Research and theory in social psychology and related fields indicates that people simultaneously hold many cultural identities. And it is well evidenced across relevant fields (e.g., sociology, marketing, economics) that salient identities are instrumental in a variety of cognitive and behavioral processes, including decision-making. It is not, however, well understood how the relative salience of various cultural identities factors into the process of making identity-relevant choices, particularly ones that require an actor to choose between conflicting sets of cultural values or beliefs. It is also unclear whether the source of that salience (e.g., chronic or situational) is meaningful in this regard. The current research makes novel predictions concerning the roles of cultural identity centrality and cultural identity situational salience in three distinct aspects of the decision-making process: Direction of decision, speed of decision, and emotion related to decision. In doing so, the research highlights two under-researched forms of culture (i.e., political and religious) and uses as the focal dependent variable a decision-making scenario that forces participants to choose between the values of their religious and political cultures and, to some degree, behave in an identity-inconsistent manner. Results indicate main effects of Christian identity centrality and democrat identity centrality on preference for traditional versus gender-neutral (i.e., non-traditional/progressive) restrooms after statistically controlling for covariates. Additionally, results show a significant main effect of democrat identity centrality and a significant interaction effect of Christian and democrat identity centrality on positive emotion linked to the decision. Post hoc analyses further reveal a significant quadratic relationship between Christian identity centrality and emotion related to the decision. There was no effect of situational strength of democrat identity salience on the decision. Neither centrality or situational strength had any effect on the speed with which participants made their decisions. This research theoretically and empirically advances the study of cultural psychology and carries important implications for identity research and judgment and decision-making across a variety of fields, including management, behavioral economics, and marketing.

Aspirational brands such as luxury brands have a tendency to make consumers feel rejected in retail environments. Previous studies show that this rejection actually increases consumers’ positive feelings toward the brand. In this research, however, we suggest that this finding might not hold for all customer segments. Specifically, we suggest that for those customers who feel insecure in a certain domain (e.g., feel insecure about their social standing), rejection by a brand that is aspirational in that domain (e.g., a status-signaling brand) might backfire. Two experiments and a separate field study provides evidence that is consistent with these predictions. These results are discussed in depth, including limitations and future possibilities to further the study.
Aspirational brands are defined as brands that tap into the ideal self-concept (Ward and Dahl, 2014). For example, people who aspire to have high social standing view luxury brands as aspirational. Presently, most sales associates from aspirational brands are encouraged to display judgmental behavior when interacting with customers (Neuman, 2014). This is supported by past research that has shown that creating space between the customer and the brand increases the customer’s wants and needs to associate even more with this aspirational brand. This deliberate space between the brand and customer increases their desire to be recognized by that brand. (Ward and Dahl, 2014, p. 590).

This dissertation uncovers the negative aspects of aesthetics by examining when and how enhanced product and payment aesthetics can backfire and lead to unfavorable consumer responses. The first essay examines the downstream effects of nondurable product aesthetics on usage behavior and consumption enjoyment. Across a series of field and lab experiments, I document an inhibiting effect of aesthetics on consumption. I find that highly aesthetic products elicit greater inferences of effort in their creation, and that people have an intrinsic appreciation for such effort. Because the consumption process indirectly destroys the effort originally invested to make the product beautiful, people reduce consumption of such products because usage would involve destroying something they naturally appreciate. Further, I show that in cases where individuals do consume a beautiful product, they exhibit lower consumption enjoyment. These negative post-consumption outcomes are driven in parallel by concerns over having actually destroyed the effort that made the product beautiful as well as the decrements in beauty that become visible when aesthetic products are made less attractive through consumption. The second essay investigates how the aesthetics and design of a payment (e.g., beautiful gift card packaging) can influence the purchase experience. Three field and lab experiments reveal the negative impact of beautified payments on spending and purchase satisfaction, particularly in situations where usage involves compromising its aesthetic appeal. Specifically, when consumers must damage a payment’s appearance before using it (e.g., ripping gift card packaging), they are less likely to use that payment, and experience lower purchase satisfaction when they do, an effect driven by the pain of payment. In doing so, I identify aesthetics as a novel antecedent to the pain of payment that carries important consequences for spending behavior, purchase satisfaction, and the overall customer experience. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

This dissertation offers three essays that investigate consumers’ health-related food choices and behaviors from three different, yet complementary, angles. The first essay uses an eye-tracking experiment to examine consumers’ visual attention to the Nutrition Facts Panels for healthy and unhealthy products. In this essay, I focus on how involvement and familiarity affect consumers’ attention toward the Nutrition Facts panel and how these two psychological factors interact with new label format changes in attracting consumers’ attention. In the second essay, I demonstrate using individual-level scanner data that nutritional attributes interact with marketing mix elements to affect consumers’ nutrition intake profiles and their intra-category substitution patterns. My findings suggest that marketing-mix sensitivities are correlated with consumers’ preferences for nutrient attributes in ways that depend on the “healthiness” of the nutrient. For instance, featuring promotes is positively correlated with “healthy” nutritional characteristics such as high-protein, low-fat, or low-carbohydrates, whereas promotion and display are positively correlated with preferences for “unhealthy” characteristics such as high-fat, or high-carbohydrates. I use model simulations to show that some marketing-mix elements are able to induce consumers to purchase items with higher maximum-content levels than others. The fourth chapter shows that dieters are not all the same. I develop and validate a new scale that measures lay theories about abstinence vs. moderation. My findings from a series of experiments indicate that dieters’ recovery from recalled vs. actual indulgences depend on whether they favor abstinence or moderation. However, compensatory coping strategies provide paths for people with both lay theories to recover after an indulgence, in their own ways. The three essays provide insights into individual differences that determine approaches of purchase behaviors, and consumption patterns, and life style that people choose, and these insights have potential policy implications to aid in designing the food-related interventions and policies to improve the healthiness of consumers’ consumption profiles and more general food well-being.

