Flying under the Radar: Perverse Package SizeEffects on Consumption Self-Regulation

Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. Flying under the Radar: Perverse Package Size Effects on Consumption Self‐Regulation Author(s): Rita Coelho do Vale, Rik Pieters, and Marcel Zeelenberg Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (October 2008), pp. 380-390 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/589564 . Accessed: 05/09/2012 02:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research. http://www.jstor.org 380
2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 35 ● October 2008 All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2008/3503-0012$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/589564 Flying under the Radar: Perverse Package Size Effects on Consumption Self-Regulation RITA COELHO DO VALE RIK PIETERS MARCEL ZEELENBERG* Consumers believe that small package formats of hedonic, but not of utilitarian, products help to regulate consumption—especially when their self-regulatory concerns are activated. These beliefs may backfire and increase consumption of hedonic products. Specifically, activating self-regulatory concerns had no consumption effects when tempting products came in small package formats. Yet, when tempting products came in large package formats, consumers deliberated most before consumption, were least likely to consume, and consumed the least. This illustrates how small temptations can remain undetected (“flying under the radar”) and large package formats may reduce consumption as a result of the experienced self-control conflict. Consumers across countries are more and more overweight and obese. This is partly due to the fact that portion sizes have enlarged dramatically over the past decades (Hill et al. 2003) and larger portion sizes lead to overeating (Wansink and Van Ittersum 2007). In one response, organizations such as the Department of Health and Human Services (2007) urge consumers to “be aware of large packages. For some reason, the larger the package, the more people consume from it without realizing it.” For instance, estimates for what a standard portion of chips is are higher when the chips come from a large bag rather than a small bag (Burger, Kern, and Coleman 2007). In another response, industry progressively offers products in singleserve sizes, and these single servings are becoming smaller. For example, in 2003, Kraft Foods started putting a cap on the portion size of single-serve packages as a social measure to help consumers fight obesity. Also, in 2004, McDonald’s, as part of its initiative “Eat Smart, Be Active,” downsized *Rita Coelho do Vale is an assistant professor of marketing (ritavale@ iseg.utl.pt) at Instituto Superior de Economica e Gestao (ISEG Economics and Business School), Technical University of Lisbon, Rua Miguel Lupi, 20, 1200-078 Lisbon, Portugal. Rik Pieters is professor of marketing (f.g.m.pieters@uvt.nl), and Marcel Zeelenberg is professor of psychology (marcel@uvt.nl), both at Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands. Correspondence: Rik Pieters. The research on which this article is based is part of the first author’s dissertation, defended at Tilburg University. It was supported by a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the “flying under the radar” metaphor. John Deighton served as editor and Susan Broniarczyk served as associate editor for this article. Electronically published June 19, 2008 the super-sized portions to cater to consumers’ growing preference for healthier foods. In addition, various products such as Ha¨agen-Dazs and Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and Pringles and Lay’s chips are now being offered in small, single-serve packages. Moreover, growing numbers of multipacks with individually wrapped single-serve portions are being introduced, such as chips (Potato Heads, Ruffles), cookies (Filipinos, LU), and candy (KitKat, Twix). These industry developments are consistent with the assumption that when products, especially tempting products such as those mentioned, are offered in small package formats, consumers are better able to restrain the total quantity consumed. For instance, small packages are perceived to be helpful in exerting self-control (Wansink and Park 2000), with consumers even willing to pay price premiums for them (Wertenbroch 1998). For example, in various countries cigarettes are sold in 10-cigarette packs instead of in the more traditional 20-cigarette packs, with consumers paying higher unit costs for the 10-unit than for the 20-unit pack—a premium presumably to keep control over the “daily amount.” In line with this, the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly recommends dividing up the contents of one large package into several smaller containers to help avoid overconsumption. The question that arises then is to what extent smaller packages of tempting products really may help consumers’ self-regulatory ability. We propose that, contrary to what is intended, packaging tempting products in small single-serving sizes may backfire and cause consumption to increase. That is, in order for selfregulatory behavior to occur, consumers need to perceive the current consumption act as a self-control conflict with attraction to a temptation hindering the pursuit of an over- FLYING UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR 381 arching goal (Fishbach and Shah 2006). If situations do not elicit a self-control conflict, consumers will not activate the coping strategies that could restrain the tempting consumption, thereby actually falling into temptation. This brings to mind the biblical Song of Solomon 2:15, “Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines,” which implies that little temptations or small sins may go unnoticed and open the door for greater ones to follow (Dolphin 2004). Such sneaky small sins then “fly under the radar” of the overarching goal. The presumed tendency of consumers to believe that smaller quantities of tempting products are “acceptable” and to consider single-serving packages even as helpful selfregulatory tools can contribute to increased consumption compared to when products are offered in quantities considered to be “unacceptable,” which could instigate consumption restraint. In this way, large package sizes may actually facilitate self-regulation more than small singleserving packages do, because the former are more likely to activate a self-control conflict and coping strategies to deal with it. Conversely, small package formats can lead to increases rather than decreases in tempting consumption and, thus, possibly to the long-term adverse effects that they intend to prevent. The present research examines this “flying under the radar” effect in the context of different package formats for tempting products that usually imply eating regulation, such as chips, cookies, and candies, but we also present results that are relevant to tempting products in general. The focus is on consumption decisions when inventory levels of tempting products in large and small package formats are the same. Studies 1a and 1b directly examine the beliefs that consumers have about the consumption of tempting products that come in different package formats. Study 2 examines actual consumption behavior when one is in the presence of tempting products in different package formats. MISREGULATION OF TEMPTING CONSUMPTION Consumers often need to resist