Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making

Accepted Manuscript Review Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making Alain Samson, Benjamin G. Voyer PII: DOI: Reference:

S0167-4870(14)00039-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.05.004 JOEP 1759

To appear in:

Journal of Economic Psychology

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

19 August 2013 28 May 2014 29 May 2014

Please cite this article as: Samson, A., Voyer, B.G., Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making, Journal of Economic Psychology (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.05.004

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making

Corresponding Author: Name: Alain Samson, Ph.D. Affiliation: The London School of Economics and Political Science Address: Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Telephone: +44 (0)798 406 7884 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Co-author: Name: Benjamin G. Voyer, Ph.D., CPsychol, CSci Affiliation: ESCP Europe / The London School of Economics and Political Science Address: 527 Finchley Road, London NW3 7BG, UK Telephone: +44 (0)794 692 9584 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract This article introduces the Emergency Purchasing Situation (EPS) as a distinct buying context. EPSs stem from an unexpected event (unanticipated need or timing of a need), as well as high product importance, which are associated with a short time frame for consumer decision-making. Our conceptual review integrates largely disconnected strands of research and theories relevant to EPSs and offers a series of independent propositions to understand how these situations might affect consumer decision-making, specifically heuristic versus reflective information processing in product evaluation. We discuss changes induced by the buying context in terms of regulatory focus, perceived time pressure, and stress. Our propositions further account for purchase involvement in the form of product importance, purchase risk, and product substitutability. Finally, we consider how individual differences (expertise and trust) may affect evaluation processes. Our discussion reflects on the implications of our model, avenues for future research, and how an understanding of EPSs can be used to improve managerial practice.

Keywords Consumer behavior; decision-making; emergency buying; dual-process; product evaluation

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making

2 3

ABSTRACT

4

This article introduces the Emergency Purchasing Situation (EPS) as a distinct buying context. EPSs

5

stem from an unexpected event (unanticipated need or timing of a need), as well as high product

6

importance, which are associated with a short time frame for consumer decision-making. Our conceptual

7

review integrates largely disconnected strands of research and theories relevant to EPSs and offers a

8

series of independent propositions to understand how these situations might affect consumer decision-

9

making, specifically heuristic versus reflective information processing in product evaluation. We discuss

10

changes induced by the buying context in terms of regulatory focus, perceived time pressure, and stress.

11

Our propositions further account for purchase involvement in the form of product importance, purchase

12

risk, and product substitutability. Finally, we consider how individual differences (expertise and trust)

13

may affect evaluation processes. Our discussion reflects on the implications of our model, avenues for

14

future research, and how an understanding of EPSs can be used to improve managerial practice.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

1

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

16 17

1. Introduction Consumers sometimes find themselves in situations when they must unexpectedly purchase a

18

product within a short time frame. These include product failures (e.g., washing machine breaks down),

19

losses (e.g., bicycle used for commuting to work is stolen), or changes in circumstances in which a new

20

need must be met quickly (e.g., a need for an umbrella in an unanticipated downpour). We define these

21

buying contexts as emergency purchasing situations (EPSs) in which two criteria must be simultaneously

22

present. First, the situation and resulting need must be unexpected, either due to an unanticipated need (a

23

change in circumstances) or the unanticipated timing of a need (usually product failure or loss). Second,

24

the product must be of high importance to the consumer (e.g., a household appliance), such that the

25

purchase decision occurs within a shorter time frame than if the consumer had expected the need. Our

26

definition of EPSs carries important consequences for decision making, especially in terms of heuristic

27

versus reflective product evaluations: consumers may not have the time to optimally evaluate market

28

information and construct precise preferences but will attempt to make an optimal purchase.

29

Emergency situations are not uncommon in consumers‘ lives. Yet the role of need recognition,

30

time frame and associated situational constraints in which consumers must search for information, make

31

a decision, and buy a product, have remained largely unexplored or disconnected in the literature.

