared with consumers. However, we find that consumers actually prefer products that were made by mistake to otherwise identical products that were made intentionally. This preference arises because consumers perceive that a product made by mistake is more improbable relative to a product made intentionally, and thus, view the product as more unique. We find converging evidence for this preference in a field study, six experiments, and eBay auction sales. Importantly, this preference holds regardless of whether the mistake enhances or detracts from the product. However, in domains where consumers do not value uniqueness (e.g., utilitarian goods), the preference is eliminated.