The Science of Extraordinary Beliefs: An Introduction to This Issue

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Science of Extraordinary BeliefsThe Science of Extraordinary Beliefs: An Introduction to This IssuePankaj Aggarwal, Lauren Block, Thomas Kramer, and Ann L. McGillPankaj Aggarwal, Lauren Block, Thomas Kramer, and Ann L. McGillPankaj Aggarwal ([email protected]) is a professor of marketing at the University of Toronto. Lauren Block ([email protected]) is the Lippert Professor of Marketing at Baruch College's Zicklin School of Business. Thomas Kramer ([email protected]) is an associate professor of marketing in the School of Business Administration at the University of California, Riverside. Ann McGill ([email protected]) is the Sears Roebuck Professor of Marketing and Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreConsumers' judgments, choices, and actions depend on their likes, values, and beliefs—plus the decision rules that put them together and the cultural forces that shape them. The present issue focuses on beliefs—consumers' understanding of what things are and how they work—and showcases the ways in which these beliefs may be extraordinary, as standing outside established rules of science. Hence, the research in this issue takes on familiar areas of investigation involving "ordinary" judgments such as assessments of cause and effect or the determination of kind or category. However, this work stands apart from those vast literatures on causal reasoning and concept formation by considering judgments that go beyond mundane conclusions about what caused what and what something is, beliefs that are "extra" in some sense. Our characterization of these beliefs as "extraordinary" centers therefore on the content of these beliefs, not on whether or not they are commonplace or infrequent—they may in fact arise frequently—and not on the psychological processes that produce them—they may indeed tap well-worn processes. The beliefs are "extra" in that they hold as true something that seemingly cannot be. We expose beliefs that are, frankly, amiss in that they suggest causal connections involving magic, superstition, fate, and luck, or because they suggest a peculiar dual categorization in which things actually are people, at least a little bit. Some of the essays in this issue demonstrate specific instantiation of these beliefs and advance how they come to be or how they operate. These essays capture present efforts to understand a particular phenomenon of consequence for consumers. Four additional essays are from "thought leaders" whom we invited to capture the state of the field's thinking around particular subareas of extraordinary beliefs.From the outset, we had envisioned organizing the essays in this issue around the obvious paradigms they are situated in, that is, anthropomorphism, magical thinking, superstition, and so on. Much to our surprise and pleasure, a stronger theme emerged that crossed these somewhat arbitrary borders. Rather, each of the essays gathered in this issue reflects the authors' investigation into the functionality of extraordinary thinking, in other words, how such processing serves particular purposes and functions for consumers. Indeed, Vaidyanathan, Aggarwal, and Bakpayev lead us off by presenting a conceptual framework for superstitious behavior explicitly organized by type of functional motivation: instrumental, protective, and social-adjustive. Wan demonstrates that a "functional" match between the purpose of the product and the user's mind-set (social, functional) influences preference for anthropomorphized products. The exploration of mind-set is continued by Park, Kang, and Kim, who document that superstitious thinking serves self-enhancement motives differentially for entity versus incremental theorists. Similarly, Valenzuela, Bonezzi, and Szabo-Douat teach us that self-enhancement behavior is different for those who see karmic rewards: those who believe in karma speak less negatively about others and less positively about themselves, which is the opposite of how the literature previously characterized self-enhancement behavior. It is not just superstition and karma that facilitate self-enhancement. As Chen, Sengupta, and Adaval show, anthropomorphizing a product leads consumers to feel greater vitality and exert better self-control on subsequent decisions. Extraordinary thinking not only serves self-enhancement functions, but can also serve as a mechanism for product enhancement. Indeed, Newman shows us how value is enhanced for animistic objects by building extraordinary connections via narratives.The essay by Dong and Labroo points out that reliance on extraordinary beliefs is not necessarily enhancing. While remaining agnostic as to whether engaging in a superstitious act ultimately results in beneficial or maleficial end states, these authors show that invoking fatalistic notions reverses classic loss aversion, such that consumers become more risk-seeking (risk-averse) in gains (losses). Youn and Awad wade one step deeper in the "dark side" of extraordinary thinking, as they show that narcissists identify with and prefer anthropomorphized narcissistic brands but actively dislike non-anthropomorphized narcissistic brands, which remains an unexplained but interesting unanticipated finding. Clearly there is much we still have to learn about the myriad ways extraordinary beliefs influence our thoughts, our actions, and our relationships. To help facilitate extraordinary learning and in the hopes of generating some answers to seemingly ordinary patterns of behavior (e.g., how can people proceed with daily activities without being paralyzed by fears of contamination as contagion theory might predict?), Dahl, Morales, and Argo propose the theory of property transference. These authors propose amendments to the law of contagion that offer a more nuanced explanation of how these widely held extraordinary beliefs can coexist with ordinary behaviors. Otnes, Zayer, Arias, and Sreekumar bring us full circle back to our realization that the borders among extraordinary beliefs are arbitrary and might be better thought of as existing in the service of higher order functions like connecting, controlling, enchanting, and explaining. This