32

Consumer research on product failure has mainly examined post-purchase evaluations (Folkes, 1984;

33

McCollough, Berry, & Yadav, 2000). Furthermore, regulatory focus theorists have identified the

34

motivational orientations and purchase decision-making strategies arising from product failure as a

35

current-state change, associated with a prevention focus, in contrast with a desired-state change,

36

associated with a promotion focus (Pham & Higgins, 2005). Research on the replacement of durable

37

goods, such as cars, has investigated the decision criteria used in early or late replacement without

38

considering the reasons behind the purchase (e.g., Bayus, 1991). Prior work in economic and consumer

39

psychology has investigated the impact of a purchase‘s temporal proximity on product evaluations (e.g.,

40

Theriault, Aaker, & Pennington, 2008) and the effects of time pressure (e.g., Rieskamp & Hoffrage,

41

2008) and stress (e.g., Keinan, 1987; Moschis, 2007) on decision making.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

2

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Regarding product and brand perceptions, scholars have developed the concept of involvement

43

(Mittal & Lee, 1989; Zaichkowsky, 1986), including how levels of involvement for emergency purchases

44

may differ from standard purchasing situations (Mittal, 1989). In a related vein, marketing texts have

45

identified the concept of ―unsought goods,‖ or products that consumers do not normally think about or

46

are bought when an unexpected problem arises (Mason, 2005). Adverse conditions can make the need for

47

these types of goods salient—for example, when an accident produces a need for medical supplies.1 ‗Emergency buying‘ appears to have been a taken-for-granted concept in both economic life and

48 49

the scholarly domain. The emergency purchase of goods and services as a multi-dimensional situational

50

concept has not inspired any research or theorizing. The present article addresses this gap and contributes

51

to the literature in economic psychology by offering a new conceptualization of this purchasing context.

52

We provide an integrative perspective that revives earlier streams of research (e.g., stress, involvement)

53

and connects them to the more recent literature on consumer decision-making. In particular, we combine

54

hitherto largely disconnected strands relevant to EPSs and outline several novel propositions associated

55

with consumers‘ reliance on heuristic versus reflective processes in evaluating products. By doing so, we

56

join EPS with more recent literature of dual process and systems theory (duality of mind) in consumer

57

psychology (Alós-Ferrer & Strack, 2013; Chaiken, 1980; Kahneman, 2011; Samson & Voyer, 2012;

58

Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000).

59

We first review recent research on consumer decision making, more specifically on duality of

60

mind and heuristic versus reflective processes. We highlight the specificity of EPSs and the ways they

61

differ from standard purchasing situations in the areas of regulatory focus, perceived time pressure, and

62

stress. We then discuss variables related to purchase involvement, specifically the roles of product

63

importance, purchase risk, and product substitutability. In the process, we synthesize existing evidence

64

and offer a series of independent propositions to understand how EPSs might induce consumers to rely

65

on different types of information processing (heuristic vs. reflective) in product evaluation. We then

66

explain how enduring consumer factors, specifically expertise and trust, might affect EPS outcomes. Our 1

Work on patients‘ decisions to use accident and emergency services (e.g., Brown et al., 2000) and studies on satisfaction with such services (e.g., Magaret, Clark, Warden, Magnusson, & Hedges, 2002) also constitute a body of research that is close to EPSs (e.g., seeking advice from a medical professional before deciding whether to use emergency services).

Emergency Purchasing Situations

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

67

discussion summarizes the integrative perspective offered by our model and sets an agenda for further

68

EPS research.

69

2. ‘Duality of mind’ models and consumer decision-making

70

Psychologists have differentiated two systems of thought with different capacities and processes:

71

System 1 and System 2 (Kahneman, 2011; Stanovich & West, 2000, Alós-Ferrer, & Strack, 2013).

72

System 1 consists of high-capacity intuitive processes, draws on associations acquired through

73

experience, and computes information quickly and automatically. In contrast, System 2 involves low-

74

capacity reflective processes, draws on rules acquired through culture or formal learning, and computes

75

information in a relatively slow and controlled manner (e.g., Frankish & Evans, 2009; Kahneman, 2011;

76

Sloman, 1996). According to dual process models in social psychology (Chaiken, 1980; Petty &

77

Cacioppo, 1986), and recent advances in neuroscience (Brocas & Carrillo, 2013), consumers process

78

persuasion material either extensively (reflectively or using a central route) or non-extensively

79

(heuristically or using a peripheral route).

