<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><!--RSS generated by Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator on 5/27/2012 11:28:21 PM--><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Consumer Science: Posts</title>
    <link>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx</link>
    <description>RSS feed for the Posts list.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 21:28:21 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Windows SharePoint Services V3 RSS Generator</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ConsumerSciencePosts" /><feedburner:info uri="consumerscienceposts" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
      <title>14th KULeuven Marketing Winter Camp: Speakers' slides</title>
      <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConsumerSciencePosts/~3/5nGc_98tOTU/ViewPost.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClassA1237B2BCF724246A949AC4DB5593532>
<div>The speakers' slides are available through the links below.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/consumerscience/wintercamp/Slides/Christophe%20Van%20den%20Bulte.pptx">Christophe Van den Bulte</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/consumerscience/wintercamp/Slides/Michel%20Tuan%20Pham.ppt">Michel T. Pham</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/consumerscience/wintercamp/Slides/Laurens%20Cherchye.pptx">Laurens Cherchye</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/consumerscience/wintercamp/Slides/Stefan%20Stremersch.pptx">Stefan Stremersch</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/consumerscience/wintercamp/Slides/Jim%20Bettman.ppt">Jim Bettman</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kenneth Wathne - please contact the author</div></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> Events;Conferences</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 12/31/2009 13:10</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Bert Weemaes</author>
      <category>Events;Conferences</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:15:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=197</guid>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=197</feedburner:origLink></item>
    <item>
      <title>Get off robe, you might become "Thomas Edison"!</title>
      <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConsumerSciencePosts/~3/L4RnPYINals/ViewPost.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClassD5E23FDA3C9B428A82E3DB389AFD82BB><p>I just run over wikipedia's clothing history page(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_clothing">link</a>), and found something might be interesting. It's not surprised that the fashion clothing of human becomes shorter  and more elegant after thousands of years' evolution. That is, people used to wear rougher robe and take longer hat or veil  in our history across cultures. But now days,  we wear short shirt,  suit, hat, and take off veils for most of countries. Consistently, our scientific technology developed much faster than ever before. Why?  I'm thinking there might be a correlation between human's fashion type and creativity. That is, the much shorter, more elegant and open  clothing might loose human's conservative mind, which makes us behave more open and creative. Look around the world now, the current most creative scientific work has been done in Western countries (eg. US, Germany, UK, Belgium, etc) or in the countries adapted the modern fashion clothing for years (eg. Japan, China). However, readers might also argue that the creative work should also be correlated with the richness of a country, but I think it is not necessary. For instance, some of the  middle East countries (eg. Saudi Arabia) are rich, but relatively less creative work has been done there. How does this come?  I think the type of clothing might be contributed to the explanation. </p>
<p> To be more specifically, longer clothing, like robe or veil, covers most part of our human body, which seems as a way to protect ourselves from immoral observing or hurt (eg. Injured by the cold weather). Hence, this type of clothing could be seen as a kind of prevention cue, as the function of this clothing highlights on the prevention function.  On the other hand, shorter and elegant clothing is more open. Wearing  this kind of clothing might cause people feel more freely to explore the outside world.  So the short and elegant clothing might be signaled as a kind of promotion cue. Previous research has suggested that promotion cues bolster both creative insight and creative generation  rather than the prevention cues(<a href="http://www.socolab.de/content/files/Jens pubs/friedman_foerster2001.pdf">Friedman &amp; Forster, 2001</a>). Therefore, I suspect that the shorter and elegant clothing might further facilitate more creative mind set. </p>
<p>We can test this hypothesis from different ways. For instance, one basic experiment could be done. Participants might be asked to choose one cloth from the two types. One  type of cloth is short and elegant , but the other type of cloth is long and thick. After this task, people are asked to choose one of the two mobile phones (One is Iphone4, which is more creative. The other is Nokia phone with the same price. Note:  You can find  Nokia phone with same price as iphone in market).    If my hypothesis is correct,  people who choose short cloth might be more likely to choose Iphone, too. Furthermore, male participants could also be asked to rate the beauty of women from two groups of pictures. One group women  wear shorter dress, but the same women  in other group wear longer robe.  If those men who rated pictures are further asked to choose one of the mobile phone, I predict that the men who rated women with shorter dress might be more likely to choose creative mobile phone(eg. iphone4), too.  In addition, a real life study could also be tested. As we know, people wear shorter and thinner in summer ,but wear longer and thicker in winter. Therefore, according to my hypothesis, the more  creative product should be sold better in summer than winter, however, we also need to control other factors (eg. Public holidays ) when test this. So you might become  a person like &quot;Thomas Edison&quot;, after you get off the” longer robe”. </p>       