short-term impulses in order to achieve their long-term goals or desired end states. Then they use willpower to overcome impatience, precommitment to restrain future consumption, and other strategies to exert self-control (Hoch and Loewenstein 1991; Wertenbroch 1998). Self-control regularly fails because of insufficient resources, tendencies to give primacy to affect regulation, lack of vigilance in monitoring progress toward the goal, or low motivation to attain the overarching goal in the first place (Baumeister 2002; Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice 1994). Another possible, but remarkably understudied, reason for self-control failure is that consumers may misregulate their behavior because of inaccurate beliefs. Then consumers are willing to self-regulate but use ineffective or inappropriate methods (Baumeister et al. 1994). That is, consumers hold beliefs about suitable strategies to attain desirable and avoid undesirable states, which, even when unconscious, shape perceptions of reality and thereby guide decisions and motivate behavior (Bain, Kashima, and Haslam 2006; Eccles and Wigfield 2002). When these beliefs are inaccurate, consumers may engage in self-regulatory efforts in nonoptimal or even counterproductive ways, by using methods that are ineffective or that actually may backfire. Although consumers then believe they are exerting self-control, misconceptions of the behaviors’ effectiveness may inadvertently lead to self-control failure. For example, “low-fat” nutrition labels have been shown to lead consumers—especially those who are overweight—to underestimate the number of calories per serving and thereby to consume higher numbers of calories from snacks with low-fat labels (Wansink and Chandon 2006). Similarly, it is reasonable to expect that consumers believe small package formats to be helpful in controlling the consumption of hedonic, tempting products. Small packages may act as a kind of external control, which can substitute for internal control of self-regulation (Fishbach and Trope 2005). Thus, choosing small packages may seem to make other self-control techniques unnecessary, prompting consumers to let their guard down. In fact, consumers are willing to pay price premiums for smaller packages of tempting products to voluntarily impose constraints on the amount consumed (Wertenbroch 1998). Therefore, small package formats should typically be associated more with consumption regulation of hedonic products where temptation is relevant and willpower is challenged, and less with consumption regulation of utilitarian products where temptation is less relevant and willpower is not challenged as much (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). This reasoning suggests the following hypothesis: H1: Compared to consumers with low self-regulatory concerns, consumers with high self-regulatory concerns believe small package sizes of hedonic but not of utilitarian products to be more instrumental in restraining consumption than large package sizes. The question is how large and small package formats affect actual consumption decisions. We distinguish the likelihood of starting consumption and the actual amount consumed. Efforts to refrain from consuming tempting products altogether are prompted by a self-control conflict (Baumeister et al. 1994). Such a conflict between the desired end state and the current temptation is critical to move the self toward the overarching goal (Carver 2004). But if small as compared to large package sizes of tempting products are believed to be helpful in exerting self-control, they may not elicit a conflict between indulging in the temptation and overarching goals, such as to control or lose weight. Then, small package formats of tempting products would fly under the self-control radar, even when consumers’ self-regulatory concerns are salient. However, when these concerns are salient, tempting stimuli in large package formats more readily appear on the radar, eliciting a self-control conflict “bottomup” (Fishbach, Friedman, and Kruglanski 2003). In this way, 382 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH large as compared with small package formats could actually contribute to reducing the likelihood of starting to consume tempting products. After having started to consume the tempting product, consumers must monitor the amount consumed and decide “when to say when” (Folkes, Martin, and Gupta 1993). Interestingly, the amount consumed may in fact be lowest when self-regulatory concerns are activated and the tempting products are presented in a large package format. Two mechanisms may contribute to this. First, consumers often use rules about “normal” or acceptable consumption to determine how much they will actually consume (Kahn and Wansink 2004), and one of these consumption rules might be the size of the package. Then, consumers infer that small packages contain normal quantities that can be consumed in full, without much monitoring. Large packages clearly contain more than a single serving, which thus requires monitoring, in particular, when self-regulatory concerns are activated (Polivy 1976). Second, and in line with Wertenbroch’s (1998) findings that consumers see small package formats as precommitment devices, consumers can already consider the choice for a small package to be an act of selfregulation, thus suspending further vigilance. The opposite happens when the choice of a large package format enhances the notion of “not behaving properly” in consumers’ minds, which may further enhance alertness to monitor and control the amount consumed. In particular, when self-regulatory concerns are activated, consumers should be more sensitive to monitoring the amount consumed of tempting products in large as compared to small package formats. Support for this reasoning would imply that, when inventory levels of tempting products are the same, consumption (likelihood and amount) is lower when self-regulatory concerns are activated than when they are not activated and lower for large than for small package formats. This would reflect self-control in response to activated selfregulatory concerns (Carver 2004) and bottom-up primed goal conflicts (Fishbach et al. 2003). Importantly, our reasoning suggests that activating self-regulatory concerns reduces tempting consumption the least for small package formats—flying under the self-control radar—and the most for large package formats, and that consumption would be lowest (likelihood and amount) when package formats are large and self-regulatory concerns are activated. Empirical support for this would show when large package formats reduce consumption and when self-control conflicts benefit long-term goal attainment. Specifically, we make the following hypothesis: H2: Compared to consumers with low self-regulatory concerns, consumers with high self-regulatory concerns are less likely to consume and to consume a smaller amount from large than from small packages. The predictions were tested in two studies. Studies 1a and 1b tested hypothesis 1. In study 1a, participants were asked to make a choice between large and small package formats for the same product that was positioned as either a hedonic or a utilitarian product and to reflect on the beliefs underlying their choice. In study 1b, participants provided their spontaneous reasons to choose or not to choose large versus small package formats of a hedonic, tempting product. Study 1b examined