80

Before purchasing, consumers may evaluate products by taking a System 2 or reflective-

81

processing approach and carefully evaluate a product by weighing its costs and benefits using all

82

available information (Kahneman, 2011; Samson & Voyer, 2012; Strack, Werth, & Deutsch, 2006). We

83

refer to this as reflective product evaluation. Alternatively, consumers may be influenced more by

84

System 1 forces, such as affect (how they feel about a product; e.g., Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, &

85

Johnson, 2000) and easily retrievable information in memory (e.g., Folkes, 1988; Kahneman &

86

Frederick, 2002), or cognitive shortcuts that rely on cues and peripheral information (Chaiken, 1980;

87

Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). We refer to this as heuristic product evaluation. For example, consumers‘

88

judgments of or attitudes toward products may stem from packaging design, brand names, and non-

89

conscious price anchors (heuristic evaluation) rather than a deliberate processing of product information

90

and relevant features (reflective evaluation).

91

Variables frequently identified across duality models and decision making stages that make

92

heuristic processing more likely include limited cognitive resources (e.g., time pressure, cognitive load,

93

distraction) and positive mood. In contrast, knowledge or expertise, motivational factors (e.g., purchase Emergency Purchasing Situations

4

94 1 95 2 3 96 4 5 6 7 97 8 9 10 98 11 12 99 13 14100 15 16 17101 18 19102 20 21103 22 23 24104 25 26105 27 28 29106 30 31107 32 33108 34 35109 36 37 38110 39 40111 41 42112 43 44 45113 46 47 48114 49 50 51 52115 53 54 55116 56 57 58117 59 60118 61 62 63 64 65

importance, involvement, or relevance), and negative mood tend to favor reflective processing (see Samson & Voyer, 2012).

3. EPS characteristics and their implications for consumer decision-making In this section, we introduce a series of independent propositions pertaining to the core elements and consequences of EPSs. We first discuss the concept of regulatory focus. We develop propositions about its relationship to time frames and need recognition stemming from changes in current versus desired states. We then offer a proposition about the relationship between regulatory focus and heuristic versus reflective thinking. Finally, we investigate the roles of two related consequences of EPSs on heuristic versus reflective product evaluation: perceived time pressure and stress. Our EPS model (Figure 1) summarizes the independent propositions discussed in this paper. The model postulates that the combination of an unexpected event and high product importance leads to the short time frame characteristic of emergency buying contexts (Postulates 1 and 2). It presents proposed relationships between these definitional variables of EPS and heuristic vs reflective product evaluations, mediated by subjective consumer states (regulatory focus, perceived time pressure and stress). The model includes purchase involvement as a situational dimension related to product characteristics. Purchase involvement is linked to perceived stress and directly affects heuristic vs reflective product evaluation through purchase risk and product substitutability. Finally, individual differences are represented by proposed effects of consumer trust and expertise on decision modes.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

3.1. Regulatory focus In contrast to other types of consumer decision making contexts, EPSs are characterized by a need that suddenly becomes salient. This need has important implications for consumer motivations.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

5

119 1120 2 3 121 4 5 6122 7 8123 9 10124 11 12125 13 14 15126 16 17 18127 19 20128 21 22129 23 24 130 25 26 27131 28 29132 30 31133 32 33134 34 35 36135 37 38136 39 40137 41 42138 43 44 45 139 46 47 48 49140 50 51141 52 53142 54 55143 56 57 58144 59 60145 61 62 63 64 65

Regulatory focus theory (Florack, Keller, & Palcu, 2013; Higgins, 1998; Pham & Higgins, 2005) holds that human motivation is rooted in the approach of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It differentiates a promotion focus from a prevention focus. For example, a person can become healthy by either engaging in physical activity and eating organic food, or refraining from bad habits, such as smoking or eating junk food. Thus, under promotion, consumers pay more attention to the desired state, while preventionfocused consumers pay more attention to the actual state, perceived as a problem. The former involves the pursuit of goals that are achievement or advancement related, characterized by eagerness, whereas the latter focuses on security and protection, characterized by vigilance. Typically, prevention-focused consumers worry about the short-term consequences of actions and are susceptible to short-term regret (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Gilovich & Medvec, 1995). People tend to feel more accountable, focus more on potential causes of failure, and lose confidence in successfully attaining a goal as the ―moment of truth‖ approaches (Gilovic, Kerr, & Medvec, 1993). They also construe relatively distant future events more in terms of their desirability than events in the near future, which are more likely to involve feasibility construals (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Previous research has found that a promotion focus dominates when people think about temporally distant events, whereas a prevention focus is more characteristic of proximate events (Pennington & Roese, 2003). When a purchase is imminent, consumers prefer prevention-framed products, whereas promotion-framed products are preferred for purchases that occur in the more distant future (Theriault et al., 2008). Similarly, sales promotions that expire in the distant future tend to activate a promotion focus, whereas more immediate expiration dates are associated with a prevention focus (Ramanathan & Dhar, 2010). Our first proposition reflects the association between temporality and regulatory focus: Proposition 1. Compared to purchases with a standard time frame, EPSs, which entail short time frames, induce consumers to be more prevention focused.

