Weaver et al - Presenter's Paradox

Weaver et al - Presenter's Paradox - 1 Copyright Journal of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Copyright Journal of Consumer Research 2011 Preprint (not copyedited or formatted) Please use DOI when citing or quoting The Presenter’s Paradox KIMBERLEE WEAVER STEPHEN M. GARCIA NORBERT SCHWARZ Author Note Kimberlee Weaver (kdweaver@vt.edu) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing at the Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Stephen M. Garcia (smgarcia@umich.edu) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Norbert Schwarz (nschwarz@umich.edu) is the Charles Horton Cooley Collegiate Professor at the Department of Psychology, Ross School of Business, and Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. The authors wish to thank Danny Kahneman, Debbie Prentice, Joel Cooper, L. J. Shrum, Bob Wyer, and Oscar Ybarra for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge the comments of the editor, associate editor and four anonymous reviewers. Abstract This analysis introduces the Presenter’s Paradox . Robust findings in impression formation demonstrate that perceivers’ judgments show a weighted averaging pattern, which results in less favorable evaluations when mildly favorable information is added to highly favorable information. Across seven studies, we show that presenters do not anticipate this averaging pattern on the part of evaluators and instead design presentations that include all of the favorable information available. This additive strategy (“more is better”) hurts presenters in the perceivers’ eyes because mildly favorable information dilutes the impact of highly favorable information. For example, presenters choose to spend more money to make a product bundle look more costly, even though doing so actually cheapened its value from the evaluators’ perspective (study 1). Additional studies demonstrate the robustness of the effect, investigate the psychological processes underlying it, and examine its implications for a variety of marketing contexts.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 Copyright Journal of Consumer Research 2011 Preprint (not copyedited or formatted) Please use DOI when citing or quoting At the beginning of a journey, one of this article’s authors was sitting in a crowded airplane, awaiting take-off. After a two hour wait, a mechanical issue was announced, necessitating a switch to another aircraft. All passengers had to disembark, and many were visibly irritated. The airline did its best, or so they thought, to accommodate the disgruntled passengers by issuing the following gift packet: A $35 discount coupon for future travel, an amenity coupon for a meal, premium beverage or mileage bonus, and a 25-cent phone card. At the time, our author thought to herself that the phone card, which amounted to about 5 minutes of free long distance, looked quite cheap. It may not even be enough time to arrange alternate transportation given the two hour delay. Is it possible that the airline thought the thrifty coupon
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/15/2012 for the course MAR 3053 taught by Professor Williams during the Spring '12 term at University of Florida.

Page1 / 30

Weaver et al - Presenter's Paradox - 1 Copyright Journal of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online