IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1962.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Customer Compliance with Presumed Market Research Goals: Motivational Drivers of Negative Service Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Ofir, Chezy

    (Hebrew U Jerusalem)

  • Simonson, Itamar

    (Stanford U)

  • Yoon, Song-Oh

    (Singapore Management U)

Abstract

The findings and value of market research depend critically on consumers' understanding of the research objectives and their roles. The present research presents a three-phase investigation of the impact of research participants' theories about their roles: (a) identifying the theories, (b) testing the process consequences of participants' role theories, and (c) gaining insights into the impact of participants' role theories by testing key moderator/s. We apply this approach to the finding that expecting to evaluate leads to more negative evaluations (Ofir and Simonson 2001). The findings of three studies indicate that (a) when forewarned of an upcoming evaluation task, consumers tend to believe that the research objective is to identify aspects that need improvement, (b) this expectation produces a conscious attempt to identify negative aspects, though the encoding of attribute information is not affected, and (c) cognitive load during the evaluation experience greatly decreases the negativity of expected evaluations. The present study can be applied to other market research techniques and thereby improve our understanding of consumer inputs derived from market research; such insights can help diminish biases produced by participants' correct or incorrect theories regarding their roles.

Suggested Citation

  • Ofir, Chezy & Simonson, Itamar & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2007. "Customer Compliance with Presumed Market Research Goals: Motivational Drivers of Negative Service Evaluations," Research Papers 1962, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1962.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Ran Kivetz, 2005. "Promotion Reactance: The Role of Effort-Reward Congruity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 31(4), pages 725-736, March.
    3. Shimp, Terence A & Hyatt, Eva M & Snyder, David J, 1991. "A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 273-283, December.
    4. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    5. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.

    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. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    2. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Georgios, Gerasimou, 2013. "A Behavioural Model of Choice in the Presence of Decision Conflict," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-25, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    5. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Özge Turut, 2013. "Differentiate or Imitate? The Role of Context-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 393-410, May.
    6. Relling, Marleen & Schnittka, Oliver & Sattler, Henrik & Johnen, Marius, 2016. "Each can help or hurt: Negative and positive word of mouth in social network brand communities," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 42-58.
    7. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    8. Van Horen, Femke & Pieters, Rik, 2013. "Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation feel good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 54-64.
    9. A. Ye(scedilla)im Orhun, 2009. "Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice Set-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 868-886, 09-10.
    10. Callander, Steven & Wilson, Catherine H., 2008. "Context-dependent voting and political ambiguity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 565-581, April.
    11. Hoang, Dong & Breugelmans, Els, 2023. "“Sorry, the product you ordered is out of stock”: Effects of substitution policy in online grocery retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 26-45.
    12. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    13. Rebecca Ratner & Dilip Soman & Gal Zauberman & Dan Ariely & Ziv Carmon & Punam Keller & B. Kim & Fern Lin & Selin Malkoc & Deborah Small & Klaus Wertenbroch, 2008. "How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: From freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 383-397, December.
    14. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    16. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.
    17. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    18. Valentyna Melnyk & Stijn Osselaer, 2012. "Make me special: Gender differences in consumers’ responses to loyalty programs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 545-559, September.
    19. Deb, Joyee & Zhou, Jidong, 2018. "Reference Dependence and Choice Overload," MPRA Paper 86261, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Eugene J. S. Won, 2007. "—A Theoretical Investigation of the Effects of Similarity on Brand Choice Using the Elimination-by-Tree Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 868-875, 11-12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecl:stabus:1962. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.