Advances in Consumer Behavior MKT 702

FALL 2010

Professor: Dr. Ashesh Mukherjee Office: Bronfman 328 (Ph: 514-398-4032) Email: ashesh.mukherjee@mcgill.ca Web: http://people.mcgill.ca/ashesh.mukherjee/ Class Time/Location: Tuesday: 1 pm – 4 pm / Bronfman 647 Office Hours: Tuesday: 4 pm – 5 pm (or appointment) Secretary: Maria Fernandes / Bronfman 315 (Ph: 398-4000, ext: 00935) Course Objectives This seminar is designed to familiarize students with the major research areas in consumer behavior, including theories and experimental methods. The goal is to prepare students for careers as active researchers in the field of consumer behavior. By the end of this seminar, you should: (1) Acquire a broad foundation of knowledge in different areas of consumer behavior (breadth). (2) Develop an original research project in an area of consumer behavior of interest (depth). (3) Be able to write & review research articles (practical). Course Structure This course follows a seminar format, with the learning objectives reached through a combination of lecture, class discussion, one-on-one coaching, developing a research project, and presenting a research project. Each class session will begin with a short lecture by the professor providing a framework for the assigned articles. The student discussion leader for the day will then lead a discussion on the assigned articles. The professor will moderate the discussion, integrate student contributions, and end the class with key learning points. During the course of the semester, each student will develop two short “research idea” papers, and one in-depth final research paper. Students are encouraged to meet individually with the professor to discuss their research ideas. The final research paper will be written for potential submission as a competitive paper at the annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research. The student will present the final research paper to the class at the end of the semester. Course Materials There is a required course pack which can be picked up at Copie 2000, 1115 Sherbrooke West (corner Peel & Sherbrooke). The readings in the course pack are primarily articles from journals such as Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and American Psychologist. There are two optional books for additional insight into consumer research. Both books are on reserve at the Howard Ross Management Library at McGill University.

Textbook: Consumer Behavior, Hoyer & MacInnis, 4ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006. Handbook: The Handbook of Consumer Psychology, eds. Haugvedt, Herr, and Kardes, Lawrence

Erlbuam, 2008. Course Grades The final grade for this course will be distributed as follows: Class participation 20% Discussion leadership 10% Idea Papers (2 x 5%) 10% Research Paper 45% Research Presentation 10% Reviewer Assignment 5% Class Participation The breadth objective of the course will be achieved through discussion in the weekly class meetings. Each week we will discuss a different topic in consumer behavior, drawing from readings in marketing and psychology. The readings have been selected to represent important theories and methods. Students are responsible for the assigned readings (generally 5 articles) which will be discussed in a seminar format in class. Additional readings are also listed to provide background, and guide students interested in further investigation of the topic. Class participation will be facilitated by discussion questions to be submitted by each student in advance of class. Students must read the assigned articles for the upcoming class, and email three discussion questions to the professor before 5 pm of the Saturday preceding the class. Submission of discussion questions will start with the class on Sep 21, i.e., the first set of discussion questions must be submitted by Saturday, Sep 18. Discussion questions can pertain to broad integrative issues across articles in the session, as well as issues specific to a particular article. Guidelines for writing discussion questions are appended to this course outline. The professor will collate and email a selected subset of discussion questions to all students by Saturday night – these questions will act as a basis for in-class discussion on Tuesday. Class participation will be measured by the quality of your discussion questions submitted in advance of the class, and the quality of your oral participation in class. Discussion Leadership The depth objective of the course will be achieved through discussion leadership. Each student will act as the discussion leader for at least one class (or more) over the course of the seminar. Discussion leaders will be appointed during the first class session, and each class session from Sep 21 onwards (except Nov 9) will have discussion leaders. Before coming to the first class on Sep 7, please skim the topics to be covered in the seminar (listed in this course outline), and make a shortlist of class sessions where you would like to be the discussion leader. Guidelines for the discussion leader are appended to this course outline.

Idea Papers The depth objective of the course will be further accomplished by writing two short idea papers, and an in-depth research proposal. Your idea papers, and your research proposal can be based on any topic covered in this seminar. Note that your first idea paper is due by 12 noon on Oct 12,

2

and your second idea paper is due by 12 noon on Nov 2. Guidelines for idea papers are appended to this course outline. Research Proposal The final, in-depth research proposal may be based on one of your short idea papers, or it may be a different idea. The final proposal should include a literature review as well as more detailed versions of all the sections in the idea paper. The goal of the final proposal is to formulate a detailed research plan, so that you can collect data early next semester. To ensure that adequate attention is devoted to a complete research plan, a maximum of 10 references are allowed for the literature review. The final proposal will be presented in class on Nov 30 (20 minute presentation), and the written paper is due on Dec. 3 by 5 pm. To help students learn from each other, final written proposals will be circulated by the professor to all the students in the class. The quality of the research proposal will be measured by its likely contributions to the literature. The proposal must be written clearly in a scientific style, as exemplified by articles in the Journal of Consumer Research. It is strongly suggested (but not required) that students collect data based on their research proposal in January 2011, and then submit the resulting manuscript as a paper at the annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research - deadline: March 10, 2011 (see www.acrweb.org). Guidelines for writing the research proposal are appended to this course outline.