Pham and Higgins (2005) apply regulatory focus theory to the consumer decision-making process. In the problem recognition state, consumers typically become aware of a need from the discrepancy between an actual state (e.g., I‘m out of milk) and a desired state (e.g., I would like milk with my coffee).

Emergency Purchasing Situations

6

146 1147 2 3 148 4 5 6149 7 8150 9 10151 11 12152 13 14 15153 16 17154 18 19155 20 21156 22 23 24157 25 26158 27 28 29159 30 31160 32 33161 34 35 36162 37 38163 39 40 41164 42 43165 44 45 166 46 47 48167 49 50168 51 52169 53 54 55170 56 57171 58 59172 60 61 62 63 64 65

Although a promotion and prevention focus may differ across people for the same circumstances, Pham and Higgins argue that discrepancies can lead to different foci in two ways. First, need recognition can arise from the desired state moving away from a stationary current state (e.g., a result of changing circumstances). For example, a consumer who usually commutes on public transportation may get a new job in a remote area and suddenly have a need for a car. In our definition of EPS, a desired state change corresponds to an unexpected need. In a second scenario, the desired state may remain the same, but the current state changes. For example, a consumer‘s car may be damaged irreparably and need to be replaced. In an EPS, a current state change corresponds to the unexpected timing of a need (a product requiring replacement or restoration to a previous state). These two scenarios trigger different motivational orientations. In the first case, the orientation is ―advancement‖ activated by a promotion focus, and in the second case, it is ―correcting a problem‖ activated by a prevention focus. This is because, under a promotion focus, consumers pay more attention to the desired state, whereas prevention-focused consumers pay more attention to the actual state (Pham & Higgins, 2005). Building on the link between need recognition and regulatory focus, we posit that emergency purchases that correct an existing need due to a change in a current state (e.g., product failure or loss) are associated with greater prevention focus. In contrast, EPS in which a new need arises from a change in the desired state (due to changing circumstances) should be associated with greater promotion focus. Thus: Proposition 2. EPSs that arise from a change in the current product state (desired product state) induce consumers to be more prevention (promotion) focused.

Förster, Higgins, and Taylor Bianco (2003) demonstrate how eagerness and vigilance can affect task performance by priming participants with either a promotion (gain) or a prevention (loss) mind-set and then instructing them to connect the dots of four subsequent pictures as fast and as thoroughly as possible. They show that a promotion focus leads to lower accuracy and greater speed in performance than a prevention focus. In the processing of information, promotion focus has also been linked to global processing (Förster & Higgins, 2005). In contrast to local processing, this processing style leads people

Emergency Purchasing Situations

7

173 1174 2 3 175 4 5 6176 7 8 9177 10 11178 12 13179 14 15 16180 17 18181 19 20182 21 22183 23 24 184 25 26 27185 28 29186 30 31187 32 33188 34 35 36189 37 38 39190 40 41191 42 43 44192 45 46193 47 48 49 194 50 51 52 53195 54 55 56196 57 58197 59 60198 61 62 63 64 65