spontaneously generated beliefs about the selfregulation of consumption of small packages because such personal beliefs have been shown to shape consumers’ perceptions of reality and to move them toward actions that are considered consistent with the beliefs (Bain et al. 2006; Eccles and Wigfield 2002). These studies assess beliefs by asking the participants to choose between package formats and to list reasons for their choice. Because generating reasons for a certain behavior can have the undesirable effect of influencing that behavior (Wilson, Hodges, and LaFleur 1995), we tested hypothesis 2 concerning the influence of different package formats of tempting products on actual consumption behavior in a separate experiment—study 2. THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR: BELIEFS ABOUT PACKAGE FORMAT EFFECTS ON CONSUMPTION SELF-REGULATION Study 1a: Choice for Package Formats in Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption Method. Sixty undergraduate students participated voluntarily and were assigned to either the utilitarian or the hedonic consumption condition. Participants read a scenario about the consumption of “calling minutes” in a prepaid telephone plan. The prepaid plan was positioned to be used for functional reasons (study and job related) in the utilitarian condition and for pleasurable reasons (social network related) in the hedonic condition. Then, participants made a choice between two size formats for the prepaid plans, with the total quantity of calling minutes in the two plans kept constant, and they indicated their beliefs about how these size formats would help them regulate their consumption. Hypothesis 1 would be supported if participants chose the small package format significantly more often in the case of a hedonic but not in the case of a utilitarian consumption motive, believing that the format helps consumption regulation in the former case. Participants read “You want to buy calling minutes in a prepaid plan for your mobile phone.” In the utilitarian group they additionally read “You use the calling minutes mostly for useful matters that are important to you. Examples are to make appointments with fellow students and discuss the various assignments that you have to do for your studies. You also use your mobile phone to keep contact in the weekend with your weekend job.” In the hedonic group they read “You use the calling minutes mostly for pleasurable matters that are important to you. Examples are to make appointments with your friends and discuss the various things that have happened to you or that you could do. You also use your mobile phone to keep contact with your school friends.” FLYING UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR 383 Next, participants in both groups read “Your provider offers various bundles of calling minutes. You are now considering either one prepaid refilling card of 50 euros or five separate cards of 10 euros each. The amount of calling minutes per euro is always the same. The 50-euro card has the advantage that you only have to refill the telephone once. The disadvantage is that it is more difficult to track your expenditures.” Then, participants indicated “Which choice do you make? One card of 50 euros or five cards of 10 euros?” Next, they indicated “Does your choice help you to control your calling behavior?” (1 p not at all, 7 p very much) and “How difficult or easy would it be now to keep your telephone expenses in check?” (1 p difficult, 7 p easy). The responses to the two latter items were averaged (p of correlation ! .001) to form an ease-of-control measure. Results and Discussion. In support of hypothesis 1, the two size formats were chosen equally often in the utilitarian group (13 chose the five 10-euro cards vs. 17 chose the single 50-euro card, , ), 2 x (1, N p 30) p .53 p p .465 but the five 10-euro cards were chosen significantly more often than the single 50-euro card in the hedonic group (23 vs. 7, , ; overall 2 2 x (1, N p 30) p 8.53 p p .003 x (1) p 6.94, ). Also, participants in the utilitarian con- p p .008 dition believed that it would now be easier to control their telephone behavior ( ; ) than those in M p 4.98 SD p 1.09 the hedonic group did ( ; , M p 4.20 SD p 1.24 t(58) p 2.59, ). p p .012 This supports that consumers indeed consider small package formats to facilitate the self-regulation of hedonic consumption, where control is more needed, but not of utilitarian consumption. Study 1b tests more directly consumers’ spontaneous beliefs about the role of package formats in regulating tempting consumption and whether consumers with self-regulatory concerns believe even stronger that small package formats help to control such consumption. Study 1b: Package Format Beliefs and SelfRegulatory Concerns Method. Fifty-nine undergraduate students participated in the experiment in exchange for i5. This study had a 2 (package formats: large, small) # 2 (reasons to choose, reasons not to choose) within-subjects # 2 (self-regulatory concerns: high, low) between-subjects design. Participants read “Several products that can be bought in the supermarket are offered in various package formats. We are interested in understanding what motivates consumers to choose some package formats instead of others.” Participants then read “Imagine that you are in the supermarket in front of the potato chips’ shelf. Chips are offered in two different package formats: format A, one single bag with 200 g [1 ounce p 28.3 grams] of chips and format B, a bag that contains four smaller packages of 50 g each.” After reading that both the price and the total quantity of chips were similar for the two package formats, participants were asked to write down reasons that would lead them to choose or not to choose each of the two package formats. Order of the two package formats (format A and format B) and type of choice (reasons to choose, reasons not to choose) were counterbalanced across participants. This study compared the large single bag with the multipack containing four small bags to ensure that the total amounts of the tempting product are equivalent and that package format is not confounded with the total amount of the tempting product offered. Our setup provides a more conservative test of package format effects than asking participants reasons to (not) choose one small package versus one large package. If participants freely elicit self-regulatory reasons to buy the multipack with the small serving size packages, even under the current circumstances of the same total amount, this would provide strong support for hypothesis 1. If, compared to others, participants with selfregulatory concerns choose small package formats more often, this would support hypothesis 1 further. Finally, participants completed the chronic concern for dieting scale (Herman and Polivy 1975; five items, no-yes, , me- a p .65 dian p 2.12) and were categorized as having “high selfregulatory concerns” versus “low self-regulatory concerns” based on a median split. Results and Discussion. The reasons provided by the participants were content analyzed (Weber 1990). Because the prime interest was to establish whether participants would elicit eating regulation concerns as reasons to choose the small package formats and to not choose the large package formats, the coding scheme included just two categories: eating control concerns and other reasons. Eating control concerns were defined as “all reasons that explicitly