Research Presentation Each participant will present his/her paper in class at the end of the semester. Each participant will have 20 minutes to present, followed by 10 minutes Q&A. This structure is similar to the 20 minute research presentations at academic conferences such as the Association for Consumer Research. Effective presentations are well organized, clearly spoken, and provide concise answers to audience questions. Guidelines for presenting at conferences are appended to this course outline. Reviewer Assignment This is a take home assignment, in which students will play the role of a reviewer for a manuscript under submission to a top-tier behavioural journal, such as the Journal of Consumer Research. Students will be given a “real” manuscript which has gone through the review process at the Journal of Consumer Research, and asked to provide a detailed and constructive review. Students will have one week to complete this assignment; details of the assignment will be provided in class. The assignment is due by 12 noon on Nov 9. Writing & Reviewing Research A practical objective of this course is to develop the ability to write one’s research clearly in a scientific style, and review others’ research in a constructive manner. These are crucial skills in academia, since researchers spend a lot of time writing and reviewing. The better written is your article, the more likely it is to be published in a good journal. The more skilled you are in reviewing articles, the more likely you will be invited to review for top tier journals. Reviewing for top tier journals is an indicator of academic success, and is also helpful for publishing your own work in top-tier journals.

3

Skill in writing and reviewing usually develops incrementally during an academic career, though the process of writing your own research manuscripts, getting feedback from other faculty, and presenting your research to audiences. In the present seminar, we will take a more direct approach to the skills of writing and reviewing. In the class session on Nov 9, we will discuss the principles of effective journal writing. In the same class session, we will analyze the review process at the Journal of Consumer Research, using real manuscripts (and their reviews) that have been published in this journal. By the end of this session, we will develop a set of guidelines for effective writing and reviewing at top-tier journals. Note that writing and reviewing skills will be honed throughout the seminar, via the process of writing idea papers, research proposal, class participation, reviewer assignment and discussion leadership. Academic Integrity McGill University values integrity. Therefore, all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism, and other academic offences under the Code of Student & Disciplinary Procedures. Please see www.mcgill.ca/integrity for more information.

4

Class Schedule

Week Date Topic Assignment 1 Sep 7 Overview of Consumer Behavior 2 Sep 14 Motivation 3 Sep 21 Perception & Attention 4 Sep 28 Knowledge & Inference 5 Oct 5 Memory 6 Oct 12 Attitudes I Idea Paper I Due 7 Oct 19 Attitudes II 8 Oct 26 Behavioral Decision Theory 9 Nov 2 Affect Idea Paper II Due 10 Nov 9 Writing & Reviewing Research Reviewer Assignment Due 11 Nov 16 Social & Consumption Influences 12 Nov 23 Self Control 13 Nov 30 Research Presentations Due Dec 3 Research Proposal Due

The required readings for each topic are listed below. Beyond the required readings (which are in the course pack), additional readings on each

topic are also listed for students particularly interested in that topic. WEEK 1 (Sep 7) OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR Required Readings MacInnis, Deborah, and Valerie Folkes (2010), “The Disciplinary Status of Consumer Behavior: A Sociology of Science Perspective on Key Controversies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 139-149. Deighton, J. (2007),” The Territory of Consumer Research: Walking the Fences,” Journal of Consumer Research, October. Bazerman, M. (2001), “Consumer Research for Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 499-504. Wells, W. (1993), "Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March), 489-503. “Broadening the Scope of Consumer Research,” Editorial, Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 139-149. Additional Readings CB: 1990-2000’s: Johar, G. et al (2006), “MAPping the Frontiers: Theoretical Advances in Consumer Research on Memory, Affect, and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 139-149. Kardes, F. (1996), “In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (3), 279-296. Jacoby, J., G. Johar, and M. Morrin, “Consumer Behavior: A Quadrennium,” Annual Review of Psychology, 49

5

(1998), 319-344. Simonson, I., Z. Carmon, R. Dhar, A. Drolet, and S. Nowlis, “Consumer Research: In Search of Identity,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (2001), 249-275. Holbrook, M. (1987), "What is Consumer Research?," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 128-132. CB 1970-1980’s: Bettman, J. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Ch. 2. CB 1960’s: Kassarjian, H. and M.J. Sheffet (1981), "Personality and Consumer Behavior: An Update,"in Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, eds. H.Kassarjian and T. Robertson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 160-180 (Skim 160-180). WEEK 2 (Sept 14) MOTIVATION Required Readings MacInnis, D. and B. Jaworski (1989), "Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1-23. Brendl, C.M., A. Markman, and C. Messner (2003), “The Devaluation Effect: Activating a Need Devalues Unrelated Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 463-473. Chaplin, L.N. and D.R. John (2005), “The Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 119-129. Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300. Lee, Angela, Punam Keller, and Brian Sternthal (2010), “Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February), 735-747. Additional Readings Krugman, H. (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising Without Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356. Greenwald, A. and C. Leavitt (1984), "Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592. Zaichowsky, J. (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 341-352. Richins, M., P. Bloch, and E. McQuarrie (1992), "How Enduring and Situational Involvement Combine to Create Involvement Responses," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 143-153. Belk, R. (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139-168. Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373. Kleine, S., R. Kleine, and C. Allen (1995), “How Is A Possession ‘Me’ or ‘Not Me’”?, Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 327-343.

6

Escalas, J.E. and J.R. Bettman (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 378-389. Swaminathan, V., K. Page, and Z. Gurhan-Canli (2007), “’My’ Brand or ‘Our’ Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 248-259. Avnet, T. and T. Higgins (2006), “How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (February), 1-10. WEEK 3 (Sept. 21) PERCEPTION & ATTENTION Required Readings Shapiro, S., (1999) “When an Ad’s Influence is Beyond our Conscious Control: Perceptual and Conceptual Fluency Effect Caused by Incidental Exposure,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 16-36. Pieters, R. and M. Wedel (2007), “Goal Control of Attention to Advertising: The Yarbus Implication,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 224-233. Balcetis, Emily and David Dunning (2006), “See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (4), 612-625. Gorn, Gerry, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Jaideep Sengupta, and Shashank Tripathi (2004), “Waiting for the Web: How Screen Color Affects Time Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (May), 215-225. Chandon, Pierre, and Nailya Ordabayeva (2009), “Supersize in One Dimension, Downside in Three Dimensions: Effects of Spatial Dimensionality on Size Perceptions and Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, December, 739-753. Additional Readings Mackenzie, S. B (1986), “The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on Attribute Importance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (Sep), 174-195. Glass, A., K. Holyoak, and J. Santa (1979), "The Role of Representation in Perception," in Cognition, Chapter 2, London: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 25-56. Janiszewski, C. (1993), "Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 376-392. Celsi, R. and J. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-224. Raghubir, Priya, and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach”, Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 313-326. Pieters, R. and M. Wedel (2004), “Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictorial, and Text-Size Effects,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (April), 36-50.