to attend to the most relevant (rather than subsidiary) pieces of information when evaluating information. As a result, promotion focused consumers may focus on the main price component (i.e., the base price) without attending sufficiently to supplementary price information, such as surcharges (Lee, Choi & Li, 2014). It has been found that promotion-primed consumers perceive feelings toward an ad as more diagnostic of their judgment of the advertised product overall whereas prevention-primed participants perceive subjective assessments of ad claims as more diagnostic (Pham & Avnet, 2004; Pham & Avnet, 2009). Similarly, research has shown that implicit preferences predict choices better for consumers with a promotion than a prevention focus (Florack, Friese, & Scarabis, 2010). Vigilance, which is a key feature of a prevention focus, reflects a ―controlled and willful cognitive process aimed at reaching a valid conclusion‖ (Kossowska & Bar-Tal, 2012, p. 19; see also Lepisto, Stuenkel, & Anglin, 1991). In contrast, human aspirations and the need for growth associated with a promotion focus involve impulsive consumer choices (Sengupta & Zhou, 2007). Consistent with these findings, promotion-focused consumers should rely more on heuristic modes of evaluating products whereas prevention-focused consumers rely more on reflective modes of evaluation (Pham & Higgins, 2005), although certain heuristics, such as relying on other people‘s behavior, may fit prevention-focused individuals better (Florack et al., 2013). Building on the link between regulatory focus and the heuristic versus reflective evaluation of products, we offer the following proposition: Proposition 3. Consumers who are more prevention (promotion) focused in an EPS are more likely to evaluate products reflectively (heuristically).

3.2. Perceived time pressure Humans have a limited capacity for deliberate and systematic thinking. This has been referred to as ―bounded rationality,‖ or restrictions in the processing of information to arrive at decisions due to limits in knowledge (information), available time, and computational capacities (Gigerenzer & Emergency Purchasing Situations

8

199 1200 2 3 201 4 5 6202 7 8203 9 10204 11 12205 13 14 15206 16 17207 18 19208 20 21 22209 23 24 210 25 26 27211 28 29212 30 31213 32 33214 34 35 36215 37 38216 39 40217 41 42218 43 44 45219 46 47 48220 49 50221 51 52 53222 54 55223 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Goldstein, 1996; Kahneman, 2011; Simon, 1982). Time pressure increases the likelihood that consumer judgments about a product are affected by peripheral cues and the application of cognitive shortcuts rather than the integrating and weighing of all available information (Pachur & Hertwig, 2006; Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 2008; Verplanken, 1993). Under these conditions, consumers may choose products on the basis of heuristics such as recognition (Pachur & Hertwig, 2006), lexographic strategies (Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 2008; cf. Payne, Bettman, & Luce, 1996), or affect (Finucane et al., 2000). Consumers may evaluate options by applying a brand name heuristic (Suri & Monroe, 2003), which holds that people evaluate products more favorably if they have positively valenced names (Maheswaran, Mackie, & Chaiken, 1992), or a price heuristic (Mitra, 1995), in which consumers assume that quality is correlated with price. For example, Nowlis (1995) experimentally investigated the effect of time pressure on the choice of brands with different levels of quality, price, and product features. In the experiment, participants needed to make choices either under time pressure (within four minutes and thirty seconds) or with an unlimited amount of time. The results showed that high-quality, high-price brands gained a 15% share on average when choices were made under time pressure. Top-of-the-line models (products with many sophisticated features) gained an average 13% share under those conditions. Suri and Monroe (2003, p. 93) interpret these results as an instance of consumers applying a price-quality heuristic: ―When consumers process information reflectively, they are likely to place relatively more weight on price as an indicator of the monetary sacrifice associated with the purchase. However, when information is processed heuristically, they are likely to place relatively more weight on price as an indicator of quality.‖ Because EPSs entail short time frames, we can expect them to be associated with greater perceived time pressure.2 Proposition 4a. Compared to purchases with a standard time frame, EPS, which entail short time frames, will lead to greater perceived time pressure among consumers.

2

Though distinct from time pressure (Setz, Arnrich, Schumm, La Marca, Troster, & Ehlert, 2010), cognitive load may play a similar role in EPSs. Drolet and Luce (2004) show that consumers experiencing a high cognitive load are more likely to engage in trade-offs when making decisions about product attributes.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

9

224 1225 2 3 226 4 5 6227 7 8228 9 10229 11 12 230 13 14 15 16231 17 18232 19 20 21233 22 23234 24 25235 26 27 28 29236 30 31 32237 33 34238 35 36239 37 38 240 39 40 41241 42 43242 44 45243 46 47244 48 49 50 245 51 52 53246 54 55247 56 57248 58 59249 60 61 62 63 64 65