indicate concern with avoiding eating too much, with dieting, with higher ability to control quantity eaten, and with avoiding gaining weight.” Other reasons included all other reasons not related to eating control concerns. Two independent coders, blind to the hypotheses, categorized each given reason provided by the participants into one of the two categories. Intercoder reliability was initially 94% (based on 389 provided reasons), and remaining inconsistencies were resolved by discussion. Eating control concerns included reasons to choose such as “to avoid eating too much” and reasons not to choose such as “not good for diet.” Other reasons to choose included “good to share with others,” and other reasons not to choose such as “bad for environment.” Table 1 summarizes the results. In support of hypothesis 1, participants spontaneously associated choosing small package formats (multipack) more with eating control concerns than choosing large package formats ( , ), and they as- 2 x (1, N p 220) p 30.49 p ! .001 sociated not choosing large package formats more with eating control concerns than not choosing small package formats of tempting products ( , 2 x (1, N p 169) p 21.47 p ! .001). In fact, the distribution of eating control concerns (first row of table 1) was significantly different across the four groups ( , ), with eating 2 x (1, N p 57) p 45.36 p ! .001 control concerns mostly reported as reasons to choose the small and as reasons not to choose the large package size 384 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH TABLE 1 REASONS (NOT) TO CHOOSE PACKAGE FORMATS OF TEMPTING PRODUCTS: STUDY 1B Reasons to choose package format Reasons not to choose package format Small (4 # 50 g) Large (200 g) Small (4 # 50 g) Large (200 g) Eating control concerns 32 1 1 23 Other reasons 84 103 80 65 Total number of reasons 116 104 81 88 x2 (1), p-value 30.49, ! .001 21.47, ! .001 formats (reasons to choose: 32 vs. 1; , ; z p 5.52 p ! .001 not to choose: 1 vs. 23, , ). This supports z p
4.63 p ! .001 that smaller packages are spontaneously perceived to be selfregulatory facilitators and that larger packages are perceived to be self-regulatory threats. Next, we tested whether participants with high self-regulatory concerns were more likely to associate buying the small package formats with positive self-regulatory reasons, as proposed by hypothesis 1. Of the 32 participants who expressed eating control concerns as reasons to choose the small package format, 28 had high self-regulatory concerns ( , ). A similar pattern was found for the z p 6.00 p ! .001 elicited reasons not to choose the large package format, with 18 of the 23 participants having high self-regulatory concerns ( , ). This shows that consumers with z p 3.83 p ! .001 high self-regulatory concerns were indeed more likely to spontaneously elicit reasons related to eating control concerns and to believe that small package size formats help to regulate the consumption of tempting products. It demonstrates that consumers associate different package formats of tempting products with different self-regulatory effects and that most participants who elicited such reasons had high self-regulatory concerns. Studies 1a and 1b jointly indicate that consumers share the belief that small package formats help to regulate the consumption of hedonic, tempting, products but not of utilitarian products and that, in particular, consumers with selfregulatory concerns believe that small packages help to regulate tempting consumption. UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR: PACKAGE FORMAT EFFECTS ON ACTUAL CONSUMPTION SELFREGULATION Study 2 tests whether consumers with self-regulatory concerns are indeed better able to regulate consumption of tempting products that are offered in small versus large package formats. Because potato chips are a prototypical tempting product (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000; Wertenbroch 1998), regularly consumed while watching television, we chose this product and consumption context for the present study. Study 2: Package Format and Self-Regulatory Concern Effects on Consumption Self-Regulation Method. One hundred and forty undergraduate students (59 females and 81 males) participated in the experiment in exchange for i6. The experiment had a 2 (package format: small vs. large) # 2 (self-regulatory concerns: not activated [control] vs. activated) between-subjects design, and participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Participants in the “not activated” control condition first took part in an unrelated study. Participants in the “activated” condition first took part in a supposedly unrelated study on students and body satisfaction in order to prime their self-regulatory concerns. They read that “this study is on students’ overall satisfaction regarding their body shape” and were asked to complete three different multi-item scales: the 10-item Body Satisfaction scale (e.g., “I like the shape of my buttocks”; Garner, Olmstead, and Polivy 1983), the seven-item Drive for Thinness scale (e.g., “I am terrified of gaining weight”; Garner et al. 1983), and the five-item Concern for Dieting scale (e.g., “Would a fluctuation of 5 pounds affect the way you live your life?” [Herman and Polivy 1975, 669]). After completing the scales, participants read “now we would like to assess some of your body measures in order to calculate the average Body Mass Index (BMI) of students of this university.” Next, they were asked to join the experimenter, who would help them weigh themselves and measure their height, hips, and waist. To further induce self-awareness (Carver 1974), a large mirror was placed in front of the scales. The mirror was positioned such that participants would see their body shape reflected in it. After this, all participants started the seemingly unrelated Ads Evaluation Study. This study was run on personal computers using the program Authorware 6.0 (Macromedia Inc. 2001) and took about 30 minutes to complete. Participants first read that the purpose of the study was to assess and understand their reactions and opinions about TV commercials. Then, to increase the believability of the cover story, participants were asked to indicate on 7-point scales their general opinion about TV commercials (e.g., “TV commercials are amusing to watch”: not at all–very much), followed by an example of the main task that they were going to perform: the ad evaluation task. Then, participants read “During the next 20 minutes you will perform an ‘ad eval- FLYING UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR 385 uation’ task. Since most commercials are usually watched at home, we want to recreate as much as possible a normal home environment while you watch the commercials. Therefore, we also included an extract from a ‘Friends’ episode (sitcom) to mimic regular TV viewing. Moreover, since previous studies have shown that 70% of the snacks are consumed while watching TV, you’ll find next to the computer a bowl with potato chips that you can eat while doing this study.” Located next to each computer screen was a big bowl with potato chips in one of the different package formats depending on the experimental condition (small p 45 grams vs. large p 200 grams). The quantity of chips was kept constant in both conditions, with bowls in both conditions containing about the same total quantity of chips (nine small packages p 405 grams vs. two large packages p 