7

Hoegg, J. and J. Alba (2007), “Taste Perception: More than Meets the Tongue,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (March), 490-498. Raghubir, Priya, and Geeta Menon (1998), “AIDs and Me, Never the Twain Shall Meet: Factors Affecting Judgments of Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June), 52-63. WEEK 4 (Sept. 28) KNOWLEDGE & INFERENCE Required Readings Moreau, C.P., D. Lehmann, and A. Markman (2001), “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, (February), 14-29. Mogilner, Cassie, Tamara Rudnick, and Sheena Iyengar (2008), “The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Chooser’s Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, August, 215. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer, Steve Hoeffler, and Min Zhao (2005), “When Categorization is Ambiguous: Factors that Facilitate the Use of Multiple Category Inference Strategy, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (2), 127-140 Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Rebecca Walker Naylor, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 170-184. Wang, Wenbo, Hean Keh, and Lisa Bolton (2010), “Lay Theories of Medicine and a Healthy Lifestyle,” Journal of Consumer Research, June, 80-97. Skim for Background: Alba, J. and J.W. Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-454. Additional Readings Lajos. Joseph, Zsolt Katona, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Miklos Sarvary (2009), “Category Activation Model: A Spreading Activation Network Model of Subcategory Positioning When Categorization Uncertainty is High,” Journal of Consumer Research, June, 122-136. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer, and Deborah Roedder John (1997), “Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer,” Journal of Consumer Research, December, 266-284. Broniarczyk, S. and J. Alba (1994), "The Role of Consumers' Intuitions in Inference Making," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 393-407. Sujan, M. (1985), "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgment," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31-46. Jacoby, J. and W. Hoyer (1989), "The Comprehension/Miscomprehension of Print Communication: Selected Findings," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 434-443. Carlson, Jay, Leslie Vincent, David Hardesty, and William O. Bearden (2009), “Objective and Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Research Findings,” Journal of Consumer

8

Research, February, 864-876. Mitchell, A. and P. Dacin (1996), “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 219-239. Peracchio, L. and A. Tybout (1996), “The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 177-192. Meyers-Levy, J. and A. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal for Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-54. Kardes, F. (1988), "Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 225-233 Johar, G. (1995), “Consumer Involvement and Deception from Implied Advertising Claims,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (August), 267-279 Broniarczyk, S. and J. Alba (1994) “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 214-228. Brucks, M. (1985), "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1-15. Spence, M. and M. Brucks (1997), “The Moderating Effects of Problem Characteristics on Experts’ and Novices’ Judgments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 233-247. WEEK 5 (Oct 5) MEMORY Required Readings Ahluwalia, Rohini and Zeynep Gurhan Canli (2000), “The Effects of Extensions on the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 371-381. Krishna, Aradhana, May Lwin, and Maureen Morin (2009), “Product Scent and Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (June), 57-67. Shapiro, Stewart, and Mark T. Spence (2002), “Factors Affecting Encoding, Retrieval, and Alignment of Sensory Attributes in a Memory-Based Choice Task,” Journal of Consumer Research, March, 603-617. Skurnik, I. et al. (2005),” How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations,” aournal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 713-724. Lee, A. (2002), “Effects of Implicit Memory on Memory-Based Versus Stimulus-Based Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (November), 440-454. Additional Readings Tybout, A. et al. (2005), “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Content versus Retrieval Ease,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 76-85.

9

Feldman, J. and J. Lynch (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435. Braun, K. (1999), “Postexperience Advertising Effects on Consumer Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 319-334. Biehal, G. and D. Chakravarti (1983), “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 1-14. Menon, G. (1993), “The Effects of Accessibility of Information in Memory on Judgments of Behavioral Frequencies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 431-440. Nedungadi, P. (1990), "Recall and Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 263-276. Aribarg, Anocha, Rik Pieters, and Michel Wedel (2009), “Raising the BAR: Bias Adjustment of Recognition Tests in Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, June, 387-400. Pham, M. and G. Johar (1997), “Contingent Processes of Source Identification,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (December), 249-265. Schlosser, A. (2006), “Learning through Virtual Product Experience: The Role of Imagery on True versus False Memories,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (December), 377-383. Rottenstreich, Y. et al. (2007), “Feeling and Thinking in Memory-Based versus Stimulus-Based Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (March), 461-469. Alba, J., J.W. Hutchinson, and J. Lynch (1991), Memory and Decision-Making," in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, eds. T. Robertson and H. Kassarjian, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1-49. WEEK 6 (Oct. 12) ATTITUDES I Required Readings Meyers-Levy, Joan and Prashant Malaviya (1999), “Consumer’s Processing of Persuasive Advertising: An Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of Marketing, 63, 45-60. Cohen, J. and A. Reed (2006), “A Multiple Pathway Anchoring and Adjustment (MPAA) Model of Attitude Generation and Recruitment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 1-15. (including replies to the article). Pham, M. and T. Avnet (2004), “Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 503-518. Berger, Jonah and Grainne Fitzsimmons (2008), “Dogs on the Street, Puma on the Feet: How Cues in the Environment Influence Product Evaluation and Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (February), 1-14. Messner, Claude and Joachim Vosgerau (2010), “Cognitive Inertia and the Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (April), 374-386.