 </div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> consumer behavior</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 3/7/2011 3:35</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Wen Du</author>
      <category>consumer behavior</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 02:23:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=210</guid>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=210</feedburner:origLink></item>
    <item>
      <title>Could the bad luck be washed away?   </title>
      <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConsumerSciencePosts/~3/M83iE-4wlBE/ViewPost.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClassD9CCA83A459341979F953BE0758882CB><p>Just got some time to rethink about the Macbeth effect. Zhong and Liljenquist (2006, <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5792/1451.abstract">paper</a>) suggested that people have needs to clean themselves after their moral purity is at stake. Like lady Macbeth, people believe that washing themselves could remove sins. For instance, the authors showed that people are more likely to choose washing products after they feel their morality is threatened. I'm thinking:  does the so called &quot;washing effect&quot; only happen when people feel their moral purity is in threaten (eg. Recall unethical deed from past)? I, myself, sometimes also feel that taking a bath might also wash away my bad luck. So my question is: when you feel unlucky, do you also have an intention to choose detergent products more often than other types of products, does the concept of washing yourself become more accessible in your mind when you got so damned bad luck? Does cleaning our body only remove the immorality, or does the washing effect also remove all the negative feeling? It's not so clear from the original paper (See my former attached paper link). Furthermore, for the positive event on you, such as when you have good luck or feel morally good, do you still have the need to wash yourself? Interestingly, the traditional chinese culture believe that washing your body could wash away your good luck (<a href="http://www.nwcca.org/culture/cny.html">See the link here</a>) Wish all of you who read this note have a lot of good lucks, but remember to take a shower for confronting another different good luck :) </p></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> social psych</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 3/4/2011 19:00</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Wen Du</author>
      <category>social psych</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:04:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=209</guid>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=209</feedburner:origLink></item>
    <item>
      <title>From moral to oral</title>
      <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConsumerSciencePosts/~3/Q1IoYpOdLOQ/ViewPost.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass746AB13180DD4CB0A99B5C1DBA34CC7D><p> This is a draft of my proposal, and I might present it in one of the next Tuesday sessions. Welcome to comment on it. If you don't like it, throw it in the dustbin :) </p>
<p> Disgust, as an universal emotion, is believed to originate in the mammalian bitter taste rejection system. People who have experienced relevant unpleasant tasting bitter, sour or salty express a strong emotion of disgust (Chapman et al., 2009). Rozin, Haidt and Fincher (2009) suggested this evaluation of disgust reflected our most basic biological reaction to avoid the physical disgusting source, and the “disgust output” came out even without  cognitive evaluation. Rozin and Fallon (1987) mentioned the disgust is original food-related emotion, which protects us to  get disease from the disgusting source.  Rozin, Haidt and Fincher(2009) pointed out, during human’s evolution,  our disgust output system was harnessed to a disgust evaluation system which responded not to our sensory inputs (eg. Bitter flavor) but to more cognitive appraisals (eg. spider). That is, the disgust evaluation system originally worked for evaluating potential risky food on the basis of the food’s nature or perceived origin. Later on, the category which elicited the feeling of disgust was enlarged though some combination of biological and cultural evolution. Hence, the disgust evaluation system started to deal with other types of disgust, like the reminder of our animal nature and moral offense (Rozin, Haidt &amp; Fincher, 2009). It seems that those further mentioned moral violation (offense) shares a closing relationship with other basic pathogen disgusting source (eg. disgusting food), since all these elicitors actually activate similar disgust output. Therefore, Chapman et al. (2009) argued that the feeling of disgust is evolved from oral to moral. Several evidence has been found to support this argument. For instance, Zhong and Liljenquist (2006) reported that physical cleansing alleviates the upsetting consequences of unethical behavior and reduces threats to one's moral self-image, which suggested a psychological association between bodily purity and moral purity. In other words, their research inferred that the physical disgust is correlated with a abstract level of moral disgust. Another research from Schnall et al. (2008) found that  priming people with the physical disgust source would make subsequent moral judgment more severe. Furthermore, evidence from neuroscience suggested that both of the temporal and frontal cortices in our brain were activated when people either feel physical disgust or moral disgust (Moll et al., 2005). More interestingly, Chapman et al. (2009) found that participants showed a similar facial motor activity when they experienced disgusting taste, saw disgusting pictures or was involved in unfair decision making.  