400 grams). Participants then saw an ad sequence of three commercials, followed by a 7-minute extract of a Friends episode, followed by a second sequence of eight commercials. Before the commercials and the Friends extract, participants indicated the emotions they currently experienced. After each ad sequence, participants indicated which commercial they enjoyed most, disliked most, and remembered best. All commercials were humorous. At the end, participants answered questions about their consumption decision and debriefing questions. Measures. Two components of consumption behavior were assessed: whether or not consumption of chips was initiated (opening the package) and quantity consumed (in grams). In addition, we assessed as control measures the extent of deliberation about consuming the potato chips and the affect that consumers experienced. If self-control is most strongly at stake when self-regulatory concerns are activated and package formats are large (hypothesis 2), the extent of deliberation should be higher in this condition, and in particular, participants in this condition who decide to consume should deliberate about it the most. Therefore, participants indicated—after having completed the ad evaluation sequence—how much time they had spent deciding to open or not open the packages of chips (1 p no time at all, 7 p very much time). To rule out that the manipulation of selfregulatory concerns independently or in combination with the package formats influenced the affect that participants experienced and that mood management or affect regulation efforts determined subsequent consumption (Tice, Bratslavsky, and Baumeister 2001), we included a measure of consumer affect directly after the experimental manipulations but before the ad evaluation task. Participants indicated on 7-point scales (not at all–very much) how much they experienced each of eight emotions from Richins’s (1997) consumption emotions set (e.g., contented and unfulfilled) and two other consumption emotions (good and relaxed). Emotions were grouped in positive ( ; five items) a p .79 and negative emotions ( ; five items). An affect mea- a p .83 sure was constructed by subtracting the average of the negative emotions from the average of the positive emotions (Yeung and Wyer 2004). Upon completion of the experiment, a funneled debriefing methodology was used (Bargh and Chartrand 2000) to assess suspicion and hypothesis guessing. Participants were asked to indicate what they thought the purpose of the study was, what it was trying to assess, if there was something unusual in the study, and if they had any specific goal while participating. None of the participants showed suspicion or identified the true purpose of the study. Results and Discussion. Overall, 52.1% of the participants (73 out of 140) opened a bag of chips, with an average consumption of 49.8 grams for those who did. Regression analyses were conducted to test the influence of package format and self-regulatory concerns on consumption. First, we performed Tobit regression analysis (Long 1997) because consumption comprises two components, that is, opening the bag and the amount consumed, which is observed only when a bag is opened. This analysis includes all participants ( ) to estimate the influence of the experimental N p 140 conditions on the amount of potato chips consumed, accounting for the fact that some participants did not open a bag (0 grams consumed). Next and to add detail, a separate probit regression analysis was performed on the consumption likelihood (no-yes; ) for all participants and a N p 140 regular ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis on the consumption amount (in grams) for participants who opened a bag ( ). Prior to the analyses, the package n p 73 format factor was coded as
1 p small and 1 p large and the self-regulatory concerns factor as
1 p not activated and 1 p activated. Planned comparisons were performed to test hypothesis 2 that consumption is lowest when selfregulatory concerns are activated and tempting products come in large package formats, and that self-regulatory concerns (not activated vs. activated) have little to no effect on consumption when tempting products come in small package formats. Tests are one-tailed because predictions are directional. This also holds for the interaction (Verducci 2001, 18), which should have a negative slope given the contrast coding and the predicted lower consumption in the “large package format–self-regulatory concerns activated” condition. Tables 2 and 3 present the means and regression analysis results. Specific differences between conditions are discussed after summarizing the regression results. The overall Tobit regression analysis (first three columns in table 3) showed that consumption of potato chips was lower when package formats were large instead of small (coefficient p
14.87, ) and when self-regulatory p p .001 concerns were activated instead of not activated (
17.51, p ! .001); the interaction between the two factors was significant as well and with the appropriate sign (
8.27, p p .035). As predicted by hypothesis 2, consumption was lowest when self-regulatory concerns were activated and package format was large. The bottom part of table 3 shows the planned comparisons of the “large package format–selfregulatory concerns activated” condition with each of the other conditions separately. These were all in the right di- 386 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH TABLE 2 INFLUENCE OF PACKAGE FORMAT AND SELF-REGULATORY CONCERNS ON TEMPTING CONSUMPTION: STUDY 2 Package format Small Large Self-regulatory concerns Self-regulatory concerns Measures Not activated (n p 34) Activated (n p 34) Not activated (n p 34) Activated (n p 38) Consumption: Likelihood (%) 73.5a 58.8a 52.9a 26.3b Amount (g) 53.3a,b 46.1a 63.6b 23.5c Extent of deliberation: Consume 2.7a 2.5a 2.3a 3.9b Not consume 2.2a 2.6a 3.1a 2.1a Experienced affect 3.0a 2.9a 2.7a 2.7a NOTE.—Extent of deliberation and experienced affect are on 7-point scales, from 1 p low/negative to 7 p high/positive. Numbers in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly at . p ! .05 TABLE 3 REGRESSION ANALYSES ON CONSUMPTION SELF-REGULATION: STUDY 2 Tempting consumption Joint (Tobit) Likelihood (probit) Amount (OLS) Predictors b t-value p bz-value p bt-value p Intercept 7.34 1.45 .075 .07 .66 .254 46.63 14.84 ! .001 Package format (PF)
14.87
3.19 .001
.35
3.20 ! .001
3.08
.98 .165 Self-regulatory concerns (SRC)
17.51
3.78 ! .001
.28
2.52 .005
11.83
3.77 ! .001 PF # SRC
8.27
1.80 .035
.08 .68 .247
8.22
2.62 .005 Overall model x2 (3) p 25.48, n p 140, p ! .001 x2 (3) p 17.64, n p 140, p ! .001 F(3, 69) p 5.36, n p 73, p p .002 Planned comparisons of conditions: Large activated vs. small not activated
64.77
4.75 ! .001
1.26
3.97 ! .001
29.82
3.06 .002 Large activated vs. small activated
46.28
3.38 ! .001
.86
2.78 .003
22.60
2.24 .022 Large activated vs. large not activated
51.55
3.77 ! .001
.71
2.31 .011
40.10
3.90 ! .001 rection and significant at . This is further supported p ! .001 by the crucial “large package format–self regulatory concerns activated” condition leading to significantly lower consumption as compared to the other three conditions in a separate Tobit analysis (coefficient p
54.71, , t p