10

Assignment: Visit https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html and take IAT tests on Gender-Career and Age IAT. Incorporate your reactions into commentary for the day. Additional Readings Petty, R., J. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann, (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146. Karpinski, A. and J. Hilton (2001), “Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (November), 774-788. Wan, Echo, Derek Rucker, Zachary Tormala, and Joshua Clarkson (2010), “The Effect of Regulatory Depletion on Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Marketing Research, June, 531-541. Herr, P. and C. Page (2004), “Asymmetric Association of Liking and Disliking Judgments: So What’s Not to Like?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 588-601. Wilson, T. et al. (2000), “A Model of Dual Attitudes,” Psychological Review, 107 (1), 101-126. Ajzen. I. (2001), “The Nature and Operation of Attitudes,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58. Adaval, R. (2001), “Sometimes It Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-Consistent and Affect-Inconsistent Product Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 1-17. Aaker, J. and Patti Williams (2002), “Can Mixed Emotions Peacefully Coexist,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 636-649. Petty, R., R. Unnava, and I. Stratman (1991), "Theories of Attitude Change," in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, eds. T. Robertson and H. Kassarjian, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 241-280. Elpers, Josephine L., C.M. Woltman, Ashesh Mukherjee, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2004), “Humor in Television Advertising: A Moment-to-Moment Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 592-597. Meyers-Levy, J. and L. Peracchio (1996), “Moderators of the Impact of Self-Reference on Persusasion, Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (March), 408-423. Haugtvedt, C. et al. (1994), "Advertising Repetition and Variation Strategies: Implications for Understanding Attitude Strength," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 176-189. MacKenzie,S., R. Lutz, and G. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143. Hastak, M. and J. Olson (1989), "Assessing the Role of Brand-Related Cognitive Responses as Mediators of Communication Effects on Cognitive Structure," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 444-456. Fazio, R., M. Powell, and C. Williams (1989), “The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 280-288.

WEEK 7 (Oct. 19) ATTITUDES II Required Readings Ahluwalia, R., R.E. Burnkrant, and H.R. Unnava (2000), “Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May),

11

203-214. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002), “What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger: The Effects of Resisting Persuasion on Attitude Certainty, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298-1313. Campbell, M. and A. Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 69-83. Pechmann, Cornelia and Liangyan Wang (2010), “Effects of Indirectly and Directly Competing Reference Group Messages and Persuasion Knowledge: Implications for Educational Placements,” Journal of Marketing Research, February, 134-145. Priester, Joseph, D. Nayakankuppam, M. Fleming, and J. Godek (2004), “The ASC Model: The Influence of Attitudes and Attitude Strength on Consideration and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, March, 574-586. Additional Readings Darke, Peter and Robin Ritchie (2007), “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust,” Journal of Marketing Research, February, 114-127. Kirmani, Amna and Rui Zhu (2007), “Vigilant Against Manipulation: The Effect of Regulatory Focus on the Use of Persuasion Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing Research, November, 688-701. Friestad, M. and P. Wright (1994), "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1-31. Williams, P. et al. (2004), “When Consumers Do Not Recognize “Benign” Intention Questions as Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 540-550. Fabrigar, L. R., Petty, R. E., Smith, S. M., & Crites, S. L. Jr. (2006). Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 556-577. Haubl, G. and V. Trifts (2000), “Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids,” Marketing Science, 19 (Winter), 5-21. Park, C. and D. Smith (1989), "Product-Level Choice: A Top-Down or Bottom-Up Process?," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 289-300. Puto, C. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 301-315. Johnson, M. (1989), "The Differential Processing of Product Category and Noncomparable Choice Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research , 16 (December), 300-310. Hoyer, W. and S. Brown (1990), "Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 141-148. Hoyer, W. (1984), “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December), 822-829.

12

Olshavsky, R. and D. Granbois (1979), "Consumer Decision Making--Fact or Fiction," Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (September), 93-100. WEEK 8 (Oct. 26) BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY Required Readings Thaler, R. (2008), "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, 27 (1), 15-25. Bettman, J., M. Luce, and J. Payne (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 187-217. Shiv, B., Z. Carmon, and D. Ariely (2005), “Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They Pay For,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 383-393. Shlomo, B. and R. Thaler (2007), “Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (3), 81-104. Hutchinson, J. W, J. W. Alba, and E. Eisenstein (2010), “Heuristics and Biases in Data Based Decision Making: Effects of Experience, Training, and Graphical Data Displays,” Journal of Marketing Research, August, 627-642. Additional Readings Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, 185, 1124-1131. (Also reprinted as the first chapter in Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, Judgment under Uncertainty, Heuristics and Biases). Tom, S. et al (2007), “The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision Making Under Risk,” Science, 315, 515-518. Prelec, D. and G. Loewenstein (1998), “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4-28. Simonson, I. (2008), “Will I Like a Medium Pillow? Another Look at Constructed and Inherent Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Simonson, I. and A. Tversky (1992), "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 281-295. Nowlis, S. R. Dhar, and I. Simonson (2010), “The Effect of Decision Order on Purchase Quantity Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, August, 725-737. Ofir, C. and I. Simonson (2007), “The Effect of Stating Expectations on Customer Satisfaction and Shopping Experience,” Journal of Marketing Research, February, 164-174. Epley, N., and T. Gilovitch (2001), “Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic,” Psychological Science, 12 (5), 391-396. Thaler, Robert (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39-60. Russo, J.E., M. Meloy, and V. Medvec (1998), “Predecisional Distortion of Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 438-452.

13

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. 1993. Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 2, 11-36. (Reprinted in W.M. Goldstein & R.M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.)