More and more evidence like those aforementioned suggested that  our moral judgment and gustatory judgment might share a same disgust evaluation system. Recently, Eskine, Kacinik and Prinz (2011) reported that people’s taste perception could significantly influence their moral judgment. That is, the more immoral judgment outcome could be introduced by guiding people experience a physically disgusting taste. These authors ascribed the reasons of their finding to the association link between physical disgust and moral disgust, such that disgusting taste perception would elicit greater disgusting feeling on moral evaluation.  This finding itself revealed a consistent prediction with the “disgust is from oral to moral” hypothesis. In addition, it also suggested that our embodiment processing could influence our moral judgment that is seen as a high level cognitive processing. However, our current question is: Does the high level of cognitive processing influence our embodiment processing? </p>
<p> We argue that if the reported effect is indeed due to the morally introduced feeling of disgust, we might suspect that the feeling of moral disgust could subsequently trigger our sensitivity change for our taste perception, since disgust as a general emotion could reflect our reaction on both taste perception and perception on moral judgment. In addition, if the moral feeling of disgust belonging to the same category as the disgust feeling from physical disgust, we might also expect that the morally introduced feeling of disgust would cause a more physical disgust feeling from the taste in food or drinks. As suggested by Schwarz and Clore  (1983), affect as a type of information, were also frequently used  in our decision making. Therefore, we predict people who experienced a moral disgust might be easily to transfer their feeling of disgust to other domains, such as their taste perception. As the flavor of bitter, sour and salty are much correlated with the basic gustatory of disgust (Chapman et al., 2009), we suspect that people might become more sensitive towards these taste flavors. That is, people might feel more sour, bitter, or salty if they feel morally disgusted. On the other hand, other taste like spicy and sweet are irrelevant with the feeling of disgust. Hence, we didn’t expect the morally introduced feeling of disgust would influence people’s perception on these taste. As follows, three studies are proposed to test our hypothesis. </p>
<p>Study 1 aims to figure out if our taste perception could be influenced by previous introduced moral judgment, especially by the introduced moral disgust feeling.  The experiment is a  5(Beverage types: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, spicy)* 2 (Moral judgment type: moral disgust, moral control) between subjects design. Both beverage type and moral judgment type are between subject factors.  Participants are asked to evaluate one type of liquid juice after they evaluate either moral disgusting stories or control stories, and the liquid juice is randomly selected from one of the five options which have different taste. We predict that people might report more flavor of salty, sour or bitter in the moral disgust condition than those in the control condition. But there might be no effect for the sweet or spicy juice. </p>
<p>Study 2 tries to replicate study 1, and  further intend to show that our taste could be misled by the introduced feeling of disgust even without physical contracting with the stimulis owning flavors (eg. Water). Furthermore, if our prediction is correct, we also suspect that the moral admired story might not influence our taste perception on sour, bitter or salty.  However, on the other hand, the flavor of sweet is correlated with positive affect (Baron , 1997). Hence , it is possible that the moral admired story, for example, the moral story which might introduce the feeling of love, would make people feel more sweet taste, but this positive feeling can’t affect other tastes, like bitter, sour, etc. So we plan to set up three conditions in this study. They are moral disgust condition, moral neutral condition and moral admired condition. In the experiment, participants are asked to evaluate an unknown beverage in a small cup.  Actually, the beverage is water, but we told participants it is a new type of beverage. After they are randomly asked to evaluate one of the three types moral stories, participants are further asked to indicate their taste perceptions on different taste dimensions (ie. sweet, sour, bitter, spicy, salty). </p>
<p>The last study is designed for testing a possible moderator on our proposed effect. That is, we suspect that disgust sensitivity might moderate our prediction. So people who are more sensitive towards the disgusting stimulis might show a stronger feeling transferring effect. In other words, those people might feel more stronger on their taste feeling of sour, bitter or salty after evaluating moral disgusting stories. </p>
</p>Ask me relevant reference if you need </p></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> social psych</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 3/1/2011 17:56</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Wen Du</author>