4.66 p ! .001). Separate regression analyses on, respectively, the consumption likelihood (probit) and the amount consumed (OLS) provide further detail. First, package format influenced consumption likelihood, with larger package formats having a lower likelihood of being opened than smaller package formats (38.9% vs. 66.2%; ), but not the p p .001 amount consumed (50.1 vs. 49.3 grams; , NS). This p p .165 latter insignificant result suggests that the large package format by itself did not prime self-regulatory goals bottom-up, to which we return in the general discussion. Second, activating self-regulatory concerns reduced consumption likelihood (41.7% vs. 63.2%; ), as predicted by hy- p p .006 pothesis 2. It also reduced the amount consumed (38.6 grams vs. 57.6 grams; ). Third, this main effect of self- p ! .001 regulatory goals on amount consumed was qualified by a significant self-regulatory goals by package format interaction with the right sign ( , ), in sup- b p
8.22 p p .005 port of hypothesis 2. The interaction was insignificant for consumption likelihood ( ), not supportive of hy- p p .247 pothesis 2. The bottom part of table 3 shows the planned comparisons of the “large package format–self regulatory concerns activated” condition with each of the other conditions separately, for both the consumption likelihood and the amount consumed. The omnibus interaction on consumption likelihood not being significant may be due to the specific pattern of the interaction with no sign reversal of the slopes (Judd, McClelland, and Culhane 1995, 448). All planned comparisons were in the predicted direction and significant (at or smaller). p p .01 Figure 1 summarizes the consumption effects. It illustrates that the likelihood of opening a bag of potato chips was lowest and significantly lower when the bag was large and self-regulatory concerns were activated ( ) Plge,act p 26.3% than in any other condition ( , ; Plge,n act p 52.9% p p .01 Psm,act sm,n act p 58.8%, ; , ). p p .003 P p 73.5% p ! .001 Whether or not self-regulatory concerns were activated did FLYING UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR 387 FIGURE 1 INFLUENCE OF PACKAGE FORMAT AND SELF-REGULATORY CONCERNS ON CONSUMPTION LIKELIHOOD (PANEL A) AND AMOUNT (PANEL B) NOTE.—Error bars indicate +/
1 SE of the mean. not influence the consumption likelihood when bags were small ( , NS). p p .20 Also, the amount of potato chips consumed was lowest, and significantly lower when bags were large and self-regulatory concerns were activated ( grams) than Mlge,act p 23.5 in any other condition ( grams, ; Mlge,n act p 63.6 p ! .001 Msm,act sm,n act p 46.1 grams, ; grams, p p .02 M p 53.3 p p .002). In fact, consumption in the “large package format–self-regulatory concerns activated” condition was significantly lower than the 45 grams available in a single small bag of potato chips (one-sample , ). t(9) p
6.91 p ! .001 Whether or not self-regulatory concerns were activated did not influence the amount consumed when bags were small ( , NS). In the small package format conditions, p p .340 sizable numbers of participants consumed a single 45-gram bag (respectively, 15 out of 25 for small, not activated and 11 out of 20 for small, activated), which suggests that package size acted as a consumption norm here (Kahn and Wansink 2004) irrespective of self-regulation activation. Thus, whereas consumption in small package formats was independent of self-regulatory concerns, large package formats resulted in the least consumption (likelihood and amount), in particular, when self-regulatory concerns were activated. Results for the extent of deliberation that preceded the decision to start consuming add to this. We hypothesized that deciding to consume or not to consume tempting products in small package formats requires little deliberation, but deciding to consume tempting products in large package formats requires more deliberation, in particular, when selfregulatory concerns are activated and self-control is at stake. 388 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH In support of this, a 2 (package format) # 2 (self-regulatory concerns) # 2 (consumption: no-yes) ANOVA revealed only a significant effect for the three-way interaction ( , ; means are presented in table F(1, 132) p 7.99 p p .005 2). Specifically, whereas the interaction between self-regulatory concerns and consumption was not significant for small package formats ( , , NS), it F(1, 64) p 0.70 p p .404 was significant for large package formats (F(1, 68) p 9.29, ). That is, with a large package format, par- p p .003 ticipants deliberated considerably longer before deciding to consume the tempting product when self-regulatory concerns were activated ( ) than when they were Mcon,act p 3.9 not activated ( , , ) and Mcon,n act p 2.3 t(26) p 2.50 p p .019 than when deciding not to consume and self-regulatory concerns were activated ( , , Mn con,act p 2.1 t(36) p 3.23 p p .003). Interestingly, for large package formats, the extent of deliberation was equally high when self-regulatory concerns were activated and participants decided to consume as when self-regulatory concerns were not activated and participants decided not to consume ( , , Mn con,n act p 3.1 t(24) p 1.12 p p .137, NS). Apparently in the presence of large package formats of tempting products, it tends to be as difficult to start consuming when self-regulatory concerns are activated as it is to not start when these concerns are not activated. Finally, analyses on the experienced consumption emotions (means are in table 2) before making these consumption decisions revealed no significant main or interaction effects of the manipulated factors (all ), which rules out that p 1 .2 the observed consumption and deliberation effects were due to affect regulation. GENERAL DISCUSSION Consumers believe that smaller package formats help them to regulate hedonic, tempting consumption (study 1a). Especially when self-regulatory concerns are activated, they believe that large package formats of tempting products should be avoided (study 1b). Yet, using smaller package formats can actually backfire and cause such consumption to increase, whereas using larger package formats does not (study 2). That is, when self-regulatory concerns were activated, consumers deliberated the most before deciding to consume, were least likely to consume, and consumed the least of tempting products from large package formats. Activating self-regulatory concerns had no effects on deliberation and consumption when tempting products came in small package formats. However, when self-regulatory concerns were activated, consumers were almost twice as likely to start consuming tempting products from small as compared to large package formats and—if they did—consumed nearly twice as much. The findings contribute to the self-control literature by demonstrating how, in addition to insufficient willpower, consumption misregulation based on lack of knowledge may prevent long-term goal attainment and how consumers with self-regulatory concerns may be particularly prone to it. They underline the relevance of identifying consumers’ lay theories about consumption regulation techniques. The results indicate that when immediate temptations appear small—such as in the form of preportioned, low-fat, or natural products—vigilance when making consumption decisions may be systematically reduced, with consumption misregulation as a possible consequence. In this way, beliefs that consumers have about appropriate self-regulatory strategies (small packs) may backfire, despite high motivation and available resources to exert willpower. The