Nowlis, S., B. Kahn, and R. Dhar (2002), “Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 319-334. Russo, J., M. Meloy, and V. Medvec (1998), “Predecisional Distortion of Product Information During Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 438-452. Kahneman, D. et al (2006), “Would You Be Happier if You Were Richer?” Science, 312, 1908-1910. Simonson, I. and A. Drolet (2004), “Anchoring Effects on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay, and Willingness to Accept, Journal of Consumer Research, December, 681-690. Thaler, Richard and Sunstein, Cass (2010), Nudge, Caravan Books. Ariely, Dan (2010), Predictably Irrational, Harper Collins. WEEK 9 (Nov 2) AFFECT Required Readings Bagozzi, R., M. Gopinath, and P. Nyer (1999), “The Role of Emotions in Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184-206. Raghunathan, R., M. Pham, and K. Corfman (2006), “Informational Properties of Anxiety and Sadness, and Displaced Coping,” Journal of Consumer Research, March, 596-601. Darke, P., A. Chattopadhyay, and Lawrence Ashworth (2006), “The Importance and Functional Significance of Affective Cues in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (December), 322-328. Shiv, B, and Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 278-292. Pham, M. (2004), “The Logic of Feeling,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 360-369. Additional Readings Pham, M., J. Cohen, J. Pracejus, and G.D. Hughes (2001), “Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September) 167-188. Shiv, B. and S. Nowlis (2004), “Effects of Distraction While Tasting a Food Sample: The Interplay of Informational and Affective Components in Subsequent Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 599-608. Homburg, C., N. Koschate, and W. Hoyer (2006), “The Role of Cognition and Affect in the Formation of Customer Satisfaction: A Dynamic Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, July, 21-31. Griskevicius, V., et. al. (2010), “The Many Shades of Rose Colored Glasses: An Evolutionary Approach to The Influence of Different Positive Emotions, Journal of Consumer Research, August, 238-250.

14

Small, Deborah, and Nicole Verocchi (2009), “Face of Need: Facial Emotional Expression on Charity Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, December, 777-787. Tsiros, M. and V. Mittal (2000), “Regret: A Model of Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision-Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 401-417. Wirtz et al. (2003), “What to do on Spring Break? The Role of Predicted, Online, and Remembered Experience on Future Choice,” Psychological Science, 14 (5), 520-524. Adaval, Rashmi (2001), “Sometimes it Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-consistent and Affect-inconsistent Product Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 1 – 17. Luce, M.F. (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 409-433. Loewenstein, George, Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee, and Ned Welch (2001), “Risk as Feelings,” Psychological Bulletin, 127 (March), 267-286. Duncan S. and L. Barrett (2007), “Affect is a Form of Cognition: A Neurobiological Analysis,” Cognition and Emotion, 21 (6), 1184-1211. Richins, M. (1997), “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 127-146. WEEK 10 (Nov 9) WRITING & CRITIQUING RESEARCH Required Readings Summers, John O. (2001), “Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization Through the Review Process,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 405-415. Hyman, Ray (1995), “How to Critique a Published Article,” Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 178-182. Huber, Joel (2008), “The Value of Sticky Articles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (June), 257-260. Lynch, John (1998), “Presidential Address: Reviewing,” Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 1-6. JCR Review Process / Manuscripts & Reviews: Gershoff, Andrew D., Ashesh Mukherjee, and Anirban Mukhopadhayay (2007), "Few Ways to Love, But Many Ways to Hate: Attribute Ambiguity, and the Positivity Effect in Agent Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (4), 499-505. Additional Readings Bem, Daryl (2004), Writing the Empirical Journal Article,” in The Compleat Academic: A Career Guide: Vol. 2, ed. John Darley, Mark Zanna, and Henry Roedinger, APA: Washington D.C.

15

Petty, R., M. Fleming, and L.R. Fabrigar (1999), “The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 188-202. Moreau, Page and Darren Dahl (2005), “Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 13-22 - JCR Best Article Award WEEK 11 (Nov 16) SOCIAL & CONSUMPTION INFLUENCES Required Readings McFerran, B. D. Dahl, G. Fitzsimmons, and A. Morales (2010), “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, April, 915-925. Ariely, D. and J. Levav (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 279-290.

Quester, Pascale and Alexander Steyer (2010), “Revisiting Individual Choices in Group Settings: The Long and Winding (Less Travelled) Road,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 1050-1057. Gershoff, A. D., A.Mukherjee, and A. Mukhopadhayay (2008), "Whats Not to Like? Preference Asymmetry in the False Consensus Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 119-125. Biswas, D., D. Grewal, and A. Roggeveen (2010), “How the Order of Sampled Experiential Products Affects Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, June, 508-519. Additional Readings Berger, J. and C. Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 121-134. Pechmann, C. and S. Knight (2002), “An Experimental Investigation of the Joint Effects of Advertising and Peers on Adolescents’ Beliefs and Intentions about Cigarette Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, June, 5-19.

Tanner, R. et al. (2008), “Of Chameleons and Consumption: The Impact of Mimicry on Choices and Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (April), 754-766.. Nowlis, S. et al. (2004), “The Effect of a Delay Between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 502-510. Dhar, Ravi and Itamar Simonson (1999), “Making Complementary Choices in Consumption Episodes: Highlighting Versus Balancing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1), 29-45.

Laran, Juliano (2010), “Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others are More Indulgent than Personal Choices, Journal of Consumer Research, August, forthcoming. Shiv, B. and J. Huber (2000), “The Impact of Anticipating Satisfaction on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 202-216.

