Consumer perceptions of bundles and time‐limited promotion deals: Do contracts matter?

Marketers use various types of deals to positively influence consumers' product evaluations. Across two experiments, we manipulated print advertisements to examine whether the commonly used deal content of both bundling and time‐limited promotions affect consumers' perceived confusion, risk and value. In study 1, the influence of this content was tested in the context of a 2‐year telecommunications (telco) contract. Here, consumers associated a three‐item bundle with greater perceived value than a single item, but perceived value was reduced and risk heightened when it was only available for a limited time. We speculate that this is because of the long‐term nature of the contract. Study 2 removed the contract restriction, examining the bundling of a video game console and game(s), again with a time‐limited promotion. However, in this context, we failed to locate any interaction effects. It appears that consumers further appraise the drawbacks of a long‐term telco contract when accompanied by a time‐limited promotion and may perceive the switching costs for study 1 three‐item telco bundle to be particularly risky. Our studies represent the first empirical investigation of the effect on consumers' perceptions of offering a bundle in conjunction with a time‐limited promotion. Testing these effects in contract and no contract conditions adds to the contribution of our studies by delineating a boundary condition. From a managerial perspective, our findings are thought‐provoking in respect to information integration, or how consumers process different deal content together. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can we fight stigma with science? The effect of aetiological framing on attitudes towards anorexia nervosa and the impact on volitional stigma

The present study experimentally investigated the way in which exposure to various aetiological explanations of anorexia nervosa (AN) differentially affected stigmatisation and behavioural intention outcomes. University students (N = 161) were randomly assigned to read one of four aetiological vignettes presenting the causes of AN as biological/genetic, socio‐cultural, environmental, or multifactorial. Results indicate that those who received a socio‐cultural explanation made stronger socio‐cultural causal attributions, fewer biological/genetic causal attributions, and were significantly less willing to sign a health insurance petition for AN. Unexpectedly, the multifactorial group considered individuals with AN as more responsible and blameworthy for their condition. Overall, findings were comparative with previous research and partially support the propositions of attribution theory. Results also suggest that by conceptualising the aetiology of AN as biological or genetic, or at least increasing one's knowledge of these contributing factors, it may be possible to decrease the level of blame‐based stigma associated with AN.     

Examining the basis for illusory recollection: The role of remember/know instructions

Curiously, studies using the remember/know paradigm to measure recollective experience show that people often vividly remember events that never occurred, a phenomenon referred to asillusory recollection. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that false remember responses in the converging associates, or Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, reflect accurate memory for the study episode, rather than false recollection of critical lures. To test this hypothesis, we used standard remember instructions that emphasized recollection of the study context by allowing participants to use memory of surrounding list items as evidence for recollection, or we used modified instructions that did not include memory for surrounding list items as a basis for recollection. Results showed that, as compared with the standard instruction condition, the modified instructions selectively reduced reports of false remember responses to critical lures, but did not affect remember responses to studied items. By contrast, remember responses to critical lures were unaffected by an instruction condition that excluded the use of voice information as evidence for remembering. These results suggest that remember responses to falsely recognized items are driven partly by retrieval of studied items, rather than illusory recollection of the critical lures themselves. They further point to the importance of instructions in influencing subjective reports.