IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v44y2017i1p62-79..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Bigger Is Better (and When It Is Not): Implicit Bias in Numeric Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Ellie J. Kyung
  • Manoj Thomas
  • Aradhna Krishna

Abstract

Numeric ratings for products can be presented using a bigger-is-better format (1 = bad, 5 = good) or a smaller-is-better format with reversed rating poles (1 = good, 5 = bad). Seven experiments document how implicit memory for the bigger-is-better format—where larger numbers typically connote something is better—can systematically bias consumers’ judgments without their awareness. This rating polarity effect is the result of proactive interference from culturally determined numerical associations in implicit memory and results in consumer judgments that are less sensitive to differences in numeric ratings. This is an implicit bias that manifests even when people are mindful and focused on the task and across a range of judgment types (auction bids, visual perception, purchase intent, willingness to pay). Implicating the role of reliance on implicit memory in this interference effect, the rating polarity effect is moderated by (1) cultural norms that define the implicit numerical association, (2) construal mindsets that encourage reliance on implicit memory, and (3) individual propensity to rely on implicit memory. This research identifies a new form of proactive interference for numerical associations, demonstrates how reliance on implicit memory can interfere with explicit memory, and shows how to attenuate such interference.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellie J. Kyung & Manoj Thomas & Aradhna Krishna, 2017. "When Bigger Is Better (and When It Is Not): Implicit Bias in Numeric Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(1), pages 62-79.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:44:y:2017:i:1:p:62-79.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucw079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gould, Stephen & Goldsmith, Emily & Lee, Michael, 2020. "The choice polarity effect: An investigation of evolutionary-based trait handedness and perceived magnitudes on laterally displayed choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 627-637.
    2. Santana, Shelle & Thomas, Manoj & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2020. "The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-154.
    3. Das, Gopal & Spence, Mark T. & Agarwal, James, 2021. "Social selling cues: The dynamics of posting numbers viewed and bought on customers' purchase intentions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 994-1016.
    4. Haoyu Liu & Lifeng Yang & Duane T. Wegener, 2023. "Effects of labeling on risk taking in “leveling-up” decisions: ascending versus descending permutations and ending in terminal values," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 125-138, March.
    5. Tatiana Sokolova, 2023. "Days-of-the-Week Effect in Temporal Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 167-189.
    6. Courtney Szocs & Sara Williamson & Adam Mills, 2022. "Contained: why it’s better to display some products without a package," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 131-146, January.
    7. He (Michael) Jia & Echo Wen Wan & Wanyi Zheng, 2023. "Stars versus Bars: How the Aesthetics of Product Ratings “Shape” Product Preference," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 142-166.

    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:v:44:y:2017:i:1:p:62-79.. 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.