MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154925640 · doi:10.1108/jcm-02-2013-0453

Preference‐inconsistent information and cognitive discomfort: a cross‐cultural investigation

2013· article· en· W2154925640 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Praveen Aggarwal, Changsoo Kim, Taihoon Cha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Marketing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceGeneralizability theoryAffect (linguistics)PsychologyProduct (mathematics)MarketingCognitionSocial psychologyConfirmation biasNegative informationEconomicsBusinessDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to examine cultural differences between Easterners and Westerners in processing preference‐inconsistent information. The focal question that the study addresses is as follows: When faced with negative information about their preferred alternative, do Easterners and Westerners respond differently? If yes, how do these differences impact purchase intentions? Design/methodology/approach A total of 102 students from a major Korean university and 96 students from a major Canadian university participated in the study. The experiment involved reading fictitious but realistic product reviews about a new car model and responding to survey questions. Findings The authors find that, compared to Eastern consumers, Western consumers are affected differently by preference‐inconsistent information. They experience a greater level of cognitive discomfort, exhibit a stronger motivation to reduce that discomfort, and attempt to resolve the conflict between their original preference and inconsistent information. These factors lead to a significant reduction in their purchase intentions. Research limitations/implications The use of student subjects may limit the generalizability of the study's findings. Practical implications Marketers can benefit by knowing that negative information about a product (as, say, in an online review) does not have a uniform effect across cultures. Consumers in Eastern cultures are more capable of handling negative information without reversing their product preferences. Western consumers, on the other hand, will strive to resolve the conflict between their preference (positive affect) and the negative product review (negative affect) by either changing their preference or discounting the review. Mostly, the damaging effects of a negative review are likely to be greater in Western cultures. Originality/value This study is the first attempt at examining the effect of cultural differences on processing preference‐inconsistent information. As organizations become more global, understanding culture‐based differences in information processing can help marketers create a more nuanced marketing strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer MarketingSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207