16

Aaker, J. and A. Lee (2001), “I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 33-49. West, P. and S. Broniarczyk (1998), “Integrating Multiple Opinions: The Role of Aspiration Level on Consumer Response to Critic Consensus,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June), 38-51. Muniz, A. and T. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432. Holt, D. (1995), "How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption Practices," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 1-16. Ward, J. and P. Reingen (1990), "Sociocognitive Analysis of Group Decision Making Among Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 245-262. Bearden, W. and M. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194. WEEK 12 (Nov 23) SELF CONTROL Required Readings Vohs, Kathleen. D., and Ronald J. Faber (2007), “Spent Resources: Self-Regulatory Resource Availability Affects Impulse Buying, Journal of Consumer Research, March, 33 (4), 537-547. Mukhopadhyay, A., G. Johar (2005), “Where There is a Will, Is There a Way? Effects of Lay Theories of Self Control on Setting and Keeping Resolutions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 779-786. Laran, Juliano (2010), “Choosing Your Future: Temporal Distance, and the Balance Between Self-Control and Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, April, 1002-1015. Fishbach, Ayelet, and James Y. Shah (2006), “Self-Control in Action: Implicit Dispositions Toward Goals and Away From Temptations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5) 820-832. Kienan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2008), “Remedying Hyperopia: The Effects of Self Control Regret on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, December, 676-689. Additional Readings Myrseth, K. A. Fishbach, and Y. Trope (2009), “Counteractive Self Control,” Psychological Science, February, 159-163. Mukhopadhyay, Anirban and Catherine Yeung (2010), “Building Character: Effects of Lay Theories of Self Control on Selection of Products for Children,” Journal of Marketing Research, April, 240-250. Loewenstein, G. (1996), “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, March, 272-292. Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002), "Self Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Pre-commitment to Indulgence," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 199-217.

17

Bagozzi, R. and U. Dholakia (1999), “Goal Setting and Goal Striving in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 19-32. Fishbach, Ayelet, Ronald Friedman, and Arie Kruglanski (2006), “Leading Us Not Into Temptation: Momentary Allurements Elicit Overriding Goal Activation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (February), 296-309. Laran, Juliano (2010), “Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others Are More Indulgent Than Personal Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, August, 304-314. Mukhopadhyay, Anirban, Jaideep Sengupta, and Suresh Ramanathan (2008), “Recalling Past Temptations: An Information Processing Perspective on the Dynamics of Self Control,” Journal of Consumer Research, December, 586-599. Fishbach, A. and Y. Zhang (2008), “Dynamics of Self-Regulation: When Goals Commit Versus Liberate,” chapter in The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior. Fitzsimmons, Gavan, Joseph Nunes, and Patti Williams (2007), “License to Sin: The Liberating Role of Reporting Expectations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 22-31. Mowen, John C. and Nancy Spears (1999), “Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College Students: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 407-431. Bargh, John A. (2002), "Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer Judgment, Behavior and Motivation, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 280-285.

18

Appendix 1 Guidelines for Discussion Questions

The value of this seminar is maximized when students read the assigned articles in a critical manner, and are prepared to discuss the articles in class. Discussion questions are designed to help students read articles in depth before coming to class. You should read the assigned articles for a class, and submit three discussion questions by 5 pm of the Saturday preceding the class. Submission of discussion questions will start with the class on Sep 21, i.e., the first set of discussion questions must be submitted by Saturday, Sep 18. There are no discussion questions due for the class on Nov 9; instead, your take-home reviewer assignment is due on Nov 9. Please email your discussion questions to ashesh.mukherjee@mcgill.ca. You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt; save this acknowledgement to ensure that your submission has been received. Broadly speaking, there are three types of discussion questions: (a) critically assess an article, (b) integrate across two or more articles, and (c) propose a future research study. Notably, these are also the types of questions reviewers raise, and authors address in their own research. Hence, writing good discussion questions will improve your effectiveness as a reviewer and author. Below, I discuss the three types of discussion questions. Critically Assess a Research Article This type of question addresses issues such as: Is the literature review accurate?

Does the article clearly identify a gap in past research?

Do the hypotheses follow logically from the literature review/theoretical development?

Does the methodology permit a strong test of the hypotheses?

How well do the authors manipulate the independent variables in their hypotheses? Are these manipulations confounded with extraneous variables (i.e., are the manipulations “clean”)?

How well do the authors measure the dependent variables in their hypotheses? Are these measurements reliable (i.e., coefficient alpha)?

Do the results permit the authors to reach firm conclusions?

Are the limitations of the research addressed adequately?

The article makes the case that variable X has an effect on variable Y. What are some moderators that might strengthen, weaken, or reverse this effect?

What are the contributions of this paper (theoretical and methodological)? Are the contributions significant given previous research on this topic? For this question, see the section on research contributions in the appendix titled “guidelines for research proposal.”

Integrate Across Research Articles This type of question addresses issues such as:

19

What are the areas of agreement (similarities), and disagreement (dissimilarities) across research articles?

There is a conflict between the findings of Article A and Article B, e.g., Article A finds X, but Article B finds Y. How would you reconcile these contradictory findings?

What is the relationship between the related theories Theory X and Theory Y? Are they contradictory? Complementary?

Compare and contrast the related constructs X and Y. Which construct is more useful, conceptually and methodologically?

Propose a Future Research Study This type of question addresses issues such as: Design a research study that would overcome a key limitation of an article.

Design a research study that would clarify the mechanism underlying an article.

Design a research study that would test new moderators relevant to an article.

Design a research study that would test a new theory relevant to an article.

Design a research study that would resolve an inconsistency across two articles.

More examples of discussion questions will be circulated in the class.

Note that you should prepare your answers to your own discussion questions. In other words, don’t propose a question to which you don’t have an answer. Also, before coming to class, try to answer questions posed by other students – as mentioned earlier, these questions will be circulated by the professor in advance of the class. When answering questions on an article, try to be constructive, i.e., think of ways to solve the problem identified in the question – either by further analyzing data in the current article (give details), or conducting a new study (give details). Do not simply criticize, without offering a solution.