findings also contribute to the packaging literature. Product and packaging characteristics may influence usage behavior long after they have influenced purchase (Wansink 1996). Research has shown that characteristics such as product elongation influence the perceived available amount of the product (Raghubir and Krishna 1999; Wansink and Van Ittersum 2003), that larger actual (Chandon and Wansink 2002) and perceived (Folkes et al. 1993) inventories of products increase consumption, and that consumers tend to consume more of a product when its unitary costs are perceived to be lower (Wansink 1996). Our research demonstrates that, independent of such supply and cost characteristics, package formats can influence consumption and the role that selfregulatory concerns play in this. Whereas past packaging research has emphasized utilitarian products such as cooking oil, toilet bowl cleaner, or laundry detergent (Folkes et al. 1993; Wansink 1996), our research focuses on hedonic, tempting products, for which the decision-making process is different (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). More so than utilitarian products, hedonic products trigger an urge for immediate consumption that needs to be restrained (Baumeister 2002). The results demonstrate that when consumers have self-regulatory concerns and products are tempting, large packages can lead to lower rather than higher quantities consumed. This highlights the important role that the products’ nature and consumers’ self-regulatory goals play in the effects of package sizes on consumption. We also want to point to an unexpected but interesting nonsignificant result. Overall, the quantity of potato chips consumed did not differ between package formats, although the consumption likelihood did. This insignificant result may seem at odds with the bottom-up priming of goals (Fishbach et al. 2003). That is, we did not find that the mere presence of tempting products in large package formats by itself activated the higher-order self-control goal, inducing a need to resist the temptation, and thereby reducing the amount consumed. Note, however, that in the original research on bottom-up goal priming, Fishbach et al. (2003, experiment 5) focused on chronically restrained eaters’ choices between a chocolate Twix bar and an apple. Relative to a control condition, choice for the apple increased when these participants—for which the self-control radar was chronically on—were reminded of either dieting or eating tempting food. We conceptually replicate this finding with large package formats eliciting control in the conditions where selfregulatory concerns were situationally activated. The fact that we do not find this effect of package format in the conditions where self-regulatory concerns were not activated is also consistent with this. That is, tempting products FLYING UNDER THE SELF-CONTROL RADAR 389 produced bottom-up priming only when the radar of selfcontrol was on because the higher-order goal was situationally made salient. A question for future research is whether some temptations are so momentarily alluring that they automatically switch on the self-control radar, revealing the ultimate bottom-up goal priming. To our knowledge, the present research is the first to reveal that opportunities for potentially big sins may prevent consumers from committing them, but importantly also how presumably small sins may sneakily backfire. The results also extend recent evidence that when people believe that external controls are sufficient to resist short-term temptations, they are unlikely to commit to internal counteractive control (Fishbach and Trope 2005). Small package formats and other clues may act as signals of external temptation control. This indicates how experiences of self-control conflicts can actually benefit long-term goal attainment and their absence can harm it. Our theory and findings do not imply that small package formats generally undermine self-control efforts, and they do not contradict the existing findings that consumers with self-regulatory concerns prefer to purchase small package formats of tempting products and that this helps them control consumption (Wertenbroch 1998). The present research kept the overall inventory level (quantity) of tempting products in large versus small package formats the same. Of course, when consumers hold a lower inventory of tempting products to ration quantity, by purchasing one small instead of one large package, total consumption over time should be lower and consumption effectively regulated. However, and we believe this to be important, the opposite may be true when consumers opt for multipacks of single-serve and preportioned products, such as chips, cookies, and ice cream. Then, the perceived instrumentality of small and singleserve formats for consumption self-regulation may tempt consumers to increase their inventory levels of small package formats. To illustrate, Ha¨agen-Dazs currently offers single “minicups” (100 milliliters), multipacks with four minicups (4 # 100 milliliters), multipacks with three stick bars (90 grams each), and regular pint packages (470 milliliters) of Macadamia Nut Brittle ice cream, as well as variety packs with different tastes in minicups (Little Pleasures). An interesting question for future research then becomes which processes shape consumers’ purchase decisions for combinations of package formats and product quantities, and whether and how such purchase decisions affect later consumption decisions. Specifically, we speculate that the actual purchase of multipacks of single-serve formats may by itself satisfy consumers’ needs to self-regulate, causing them to let their guard down. As a result, consumers may merrily consume the innocently small packages of Little Pleasures at an even higher pace, producing overconsumption. Potential unintended long-term costs of repeatedly consuming tempting products in smaller package formats appear worthy of follow-up research as well. Frequent consumption of small quantities of tempting products may promote habituation and reduced satisfaction per occasion. Then, suboptimal consumption patterns could develop in an addictive cycle with raised consumption to combat habituation and reduced overall enjoyment (Herrnstein and Prelec 1991). In this light, it is important to understand if and when longterm goals and consumer well-being are better served by occasionally indulging in large pleasures rather than by frequently indulging in small pleasures. Such research may also gain deeper understanding into when consumers need not precommit to embrace such large, occasional indulgences (Kivetz and Simonson 2002) and when they remain motivated to refrain from consuming small, frequent ones. In a June 2007 market study (Hartman Group 2007), 78% of the 659 surveyed Americans indicated that they tried to control the amount of food and beverages they consume for weight management purposes, but 44% considered it hard to “find pre-portioned single-serve multi-packs that don’t cost too much.” Yet, the increasing availability of singleserve packages and multipacks may not serve consumers in the long run, when these fail to reduce overconsumption. If that would be the case, the efforts of ethical marketers of fast-moving consumer goods to help battle obesity in these ways would be frustrated fully. Our findings also do not imply that the regulation of tempting consumption is served best by multiple-serve