conceptual review reveals just how deeply embedded all these extraordinary beliefs are in our everyday rituals, whether we are behaving as consumers or simply as human beings.Our issue continues with four unique, insightful, and well, extraordinary essays from six expert thought leaders in the field. These scholars were given carte blanche to share with us whatever they wished, whether their insights over their decades of work in the area, their thoughts for the future of the field, or simply "what I always wished I could say but never had the opportunity to." Stuart Vyse took us up on all of this and raised us one with his thoughtful and provocative essay stressing the need for scholars to adopt the goals of consumer welfare and ethical philosophy when studying superstition in the marketplace. Vyse brings our attention to the dysfunction of these not rational beliefs and the potential for consumer exploitation in our zealousness to make the extraordinary ordinary. Nicholas Epley provides us with some wordplay on the ordinariness of these extraordinary beliefs. By defining anthropomorphism, explaining its causes, and helping us understand its consequences, Epley challenges us to recognize the ordinary that gives rise to the extraordinary. He is careful not to confuse ordinary with rational, as are Jane Risen and Tom Gilovich in their exposition of the widespread (might one say ordinary?) beliefs about tempting fate. Risen and Gilovich explain what people mean by tempting fate, examine the processes that are responsible for it, and offer scholars a tool—The Belief in Tempting Fate Scale—that can be used in future research. Our issue concludes with the magic of Carol Nemeroff and Paul Rozin, who take us "back in touch" with magical thinking. Not only do they take us back in their review of contagion theory, they ground us in the present by asking us to consider its potentially transformative consumer applications in domains like the world's food and water supply, and they urge us forward to consider the behavioral impact of magical beliefs on the blurred boundaries between the real-world and imaginal virtual reality domains. Quite skillfully, Nemeroff and Rozin, along with Risen, Gilovich, Epley, and Vyse, shed light on how perfectly rational beliefs can take a turn toward the irrational, how extraordinary can be mistaken for ordinary, and how vigilantly we, as scholars, must reinforce the distinction.At the outset of this editorial, we described extraordinary beliefs as being "amiss." Such a statement may well have irritated some readers. The characterization of magical and pseudoscientific beliefs as somehow being irrational or "less than" scientific beliefs may be seen as elitist, "Western," or shortsighted given the evolution of science. Indeed, our original intention was to call this issue "The Science of Nonscientific Beliefs," but we understood that some extraordinary beliefs are cherished, and questioning them takes on costs akin to those incurred for questioning religious beliefs. People otherwise steeped in logic and scientific principles may defend these beliefs because they feel right, because they serve a function (as noted in the articles here), or because people hope, when hope is in short supply that, just maybe, they really do work. So, we softened our title and the associated language in our call for papers. One has to wonder if, in the interest of scientific advancement and the well-being of consumers, we should have maintained our "nonscientific" characterization of these beliefs. Is a polite, even "hands off" approach to these beliefs stultifying our ability to understand and help consumers? Although we realize that extraordinary beliefs may provide psychological benefits, such as decreasing anxiety or increasing feelings of control, consumers invest substantial time and money on items that cannot work according to known mechanisms based on scientific principles—smudging, healing crystals, magic amulets, statues of saints that if buried just so produce a successful house sale, detoxification diets, magnet therapy, homeopathy, astrology, feng shui, and, yes, possibly even acupuncture. Consumers feel love for products and brands, imbuing them with human characteristics they simply do not possess. Ailing consumers perceive cancer as a human enemy and plan to "kick its ass." Applying the rules of social interaction to nonhuman entities is clearly misplaced, just as believing in the efficacy of magical interventions defies logic, but in some contexts these actions take on the status of the heroic, of the bold, of the "never say die," leading to a social and scientific reluctance to question them—possibly to the detriment of consumers. Yet the field of consumer behavior has sidelined much of this investigation. The literatures on anthropomorphism, superstition, and pseudoscience are relatively new and relatively thin, especially in comparison to the vast literatures on "parent" judgments of causation and categorization. It is possible that such beliefs are marginal—cute, quirky, marginal phenomena—which might explain their limited exploration. However, we would like to leave the field with questions. Have we made these beliefs sacred in a way that makes taking them on counternormative—as outside the bounds of what we are allowed to study? Is questioning people's mistaken causal beliefs, especially when these beliefs are applied by the sick and demoralized, seen as a violation of what is appropriate? Have we made it against the rules to call out the irrational and the silly (cf. Vyse's essay in this issue)? Is the contribution of this issue not only in showcasing the present pieces of research but also in demonstrating the negative—in what wasn't studied in important, day-to-day, consequential consumer behavior? Perhaps that is what is extraordinary. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Volume 3, Number 4October 2018The Science of Extraordinary BeliefsGuest Editors: Pankaj Aggarwal, Lauren Block, Thomas Kramer, and Ann L. McGill Sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/699972 HistoryPublished online August 29, 2018 © 2018 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

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.