IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/doi10.1086-599047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Davy Lerouge

Abstract

Past research in consumer behavior typically assumes that distraction during the decision process needs to be avoided. However, a common piece of advice given to consumers who have to make complex decisions is to distract their attention away from the decision problem for some moments. The current research shows that distraction can indeed help consumers to differentiate attractive from unattractive products. Yet this occurs only for consumers with a configural mind-set who tend to form coherent representations of products in their memory. For consumers with a featural mind-set, who typically hold mixed product representations, distraction does not affect product evaluations. This implies that it is the specific processing mind-set of consumers that determines whether distraction leads to more product differentiation or not.

Suggested Citation

  • Davy Lerouge, 2009. "Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 367-379.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/599047
    DOI: 10.1086/599047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/599047?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Laurent Waroquier & David Marchiori & Olivier Klein & Axel Cleeremans, 2009. "Methodological pitfalls of the Unconscious Thought paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 601-610, December.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:601-610 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mark Nieuwenstein & Hedderik van Rijn, 2012. "The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 779-798, November.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:779-798 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2014. "Manipulating decision making of typical agents," Papers 1409.0636, arXiv.org.
    6. Marieke de Vries & Cilia L. M. Witteman & Rob W. Holland & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2010. "The Unconscious Thought Effect in Clinical Decision Making: An Example in Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 578-581, September.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:351-358 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Barney Tan & Cheng Yi & Hock C. Chan, 2015. "Research Note—Deliberation Without Attention: The Latent Benefits of Distracting Website Features for Online Purchase Decisions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 437-455, June.
    9. Carolina Werle & Brian Wansink & Collin Payne, 2015. "Is it fun or exercise? The framing of physical activity biases subsequent snacking," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 691-702, December.
    10. Selin Atalay, A. & Onur Bodur, H. & Bressoud, Etienne, 2017. "When and How Multitasking Impacts Consumer Shopping Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 187-200.
    11. Balazs Aczel & Bence Lukacs & Judit Komlos & Michael R. F. Aitken, 2011. "Unconscious intuition or conscious analysis? Critical questions for the Deliberation-Without-Attention paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 351-358, June.

    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:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/599047. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.