and family-sized packs. But the answer is also not in telling customers to never purchase large packages (Wansink and Van Ittersum 2007) or to never eat out of a big bag or package (Montana Office of Public Instruction 2004). Maybe the answer lies in consumers taking responsibility for their consumption and monitoring internal cues of sufficiency rather than letting package size take control. Consumption that proceeds mindlessly may stop at the bottom of the bag, which is more problematic if it is deep. But if self-regulatory concerns are activated and inventory levels are the same, tempting products in large package formats may increase consumer vigilance, which is conducive to consumption regulation. Instead, small package formats may fly under the radar and prevent such internal control, thereby leading to consumption misregulation. Because they are also willing to pay a price premium for tempting products in small package formats, in particular, consumers with selfregulatory concerns might wind up consuming more rather than less and at a higher price, which would be doubly perverse. REFERENCES Bain, Paul, Yoshihisa Kashima, and Nick Haslam (2006), “Conceptual Beliefs about Human Values and Their Implications: Human Nature Beliefs Predict Value Importance, Value Tradeoffs, and Responses to Value-Laden Rhetoric,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (August), 351–67. Bargh, John and Tanya Chartrand (2000), “The Mind in the Middle: A Practical Guide to Priming and Automaticity Research,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, ed. Harry Reis and Charles Judd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 253–85. Baumeister, Roy (2002), “Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control 390 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 670–76. Baumeister, Roy, Todd Heatherton, and Dianne Tice (1994), Losing Control: How and Why People Fail at Self-Regulation, San Diego: Academic Press. Burger, Kyle S., Mark Kern, and Karen J. Coleman (2007), “Characteristics of Self-Selected Portion Size in Young Adults,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107 (April), 611–18. Carver, Charles (1974), “Facilitation of Physical Aggression through Objective Self-Awareness,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (July), 365–70. ——— (2004), “Self-Regulation of Action and Affect,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, ed. Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, New York: Guilford, 13–39. Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2002), “When Are Stockpiled Products Consumed Faster? A Convenience-Salience Framework of Postpurchase Consumption Incidence and Quantity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (August), 321–35. Department of Health and Human Services (2007), How to Avoid Portion Size Pitfalls to Help Manage Your Weight, http://www .cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_pitfalls.pdf. Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60–71. Dolphin, Lambert (2004), “Keys to the Song of Solomon,” http:// www.ldolphin.org/ssong.shtml. Eccles, Jacquelynne and Allan Wigfield (2002), “Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals,” Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–32. Fishbach, Ayelet, Ronald Friedman, and Arie Kruglanski (2003), “Leading Us Not unto Temptation: Momentary Allurements Elicit Overriding Goal Activation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (February), 296–309. Fishbach, Ayelet and James Shah (2006), “Self Control in Action: Implicit Dispositions toward Goals and Away from Temptations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (May), 820–32. Fishbach, Ayelet and Yaacov Trope (2005), “The Substitutability of External Control and Self-Control,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (May), 256–70. Folkes, Valerie, Ingrid Martin, and Kamal Gupta (1993), “When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 467–77. Garner, David, Marion Olmstead, and Janet Polivy (1983), “Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Eating Disorder Inventory for Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2 (Winter), 15–34. Hartman Group (2007), “Portion Control: Minimize Me, Please!” HartBeat (June 6), http://www.hartman-group.com/hartbeat/ 2007-06-06. Herman, Peter and Janet Polivy (1975), “Anxiety, Restraint, and Eating Behavior,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84 (December), 666–72. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Drazen Prelec (1991), “Melioration: A Theory of Distributed Choice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (Summer), 137–56. Hill, James O., Holly R. Wyatt, George W. Reed, and John C. Peters (2003), “Obesity and the Environment: Where Do We Go from Here?” Science, 299 (February 7), 853–55. Hoch, Stephen J. and George F. Loewenstein (1991), “TimeInconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 492–507. Judd, Charles M., Gary H. McClelland, and Sara E. Culhane (1995), “Data Analysis: Continuing Issues in the Everyday Analysis of Psychological Data,” Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 433–65. Kahn, Barbara and Brian Wansink (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 519–33. Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 199–217. Long, Scott (1997), Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Montana Office of Public Instruction (2004), “Right-Sizing Your Portions,” http://www.opi.mt.gov/health/fit/portionsizecolor .pdf. Polivy, Janet (1976), “Perception of Calories and Regulation of Intake in Restrained and Unrestrained Subjects,” Addictive Behaviors, 1 (3), 237–43. Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26. Richins, Marsha (1997), “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 127–46. Tice, Dianne, Ellen Bratslavsky, and Roy Baumeister (2001), “Emotional Distress Regulation Takes Precedence over Impulse Control: If You Feel Bad, Do It!” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (January), 53–67. Verducci, Joseph (2001), “Directional Predictions in Mean Differences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (1–2), 18. Wansink, Brian (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 1–14. Wansink, Brian and Pierre Chandon (2006), “Can ‘Low-Fat’ Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (November), 605–17. Wansink, Brian and Sea Bum Park (2000), “Accounting for Taste: Prototypes That Predict Preference,” Journal of Database Marketing, 7 (April), 308–20. Wansink, Brian and Koert Van Ittersum (2003), “Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption Volume,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 455–63. ——— (2007), “Portion Size Me: Downsizing Our Consumption Norms,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107 (July), 1103–6. Weber, Robert (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-049, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317–37. Wilson, Timothy, Sara Hodges, and Suzanne LaFleur (1995), “Effects of Introspecting about Reasons: Inferring Attitudes from Accessible Thoughts,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (July), 16–28. Yeung, Catherine and Robert Wyer Jr. (2004), “Affect, Appraisal, and Consumer Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 412–24.

week11-23.flying under the radar.pdf

0.25MB

https://smartstore.naver.com/smallme/products/2875259458

페인팅 스몰미 15세트 (painting smallME, 컬러링 스몰미) 페인팅스몰미, 미술교육. 창의력교육. 색칠