In this paper I seek to understand how consumers value music today by investigating what consumers are willing to pay for digitally downloaded songs (such as the ones available on the iTunes or Amazon music stores) and the variety of factors that influence their willingness to pay. I conducted a survey and received over 500 responses regarding willingness to pay for single-song downloads, consumer sentiment on whether music should be free, streaming service use, and other information pertaining to music consumption behavior. Through this research I found that paid-streamers are willing to pay more for songs than those who do not pay to stream, all else being equal. Further, Free-streamers are not willing to pay significantly more or less than non-streamers. This finding is additional information to other research that suggests streaming acts as a substitute for sales. I also found that most consumers are in the middle when it comes to the debate for whether music should always be free or always be purchased. Where someone aligns on the spectrum is a statistically significant contributing factor to what that person is willing to pay for a song. My findings also suggest that consumer preferences distinguish between benefit derived from music ownership and benefit derived from the ability to listen to music. This information sheds more light on the reason behind the declining digital download market.

This study was designed to discover any relationship between waiting and purchasing impulse goods. I distributed a survey with three conditions: a control with no wait, a wait with information explaining the wait, and a wait with no information. After the wait, participants saw a group of impulse goods and indicated how much they were willing to spend for each item, and how much they desired to buy each item. Results showed that participants in the treatment condition with information for the wait desired the impulse goods the least, and were willing to spend the least to purchase them. However, there was no significant difference between the participants given no information explaining the wait, and the control group in either desire or the price they were willing to pay. This is possibly explained by the apology in the message read by participants in the condition with information. They felt more valued and were less likely to feel the need to spend money on impulse goods that are often purchased to make the participant feel better about their wait.

The following paper consists of an analysis of the history of literary recommendation systems as they pertain to the field of cultural production as defined by Pierre Bourdieu. This paper argues that visible in the history of recommendation systems is a shift in value regarding cultural capital and social capital. Whereas recommendation systems in the form of cultural prizes operated primarily in the distribution of cultural capital, the emergence of Oprah's Book Club marked a transition to the valuation of social capital over cultural capital. This transition was further marked by the role of Amazon.com as the largest bookseller and their data driven recommendation system constructed through analysis of individual's shopping habits. The trend of social capital, rather than cultural capital, shaping field of cultural production is indicative of a cultural populism that is rooted in the assumption that any given person is capable of determining the value of an art object without the assistance of guiding institutions.

Research has found many different factors can influence purchase decisions, one of which is social presence. This research aims to examine how gender and self-construal can influence the effect of social presence on consumers. Using survey methodology, this study found no gender difference in terms of friends' influence on purchase decisions or their use of mobile phones to contact friends while shopping alone. The results do indicate that people who are more interdependent are more likely to contact friends when shopping alone than those who are less interdependent.

This dissertation explores conditions under which food messages backfire among consumers leading them to engage in behaviors that are opposite to what was intended by the messages. The first essay shows when and how food-related warnings can backfire by putting consumers in a state of reactance. Across three studies, I demonstrate that dieters (but not nondieters) who see a one-sided message focusing on the negative aspects of unhealthy food (vs. a one-sided positive or neutral message) increase their desire for and consumption of unhealthy foods. In contrast, dieters who see a two-sided message (focusing on both the negative and positive aspects of unhealthy food) are more likely to comply with the message, thereby choosing fewer unhealthy foods. My research suggests that negatively-worded food warnings (such as PSAs) are unlikely to work – nondieters ignore them, and dieters do the opposite. Although preliminary, the findings also suggest that two-sided messages may offer a better solution. The second essay shows how certain messages advocating for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can backfire by activating consumers’ thoughts about risk of GMOs. Across four studies, I demonstrate that strong anti-GMO (but not weak anti-GMO) consumers who see a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are safe for human consumption (vs. a neutral message) perceive higher risk from GMOs, resulting in more unfavorable attitudes toward GMOs and lower intentions to consume GMOs. My research also suggests that a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are beneficial will be more effective in persuading both strong and weak anti-GMO consumers.

This research investigates the conditions under which people use consumption choices to signal accurate versus enhanced information about themselves to others. Across five studies, I demonstrate that activating a self-verification, as opposed to self-enhancement, motive leads consumers to choose products that signal accurate information about a self-view, even when this view is negative. I replicate this finding across several self-view domains, including physical attractiveness, power, and global self-esteem. However, I find that this effect is attenuated when consumers have a high fear of negative social evaluation. My findings suggest that this type of consumption, in which choice is driven by the desire to be seen accurately (vs. positively), can explain abundant real-world behavior; contradicting the notion that consumers choose products primarily for self-enhancement.