20

Appendix 2 Guidelines for Discussion Leadership

The discussion leader will prepare a two page (single-spaced, double sided) summary of each article assigned for that session. The first page should show the boxes-and-arrows model tested in the article, with the hypotheses (H1, H2 etc) stated below the model. The second page should contain (in bulleted form), the main findings/contributions of the article. The discussion leader should make photocopies of these summaries, and distribute these summaries to other students at the beginning of class. The summaries will be a useful memory aid later, for quickly reviewing the main findings in that area of research. The discussion leader should prepare powerpoint slides as an aid to class discussion. These slides should be brought to class on a USB memory stick to be used on the professor’s laptop. The leader can start with any article assigned for the day. First, the discussion leader should give a short summary of that article (< 2 minutes), in the form of a boxes-and-arrows model together with hypotheses. Second, the leader will display discussion questions relevant to this article. These discussion questions will be a subset of the discussion questions circulated by the professor before the class (i.e., the questions contributed by other students). The discussion leader can choose any subset of questions that he or she wants to focus on. The article discussion will then revolve around the chosen subset of discussion questions. As emphasized earlier, students should try to answer the discussion questions in a constructive manner, i.e., think of ways to solve the problem identified in the question – either by further analyzing data in the current article (give details), or conducting a new study (give details). It is especially important for the discussion leader to develop future research ideas. The discussion leader should spell out in detail at least one future research study that would make a contribution to the topic of discussion for the day. It is also important to point out during the discussion what were the research contributions of the article (theoretical and methodological). In other words, what was good about the article? To understand research contributions further, please read the guidelines for the research proposal.

The above process should be repeated for each of the assigned articles. The discussion leader should plan to cover all the required readings in the class discussion. The discussion leader is also encouraged to consult other articles relevant to the topic, such as those listed in the additional readings section plus other articles in top-tier journals. The quality of discussion leadership will be measured by the leader’s article summaries, the leader’s responses to discussion questions, and the leader’s proposed future research study.

21

Appendix 3 Guidelines for Idea Papers

Your idea papers (as well as your final research proposal) may be based on any of the topics covered in this seminar. At the beginning of the seminar, you should skim all the topics that will be covered during the semester, and pick topics that are of particular interest to you. Then, read the articles in these topic areas before they are covered in class, including the additional readings suggested for those sessions. In short, you need to plan your idea papers early in the semester, and take the initiative to read relevant articles. I am available to consult with students about their ideas, and can give early feedback. Students should also read recent issues of Journal of Consumer Research and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, or re-read articles from earlier consumer behaviour or psychology seminars. Note that you can browse the table of contents of marketing and psychology journals from the AMA (American Marketing Association) website: http://www.marketingpower.com, and also from the McGill Library website. Another source of ideas is the program for ACR 2010 (http://www.acrweb.org/acr/conference/program.aspx) which lists ongoing research being conducted on different topics in consumer behavior. When choosing topics for your idea papers, you should consider how the topic fits into your broader research portfolio. We will discuss your research portfolio in class, in the context of your academic CV. Each idea paper should have the following structure: (i) Start with real life examples, (ii) Ask a question in simple language, (iii) Propose an answer to your question in simple language, (iv) Give an intuitive reason why you think your answer is likely to be true, (v) Formalize your answer in the form of research hypotheses (i.e., H1, H2), (vi) describe your research method and procedure to test your hypotheses, and (vii) briefly outline your proposed data analysis. Your idea paper should NOT include a literature review. The total length of the idea paper should be approx 2 pages (single spaced). In addition to these two pages, your idea paper should contain a one-page appendix with a “boxes-and-arrows” picture of your model. Since the idea paper is intended to be an initial version of your final research paper, you should also take a look at the appended guidelines for the final research paper. You should be prepared to discuss your idea papers in class. Note that your first idea paper is due by 12 noon on Oct 12, and your second idea paper is due by 12 noon on Nov 2. Email your idea papers to ashesh.mukherjee@mcgill.ca. You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a day; please save this acknowledgement to ensure that your submission has been accepted.

22

Appendix 4 Guidelines for Research Proposal

The final, in-depth research proposal may be based on one of the short idea papers, or it may be a different idea. The final proposal should include more detailed versions of all sections in the idea paper, along with three new sections: (a) an upfront abstract, (b) a theoretical development section building up the hypotheses, and (c) a final “Contributions” section listing the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of your proposal. Theoretical contributions are usually (i) new moderator/s, (ii) new independent variable/s, and (iii) new mediating variable/s. Methodological contributions are usually (i) different manipulations of independent/moderating variables, (ii) new measures of dependent/mediating variables (including choice), (ii) testing in different product categories (iii) testing in different respondent populations, and (iv) field versus lab studies. Practical contributions are usually (i) Guidelines for managers, (ii) Guidelines for consumers, and (iii) Guidelines for policy makers. The notion of “contribution” will be discussed in more detail in class. Note that significant contributions, especially theoretical contributions, are the most important factor for publishing in a top-tier journal. The goal of the final proposal is to formulate a research plan that enables you to collect data early next semester. To ensure that adequate attention is devoted to a complete research plan, a maximum of 10 references are allowed for the literature review. The final proposal will be presented in class on Nov 30 (20 minute presentation), and the written paper is due on Dec. 3 by 5 pm. The proposal should be approximately twenty pages, double-spaced (including references). This is the typical length of manuscripts submitted to the ACR annual conference. The proposal should contain the following sections: i. Introduction (suggested: 1-2 pages).

