Search results

This paper aims to demonstrate how and why holistic thinking mitigates the negative impact of large assortments on satisfaction.

Five between-subject experiments demonstrate the mitigating role of holism on choice overload across a variety of contexts.

While large assortments create overload feeling, holistic thinking mitigates the negative impact of overload feeling on satisfaction for both chronic (Studies 1a and 1b) and decision-specific (Studies 1b and 1c) holistic thinkers, as well as those who adopt a more holistic thinking style because of the decision goal (Study 2) or incidental priming (Study 3).

This paper introduces a new moderator of choice overload effects – holistic thinking – and shows how it mitigates the negative indirect effect of assortment size on satisfaction. This paper contributes to the literature on assortment size effects and shows that even when assortment size increases overload feeling, this negative impact of assortment size can still be reduced.

Marketers with large assortments can reduce the negative impact of overload feeling and increase satisfaction by promoting the hedonic features of the products and encouraging holistic thinking. Similarly, consumers can reduce the negative impact of overload feeling by approaching their consumption more holistically either because of their individual traits or situational factors.

This research contributes a new moderator to the choice overload literature: holistic thinking. In doing so, it adopts a broader consideration of the decision-making process underlying overload effects and pinpoints how (i.e. by which path) holistic thinking mitigates the negative impact of large assortments.

Integrating conceptual perspectives from social exclusion, thinking style and context effects, this study aims to examine how different types of social exclusion influence attraction and compromise effects.

Eight studies were conducted. To establish the causal relationship between social exclusion types and context effects, this study uses experimental designs in all studies.

The attraction effect is stronger when consumers feel rejected than ignored, whereas the compromise effect is stronger when they feel ignored than rejected. Consumers who feel rejected increase their propensity to think holistically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for asymmetrically dominant options. Conversely, those who feel ignored increase their propensity to think analytically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for compromise options.

The findings show that consumer preferences for one option over the other alternatives in choice contexts are susceptible to subtle differences in the manner that exclusion is communicated. The studies are limited to recall tasks and scenarios that previous research has shown to be effective. Future research may use actual exclusion to corroborate this study’s findings.

Marketing practitioners may benefit from this study’s findings when it comes to an increase in the relative share of their target brand against their competitor brands by introducing a third option.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to provide evidence that exclusion communicated in an explicit manner produces the attraction effect, whereas exclusion communicated in an implicit manner produces the compromise effect. Given that threatening situations often influence individuals’ preferences and choices, how social exclusion shapes cognitive processes is an empirical question worthy of investigation.

This article aims to examine how a person’s thinking style, specifically holistic versus analytic, and a firm’s crisis apology with the remedial solution framed in “why” (vs “how”) terms can interactively impact consumers’ perceived efficacy of the firm to respond to the crisis and their impression or evaluation of the brand.

Hypotheses were tested through three experimental studies involving 308 participants recruited in China. Participants answered survey questions investigating the interactive effects from consumers’ thinking style (culture as a proxy in Study 1, measured in Study 2 or primed in Study 3) and a brand’s crisis apology with the remedial solution framed in “why” (vs “how”) terms on consumers’ perceived efficacy and evaluation of the firm.

The frame of the remedial solution resulting in a higher evaluation improvement depended on a consumer’s thinking style. For holistic thinkers, a “why” (vs “how”) framed remedial solution resulted in a higher evaluation improvement; however, for analytic thinkers, a “how” (vs “why”) framed remedial solution resulted in a higher evaluation improvement. Additionally, the results showed that a consumer’s perceived efficacy of the brand being able to successfully respond to the crisis mediated the interactive effects of the remedial solution framing and thinking styles on the evaluation improvement.

The findings provide evidence that framing of the remedial solution can be leveraged as a tool to reduce negative impact resulting from a brand crisis. Specifically, the results suggest that companies may do well to employ a “why” framed remedial solution, particularly in cases where consumers are likely to process information holistically. Conversely, a “how” framed remedial solution may be effective in situations where consumers are likely to process information analytically.

This research contributes to the literature, being among the first to consider how the remedial solution framing in a firm’s apology can enhance people’s evaluation of the brand and decrease the perceived negative impact resulting from the brand crisis.

This research aims to investigate how preference for marketing research methodology (quantitative vs qualitative) is contingent on the thinking orientation (analytic vs holistic) of the researchers.

Thinking orientation was measured and then manipulated in laboratory experiments. Cross-cultural evidence was sought by comparing Western and East Asian participants.

Results demonstrate that researchers with an analytic (holistic) thinking orientation tend to perceive quantitative (qualitative) methodology more favorably. Further, the need to offer reasons in support of the choice strengthened the effect of thinking orientation.

Understanding researchers’ preferences for one research methodology over the other has broad relevance for external constituents, as it involves a great deal of managerial commitment in terms of time and money and can affect the results of the research.

This is the first study to investigate factors that underlie researchers’ choice regarding research methodology, and it also extends the literature on analytic versus holistic thinking orientation in the marketing field.

Cross-selling becomes critical for business success as pent-up travel demand drives travelers to spend more on vacations. The primary purpose of this research is to identify if an unexpected discount leads to consumers' additional purchases online. This research proposes effective cross-selling strategies across hospitality sectors.

