Showing papers by "James R. Bettman published in 2009"

Discounting time and time discounting: Subjective time perception and intertemporal preferences.

Abstract: Consumers often make decisions about outcomes and events that occur over time. This research examines consumers' sensitivity to the prospective duration relevant to their decisions and the implications of such sensitivity for intertemporal trade-offs, especially the degree of present bias (i.e., hyperbolic discounting). The authors show that participants' subjective perceptions of prospective duration are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in objective duration and are nonlinear and concave in objective time, consistent with psychophysical principles. More important, this lack of sensitivity can explain hyperbolic discounting. The results replicate standard hyperbolic discounting effects with respect to objective time but show a relatively constant rate of discounting with respect to subjective time perceptions. The results are replicated between subjects (Experiment 1) and within subjects (Experiments 2), with multiple time horizons and multiple descriptors, and with different measurement ord...

The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice

Abstract: In the course of daily encounters with other consumers, an individual may be incidentally exposed to various brands. We refer to these situations as incidental consumer brand encounters (ICBEs). This research examines how ICBEs influence brand choice. Four studies provide evidence that repeated exposure to simulated ICBEs increases choice of the focal brand for people not aware of the brand exposure, that perceptual fluency underlies these effects, and that these effects are moderated by perceivers’ automatic responses to the type of user observed with the brand.

Hope, Pride, and Processing During Optimal and Nonoptimal Times of Day

Abstract: We examine the conditions under which the distinct positive emotions of hope versus pride facilitate more or less fluid cognitive processing. Using individuals’ naturally occurring time of day preferences (i.e., morning vs. evening hours), we show that specific positive emotions can differentially influence processing resources. We argue that specific positive emotions are more likely to influence processing and behavior during nonoptimal times of day, when association-based processing is more likely. We show in three experiments that hope, pride, and a neutral state differentially influence fluid processing on cognitive tasks. Incidental hope facilitates fluid processing during nonoptimal times of day (compared with pride and neutral), improving performance on tasks requiring fluid intelligence (Experiment 1) and increasing valuation estimates on tasks requiring that preferences be constructed on the spot (Experiments 2 and 3). We also provide evidence that these differences in preference and valuation occur through a process of increased imagination (Experiment 3). We contribute to emotion theory by showing that different positive emotions have different implications for processing during nonoptimal times of day.

Using fMRI to Inform Marketing Research: Challenges and Opportunities:

Abstract: King-Casas, B., D. Tomlin, C. Anen, C.F. Camerer, S.R. Quartz, and P.R. Montague (2005), “Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange,” Science, 308 (5718), 78–83. Knutson, B., J. Taylor, M. Kaufman, R. Peterson, and G. Glover (2005), “Distributed Neural Representation of Expected Value,” Journal of Neuroscience, 25 (19), 4806–4812. Kuhnen, C.M. and B. Knutson (2005), “The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking,” Neuron, 47 (5), 763–70. Luce, M.F. (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409–433. ———, James R. Bettman, and John W. Payne (2001), “Emotional Decisions: Tradeoff Difficulty and Coping in Consumer Choice,” Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–209. Luce, R.D. (1977), “The Choice Axiom After Twenty Years,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15 (3), 215–33. Mason, M.F., M.I. Norton, J.D. Van Horn, D.M. Wegner, S.T. Grafton, and C.N. Macrae (2007), “Wandering Minds: The Default Network and Stimulus-Independent Thought,” Science, 315 (5810), 393–95. Poldrack, R.A. (2006), “Can Cognitive Processes Be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data?” Trends in Cognitive Science, 10 (2), 59–63. Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes (2005), “fMRI in the Public Eye,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 (2), 159–64. Schultz, W., P. Dayan, and P.R. Montague (1997), “A Neural Substrate of Prediction and Reward,” Science, 275 (5306), 1593–99. Sharot, T., A.M. Riccardi, C.M. Raio, and E.A. Phelps (2007), “Neural Mechanisms Mediating Optimism Bias,” Nature, 450 (7166), 102–105. Simonson, I. (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158–74. Tankersley, D., C.J. Stowe, and S.A. Huettel (2007), “Altruism Is Associated with an Increased Neural Response to Agency,” Nature Neuroscience, 10 (2), 150–51.

Separate Neural Mechanisms Underlie Choices and Strategic Preferences in Risky Decision Making

Abstract: Adaptive decision making in real-world contexts often relies on strategic simplifications of decision problems. Yet, the neural mechanisms that shape these strategies and their implementation remain largely unknown. Using an economic decision-making task, we dissociate brain regions that predict specific choices fromthose predictingan individual’s preferred strategy. Choices that maximized gains or minimized losses were predicted by functional magnetic resonance imaging activation in ventromedial prefrontal cortex or anterior insula, respectively. However, choices that followed a simplifying strategy (i.e., attending to overall probability of winning) were associated with activation in parietal and lateral prefrontal cortices. Dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, through differential functional connectivity with parietal and insular cortex, predicted individual variability in strategic preferences. Finally, we demonstrate that robust decision strategies follow from neural sensitivity to rewards. We conclude that decision making reflects more than compensatory interaction of choice-related regions; in addition, specific brain systems potentiate choices depending on strategies, traits, and context.

Physician, Heal Thyself: Positive Affect, Risk, and Treatment Decisions in Health Care

Abstract: Our paper looks at the influence of positive affect in a high stakes decision making domain, i.e. health care. In a series of studies, we examine the role that positive affect plays in physicians’ risk assessments and treatment recommendations. We find that positive affect plays an important role in physicians’ clinical judgments, even in standard treatment situations. We look specifically at differences in propensity to recommend traditional vs. non-traditional treatments. We also consider patient preferences to determine when physician behavior is more likely to be congruent with patient preferences for care.