Search results

Past marketing research has found that hedonic utility is more important for Western cultures, whereas social utility is more important for Eastern cultures, suggesting differential positioning in each culture. However, the research has so far focused on a single choice context of one brand. This paper aims to examine cultural differences in utility importance using two brand choice contexts: single choice and brand selection.

Four studies (n = 1268) were conducted. Study 1 focused on a single choice context by asking directly about utility importance when choosing a cellphone. Study 2 focused on a brand selection context using conjoint analysis for the same cellphone category used in Study 1. To validate the results of Studies 1 and 2 with the categories of perfume, sports shoes and computers, Study 3 analyzed single and selection contexts using latent regression methods. Finally, Study 4 explored the role of cognitive load in explaining the differences between the two choice contexts using the laptop category.

The analyses of the brand selection context, which simulates real-life choice, revealed that the importance ascribed to utilities was not idiosyncratic for each culture. In contrast, single-choice contexts demonstrated stereotypical cultural differences.

Positioning a specific utility message to fit the culture stereotype might not be necessary, as it does not always affect brand choice in a competitive environment.

Marketers often assume that functional, hedonic and socially conspicuous utilities in choosing a brand differ for men and women, thus different marketing strategies are required for each gender. To date, most of the research studies have used self-reported measures when shopping in general or in regard to a single product. The purpose of this research is to examine this question using two different contexts of brand choice: single choice evaluation (SCE) and brand selection context (BSC). This assessment will clarify whether male and female utilities when choosing a brand are indeed inherent and consistent.

Data were collected using surveys in three studies (N = 923). Conjoint analysis and ICLV (integrated choice and latent variables) models were examined.

BSC analysis that more closely mimics real-life contexts revealed that the consideration of these utilities is generally similar for men and women, while the SCE analysis showed significant gender differences.

In the context of choosing between brands, stereotypical gender targeting may be ineffective and might not be the best allocation of resources for marketers.

Gender stereotypes in advertising seem to reconstruct differences that are not significant in a realistic brand selection context.

The context of choice was found to be a condition boundary for gender differences in brand choice considerations. Gender differences are not evolutionary or inherent.

This paper aims to address the role of product involvement in the brand preference formation of men and women. Product involvement can be defined as a consumer’s motivation for product purchase that affects their information processing strategies when forming a brand preference (e.g. more automatic at low levels vs more deliberative at high levels). Given that gender differences are found to be context-dependent, it was expected that, when forming a single brand preference, men would emphasize instrumental aspects (functional and socially conspicuous utilities) and women the experiential utility of the brand only with high-involvement-level products.

A descriptive survey (n = 459) using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used following an online experiment where involvement level was manipulated (n = 255) to validate the results.

Stereotypical gender differences appeared at high, but not low-involvement levels. Theoretically, these findings question the evolutionary basis of gender differences, as differences were not consistent at both levels.

The findings raise questions about the efficacy of segmenting by gender when aiming to increase brand preference of low-involvement products, whereas stereotypical targeting seem to be effective for increasing preference for high-involvement ones.

For the first time, the role of product involvement and gender was examined in brand preference formation. This can theoretically clarify whether gender differences are consistent or dependent on the level of involvement. This information can help in designing efficient marketing strategies for products with different involvement levels.

The purpose of the article is to identify the factors of the success of the change management process in IT programs.

The article presents the results of quantitative research conducted among 221 managers involved in the process of IT program management. In addition, to achieve the assumed goal, a factor analysis and cluster analysis were carried out on the basis of which a model of the relationship between success determinants and the change management process in the IT program was built.

Nine factors significant for the change management of IT programs have been identified. What is more, they illustrate 78.23% of all significant variables that may occur and significantly affect the success of the IT change program. In addition, it was indicated which factors have a significant impact on achieving the success of the program in individual sub-processes of the course of change.

The article identified 38 variables determining the success of an IT program as a result of a literature review. Secondly, the article responds to the call of Teubner (2018) for IT programs and Vuorinen and Martinsuo (2018) for programs of change.

The article complements the current theory with identified factors of success in the change management process in IT programs. In addition, the article presents recommendations for managers regarding the importance of the identified factors and their impact on the success of the program.

Prior research identified conflicts in implementing performance measurement systems that include both financial and non-financial measures. Attempts to incorporate non-financial measures, for example, balanced scorecards (BSCs), have shown short-term success, only to be replaced with systems that rely on financial measures. We develop a theoretical model to explore evaluators’ choice and use of the most important performance measurement criterion among financial and non-financial measures.

Our model links participants’ prior evaluation experiences with their attitudes about relative accounting qualities and with their choice of the most important performance measure. This choice subsequently affects their evaluation judgments of managers who perform differentially on financial versus non-financial measures.