Two experiments were conducted to investigate factors that influence travelers' add-on spending. Study 1 determined the psychological mechanism of unexpected discounts on hotel customers' additional spending by individual thinking styles. A 2 (discount: none vs surprise) x 2 (thinking style: holistic vs analytic) quasi-experimental design was utilized. Study 2 applied the identified pricing strategy by individual thinking styles to cruise line add-on selling. A 2 (discount: none vs surprise) x 2 (product type: hedonic vs utilitarian) x 2 thinking style (holistic vs analytic) quasi-experiment was used.

The findings indicate that an unexpected discount increases holistic thinkers' overall travel spending, regardless of add-on types. Although the unexpected discount effect on analytic thinkers' overall spending was significant, an unexpected discount enhanced their intentions to purchase a hedonic add-on.

Hospitality operators can improve cross-selling strategies with a surprise discount offer. Offering add-on items in the same transaction with a cabin booking will increase add-on purchases. Hotels can make add-on purchases more appealing by emphasizing the experiential aspects of a hotel stay.

This research broadens knowledge of cross-selling by linking add-on purchases to discount pricing on a primary product. The findings provide new strategies to stimulate add-on purchases and maximize profitability.

The purpose of this article is to review the series of five articles which have appeared in the Journal since the June 2007 edition. The authors of the articles in the series were tasked with exploring the theme of holistic care and integrated practice with BME individuals and communities who access health and social care services. This article explores how far this issue has been addressed, and offers some ways forward in thinking about integrated care for BME individuals and communities.

The purpose of this paper is to gain some insights from a leading scholar of the cross-cultural cognitive social psychology field on how cultural differences are viewed, understood, and dealt with, and thus to contribute to enrich the way cultural differences are framed in cross-cultural management research.

The author conducts a formal, semi-structured interview with Richard Nisbett for a duration of 90 minutes. The author extracts the key message from the interview and re-structures the conversation in a meaningful manner.

From his cognitive social psychology lens, Richard Nisbett views that any cross-cultural contact between different thinking styles is advantageous because differences help address the limitations of one’s own thinking style.

The insights from cross-cultural cognitive social psychology encourage cross-cultural management researchers to further investigate the positive consequences of cultural differences.

Richard Nisbett’s own journey from a young scientist who describes himself as an extreme universalist, to a mature intellectual who understands and appreciates different thinking style, is itself a concrete example of how differences can lead to the positive. The author summarizes three factors that are key to a positive outcome of cultural differences: curiosity and openness to cultural differences; habit of critical thinking; and intense interaction with culturally different others.

This paper aims to improve the understanding of integrated thinking, as it is a central concept in the integrated reporting (IR) framework that has implications for sustainability reporting, as the holistic view of integrated thinking clarifies the value creation process of organisations and facilitates the incorporation of sustainability issues into the corporate mindset. The study investigates whether there are contextual factors that may be influencing the way integrated thinking is reflected in the reports. The paper focusses on public companies because integrated thinking in this sector plays an important role in terms of sustainability reporting, as these organisations must address more complex and diverse relationships with their stakeholders.

The methodology is based on a content analysis of the IR reports issued by 21 public sector companies. For this analysis, this study proposed specific dimensions and variables that demonstrate this way of thinking. These allow us to develop an integrated thinking index (ITI) based on a frequency análisis. The influence of the country’s legal system, the sector of activity and the number of years of experience in IR is studied, by conducting t-test and ANOVA analyses and a correlation study.

The results demonstrate the existence of limited integrated thinking characterised by poor connectivity of information, lack of a clear link between materiality analysis and strategy and insufficient forward-looking perspective. The findings reveal that contextual and institutional factors have little influence on the levels of integrated thinking achieved.

The concept of integrated thinking has not been sufficiently explored to date, despite its importance in the IR conceptual framework. The study proposes specific dimensions and variables to be considered in preparing reports that exhibit this holistic way of thinking. The recommendations can help information preparers and improve the accountability and transparency of public sector companies.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of service failure severity on brand forgiveness and to investigate the moderating effects of interpersonal attachment styles and thinking styles on the service failure severity–brand forgiveness relationship.

The authors used retrospective experience sampling to collect the data and structural equation modeling (AMOS 24) to analyze 570 responses collected via an online survey.

This study shows that the service failure severity–brand forgiveness relationship is not always negative, as different conditions may amplify or weaken it. Specifically, a secure attachment style and holistic thinking weaken the negative impact of service failure severity on brand forgiveness, whereas an anxious attachment style and analytic thinking negatively amplify the relationship. An avoidance attachment style did not appear to play a role.

This study should help hotels fine-tune their segmentation, targeting and positioning efforts and may also help in implementing more focused recovery strategies.

This study provides insights into the role of psychological traits in amplifying/reducing the negative impact of service failure severity on brand forgiveness, thus showing the importance of developing the psychological profiles of customers beyond demographic profiling. The emotional and cognitive typologies of consumers are key to understanding the dependence of forgiveness on service failure severity.

The paper examines the cultural differences in consumers' evaluations of vertical brand extensions.

A 2 (extension types: upward, downward) × 2 (nationality: USA, China) × 2 (ownership: owner, non-owner) between-subjects design with thinking styles as a covariate was employed to test consumers' evaluations of vertical brand extensions. A total of 228 subjects from the US and 194 from China participated in the two experimental studies.

The paper finds that consumers prefer downward extensions to upward extensions. Furthermore, Chinese consumers have even more favorable evaluations of downward extension products than do American consumers. In addition, analytic thinkers exhibit a stronger ownership effect than holistic thinkers.

The research contributes to the understanding of culture differences in vertical brand extension evaluations.