      <category>social psych</category>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:06:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=208</guid>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=208</feedburner:origLink></item>
    <item>
      <title>Ironic effects of talking about car safety: it could be bad for the environment!</title>
      <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConsumerSciencePosts/~3/CrU0E5365xE/ViewPost.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class=ExternalClass07AF1B7BF41E48F38159FD8BAB0FF0EA>
<div>Social responsibility considerations have led car makers and advertisers around the world to adopt self regulatory rules that prohibit promoting fast, flamboyant or outright aggressive driving (see e.g. the <a href="http://www.easa-alliance.org/page.aspx/353">European Advertising Standards Alliance</a>, the <a href="http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/marketing/id8532/index.html">ICC code on advertising and marketing communication practice</a> or the <a href="http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/BCAP-Code/BCAP-TV-Code/BCAP-TV-Item.aspx?q=BCAP+Television+Code_Section+11+-+Other+Categories_11.9+Driving+standards">Committee of Advertising Practice</a>). In other cases, these rules are even enforced by governmental institutions, e.g. <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/car-advertisers-animate-their-way-around-the-rules/article1786222/">in Canada</a>, or similarly on the obligatory display of fuel consumption and CO2 emission enforced by the European Commission (directive (1999/94/EC)28). Interestingly, that same European Commission encourages the publication and display of e.g. NCAP safety scores, which is of course a good thing, because market mechanisms encourage car makers to provide us with cars that have the best safety features possible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But all safety and no play makes Danny a dull boy. And Danny doesn't want to be a dull boy, not by far...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Risk homeostasis theory (Wilde, 1982) says that people seek an optimal level of risk, where the benefits of taking risk (e.g. getting to an appointment in time, driving fun) balance the drawbacks (e.g. getting a speeding ticket, crashing). Therefore, when security increases, people adjust their behavior so that the resulting risk stays the same. This has been shown with ABS, helmet-wearing cyclists, seatbelts, etc (e.g. Johnson, Jurik, Kreb, &amp; Rose, 1978).  Although this theory predicts that accidents stay constant (or decline less than expected), more aggressive driving is less ecologically friendly. Therefore we investigated whether increased perceived safety is enough to create an effect in line with risk homeostasis theory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To investigate whether this is indeed the fact, we put people in a driving sim, manipulating their idea about whether they were in an especially safe car, or a normal car. Results of a first study showed that indeed, people drive more aggressively in a safe car.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><img style="width:289px;height:182px" alt="Safety vs Control" src="http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/public/N06004/blogpost/safetycontrol.jpg" width=429 height=287></div>
<div> </div>
<div>This result is remarkable, especially because a motivational process is unlikely to be involved. There was no punishment or reward associated with driving risky or safe. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A second study revealed that a high promotion or prevention focus is a boundary condition for being susceptible to this effect, or in plain English: people that are highly concerned with the positive or negative consequences of risk adjust their behavior less in response to an altered feeling of safety.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To see whether this is really a fundamental psychological process, and not something that people merely do because it is what they do in an actual car, we wanted to check whether the effect would spill over to something that was not at all driving-related. To do this, we had people evaluate car ads of either safe or less safe cars, and in a second, seemingly unrelated phase presented a task that tests the amount of risk people take in a financial context.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Results show that the same compensation effect occurs, where people that been exposed to the safe car took more risk in the second phase. Additionally, this result was directly driven by the perceived safety of the car (one of the questions of the evaluation), and not by e.g. the price of the car.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>These results show that people indeed balance risk in day to day situations, and that this is driven by an altered state of mind that allows for spill-over effects between separate situations. The implications for car advertising could be quite ironic, as talking about the safety of a car could have an impact that is worse than talking about speed and power!</div></div></div>
<div><b>Category:</b> consumer behavior;decision making;Observations;Our working papers;social psych</div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 2/8/2011 10:50</div>
]]></description>
      <author>Bart Claus</author>
      <category>consumer behavior;decision making;Observations;Our working papers;social psych</category>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:49:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=207</guid>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://econshp2.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/consumerscience/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=207</feedburner:origLink></item>
  </channel>
</rss>