Experimental testing of our structural equation model indicates that it meets the accepted goodness of fit criteria. We conclude that experience has an influence on choice of performance measures and on decision heuristics in making such evaluations. We suggest that an “experience gap” must be considered when deciding which performance metrics to emphasize in scorecards or similar performance reports. We analyzed four accounting qualities, importance, relevance, reliability, and comparability and found that importance, relevance, and reliability have strong effects on how managers prioritize and use accounting measures.

We conducted our study in a controlled, experimental setting, including participants with diverse experiences. We provide direct evidence of participants’ experience and attitudes about the relative accounting qualities of financial and non-financial measures which we link to their choice of the most important performance measure. We link this choice to their performance evaluations.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence on the choice of performance measures used in dual-class firms to incentivize CEOs.

This paper uses coarsened exact matching and propensity score matching to match the dual-class firm sample with a control group of single-class firms. This study uses matching estimators to provide an analysis of how a dual-class structure affects the design of performance measures in performance-based stock awards. In addition, regression models are used to investigate the effect of a dual-class structure on performance measure choices.

This paper finds that market-based metrics are less likely to be used by dual-class firms relative to single-class firms. In addition, peer-based measures are much less common for dual-class than single-class firms. This study also finds that the length of the CEO’s performance evaluation period does not differ between dual-class and single-class firms.

This paper attempts to investigate the choice of performance measures to find out the extent to which the board of directors focuses CEO efforts on firms’ long-term versus short-term objectives.

The findings reveal the relationships between the dual-class stock structure and the contractual features of CEO performance-based stock awards, provide empirical evidence for the company’s compensation committee and provide implications for the evolving practices of performance measures regarding CEO stock compensation. The findings are also useful to regulators, compensation consultants and firms pursuing efficient design of executive compensation.

This paper is among the first to study the determinants of compensation contracts. Second, prior literature seldom controls for CEO stock ownership, but this study matches dual-class firms to a control group of single-class firms that are similar in terms of CEO stock ownership and other important firm characteristics. Finally, these findings suggest that dual-class firms shield their executives from short-term market pressures and design stock compensation contracts that deemphasize volatile stock prices.

Behavioral economics poses a challenge for the welfare evaluation of choices, particularly those that involve risk. It demands that we recognize that the descriptive account of behavior toward those choices might not be the ones we were all taught, and still teach, and that subjective risk perceptions might not accord with expert assessments of probabilities. In addition to these challenges, we are faced with the need to jettison naive notions of revealed preferences, according to which every choice by a subject expresses her objective function, as behavioral evidence forces us to confront pervasive inconsistencies and noise in a typical individual’s choice data. A principled account of errant choice must be built into models used for identification and estimation. These challenges demand close attention to the methodological claims often used to justify policy interventions. They also require, we argue, closer attention by economists to relevant contributions from cognitive science. We propose that a quantitative application of the “intentional stance” of Dennett provides a coherent, attractive and general approach to behavioral welfare economics.

We take Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) seriously by rigorously estimating structural models using the full set of CPT parameters. Much of the literature only estimates a subset of CPT parameters, or more simply assumes CPT parameter values from prior studies. Our data are from laboratory experiments with undergraduate students and MBA students facing substantial real incentives and losses. We also estimate structural models from Expected Utility Theory (EUT), Dual Theory (DT), Rank-Dependent Utility (RDU), and Disappointment Aversion (DA) for comparison. Our major finding is that a majority of individuals in our sample locally asset integrate. That is, they see a loss frame for what it is, a frame, and behave as if they evaluate the net payment rather than the gross loss when one is presented to them. This finding is devastating to the direct application of CPT to these data for those subjects. Support for CPT is greater when losses are covered out of an earned endowment rather than house money, but RDU is still the best single characterization of individual and pooled choices. Defenders of the CPT model claim, correctly, that the CPT model exists “because the data says it should.” In other words, the CPT model was borne from a wide range of stylized facts culled from parts of the cognitive psychology literature. If one is to take the CPT model seriously and rigorously then it needs to do a much better job of explaining the data than we see here.

The purpose of this study is to examine the strategies used by consumers to control themselves in the Singles’ Day promotion. It also examines how promotion and social influence affect consumers’ purchase behavior and post-purchase evaluation.

A mixed methods approach including a quantitative study (N = 480) and a follow-up qualitative study (N = 35) was conducted to verify the hypotheses and provide deeper insights.

This study demonstrates that consumers allocate in-store slack in shopping budgets to restrict unplanned purchases and in-store slack is positively related to post-purchase evaluation. Social influence, which helps consumers rationalize purchase decisions, has positive effects on planned purchases and post-purchase evaluation. Both promotion strength and promotion range moderate the relationship between in-store slack and unplanned purchases.

Most studies investigate how promotion designs affect consumers’ in-store decision-making. This study focuses on the Singles’ Day promotion in China and examines the tactics consumers use to control purchase behavior in the promotion.