This section should motivate the proposal by highlighting importance of the topic. Use real-life examples to start this section. After presenting your examples, state your question in simple language, and explain why this question is important. Then, state your proposed answer/s, and give intuitive reasons for your proposed answer. Note that “no one has studied this issue” should not be your main reason for undertaking the research. Use minimum jargon in the Introduction section.

ii. Theoretical development (suggested: 7-8 pages). The purpose of this section is to logically build up your hypotheses. The best way to write this section is to write your formal hypotheses first (i.e., H1, H2, etc). Then take each hypothesis in turn (e.g., H1), and logically justify why H1 is likely to be true. In this logical justification, use past research as support, but only to the extent you need for your hypothesis at hand. Use subheadings and overviews of coming points - try to have a logical flow. Summarize the main points you want the reader to get. End this section with your formal hypotheses (H1, H2 etc). Note that your hypotheses should be (preferably) a new moderating effect, or (less preferred) a new main effect. You can also have a hypothesis that tests the mechanism underlying your moderating or main effects.

23

iii. Methodology (suggested: 5-6 pages) This section should describe subjects, design, procedure, manipulation of independent/moderating variables, measurement of dependent/mediating variables, and manipulation checks. You can also include pilot studies if necessary (e.g., to develop stimuli for your main studies).

iv. Analysis Plan (suggested: 1 page). This section should contain a statistical analysis plan, including manipulation checks.

v. Results (suggested: blank) Keep this section blank in your research proposal, since you will not have data by the end of this semester. However, it is recommended that you collect data in January, 2011 and then submit your manuscript to the ACR 2011 annual conference. After collecting data, you can write up the results using the following guidelines: (a) Present only results relevant to your hypotheses (b) Present your results by hypothesis (repeat hypothesis if necessary) or by major dependent variable, (c) Try to present results in some logical flow, (d) Use tables and figures, (e) If you have more than one study, briefly discuss the results of each study, followed by a transition to the next study (i.e., what is the purpose of the next study?).

vi. Contributions (suggested: 1-2 pages).

This section should list theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of your proposal. Use point-by-point form, i.e., First,..Second,…, Third,… etc. Theoretical contributions are usually (i) new moderator/s, (ii) new independent variable/s, and (iii) new mediating variable/s. Methodological contributions are usually (i) different manipulations of independent/moderating variables, (ii) new measures of dependent/mediating variables (including choice), (ii) testing in different product categories (iii) testing in different respondent populations, and (iv) field versus lab studies. Practical contributions are usually (i) Guidelines for managers, (ii) Guidelines for consumers, and (iii) Guidelines for policy makers.

vii. References (suggested: 1 page).

This section should contain no more than 10 references, formatted as in the Journal of Consumer Research.

viii. Appendices (no limit)

This section should contain (a) questionnaire/s used to collect data, (b) stimuli (e.g., ads, instructions) presented to participants, and (c) instructions to the research assistant conducting the study. Appendices do not count towards the 20 page limit for the research proposal.

ix. Abstract (suggested: 1 page)

24

The proposal should contain an upfront, one-page, double-spaced abstract, approximately 250 words. The abstract does not count towards the 20 page limit for the research proposal. The abstract should be followed by three keywords to classify the article. You can check the ACR conference submission website for a list of potential keywords.

The quality of your research proposal will be measured by the completeness of each section, and especially by contributions to the literature. In addition, the proposal must be written clearly in a scientific style, as exemplified by articles in the Journal of Consumer Research. It is strongly suggested (but not required) that students collect data based on their research proposal in January 2011, and submit the resulting manuscript as a paper at the annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research - deadline: March 10, 2011 (see www.acrweb.org). Guidelines for presenting your research at conferences are appended to this course outline.

Note that your final research proposal is due by 5 pm on Dec 3. Email your research proposal to ashesh.mukherjee@mcgill.ca. You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your submission within a day; please save this acknowledgement to ensure that your submission has been accepted.

25

26

Appendix 5

Guidelines for Conference Presentation

You will frequently present your research at academic conferences during your career. The main thing to remember when presenting at conferences is that you have a limited amount of time (typically 20-25 mins). So be succinct! You cannot describe all the details of your work. The most common mistake at conferences is poor time management – specifically, overkill on the literature review. Although it is important to embed your work in the relevant literature, it is more important to leave sufficient time for convincing your audience about the contributions of your research. This is best done by presenting your empirical work in more depth, summarizing your contributions at the end, and answering audience questions effectively.

Presentation slides should be uncluttered (i.e., few words/slide). You can always break up a cluttered slide into two or more slides. You should orally explain the words on the slides, i.e., discuss each slide in your own words. Do not read words that are already on the slide. Talk s-l-o-w-l-y, emphasizing key words.

The different parts of a presentation, with ballpark recommendations for time are:

1-2 minute Title slide – Introduce yourself, your co-authors, tell the audience in one sentence what the research is about. Talk slowly.

1-2 minutes The Question/Problem => Use examples – visual/pictures or tables/graphs. Building on the examples, state the general question you are interested in. Explain why this question is important (for managers/consumers).

1-2 minutes My Answer => show your boxes and arrows “proposed model.” Explain your answer (i.e., model) in simple language. Say that you will now logically build up this model in the next couple of minutes.

3-4 minutes Hypothesis development => Put up your “proposed model” again => state your formal hypotheses (H1, H2..) => state logic for each hypothesis => refer to past literature only to the extent it helps you develop your hypotheses => Point out the link between your hypotheses and your boxes-and-arrows model.

8-10 minutes Empirical work => State your experimental design => Describe the procedure (what did participants do, step-by-step). Explain the manipulations/measures. Use pictures to illustrate manipulations. Use graphs wherever possible to show results (tables are hard to read). Keep more detailed results as backup to be used only if you get followup questions.

2-3 minutes Contributions => State your theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions clearly (use bullet points).

1-2 minutes Next steps => How will you follow up on this work? Thank audience, end.

Final advice: practice your talk many, many times in private, culminating in a formal dress rehearsal before a knowledgeable audience.