Depending on the type of product to be acquired or replaced and the purchasing context, there will be within-EPS variations in time frames, ranging from minutes (e.g., car breaking down on the highway or a gushing water leak at home) to hours or days (e.g., having to fix a car‘s broken tail light or treating an ant problem in the kitchen). Time pressure manipulations used in laboratory settings, which may be objectively measured on a scale of seconds or minutes, may only be comparable to more extreme EPSs. However, time pressure is mostly subjective, reflecting consumers‘ perceived urgency of a limited amount of time remaining before they must satisfy their need (Jacoby, Szybillo, & Kohn Berning, 1976). Based on past work that shows the effect of time pressure on information processing, consumers should evaluate products in a more heuristic manner with increasing levels of perceived time pressure. Proposition 4b: Consumers with lower (higher) perceived time pressure in EPS will evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

3.3. Perceived stress Stress refers to a "state of imbalance within a person, elicited by an actual or perceived disparity between environmental demands and the person's capacity to cope with these demands" (Maes, Vingerhoets, & Van Heck, 1987, p. 567). Stress is often an important feature of emergency purchase decision making occurring from an event that has led to the need, which is further exacerbated by time pressure (Lepisto et al., 1991), uncertainty, and risk. Consumer researchers have mainly focused on stress in relation to consumption behavior, such as using consumption as a way to cope (e.g., Mathur, Moschis, & Lee, 2006), or stressful consumption episodes, such as crowded retail environments and other service encounters (e.g., Duhackek, 2005). As discussed by Moschis (2007), psychologists have conceptualized stress as a stimulus, response, or both. The stimulus definitions tend to focus on external conditions in the form of situations or events. In this view, all change brought about by stressors is potentially harmful because people must adjust to the conditions. In contrast, response definitions emphasize the state of stress experienced or perceived by the person. According to this perspective, stress is subjective; it is a reaction to conditions.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

10

250

Stress can be either chronic or acute, the latter of which is often due to unexpected events. At a problem

1251 2 3 252 4 5 6253 7 8254 9 10255 11 12 256 13 14 15 16257 17 18258 19 20259 21 22260 23 24 261 25 26 27262 28 29263 30 31 32264 33 34265 35 36 37 266 38 39 40 41267 42 43268 44 45269 46 47270 48 49 50271 51 52272 53 54273 55 56274 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

recognition stage, consumers‘ perceived need for products or services can itself create stress, along with factors such as budgeting, especially if they create conflicts. At an information-seeking stage, stress can arise from the amount of perceived risk and uncertainty, while the evaluation stage can be fraught with difficulties and conflicts in making choices (too much information or too many options), leading to stress. Finally, stress at the purchase stage can arise from problems due to the availability of products or services, along with transactional difficulties. Perceived stress is the product of both the person and the situation. Event characteristics identified in relation to stressfulness include the event‘s relative importance, desirability, controllability, and (un)expectedness (Moschis, 2007). With respect to the last factor, stress results from a lack of preparation time: ―A person has more time to prepare (e.g., seek more information to reduce risk) for important anticipatory consumer decisions than for decisions that are unexpected and must be made within a relatively short period (e.g., car replacement due to length of use versus unexpected severe damage)‖ Moschis (2007, p. 433). Thus: Proposition 5a. Compared to purchases with a standard time frame, EPS, which entail short time frames, will lead to greater perceived stress among consumers.

Stress can impair information processing by narrowing attention and thereby limiting people‘s ability to assimilate new information. In this case, people are more likely to scan alternatives in a nonsystematic way (Keinan, 1987) or use simplified (heuristic) decision rules (Janis, 1982). For example, people may let a minimally satisfactory criterion determine choice (―satisficing‖), over-weight historical analogies, or neglect a detailed analysis in favor of general formulas based on ideological principles or an operational code (Janis, 1982). Stress accompanied by physiological arousal can lead to greater sensitivity to peripheral cues, thereby indicating shallow rather than deep information processing (Sanbonmatsu & Kardes, 1988).3 After consumers have evaluated information, stress may lead to a 3

Because stress is likely to induce anxiety, we expect risk reduction to be an important aspect of consumer decision making under stressful moments of need conditions. Such reduction is likely to include social cues and information

Emergency Purchasing Situations

11

275 1276 2 3 4277 5 6 7278 8 9279 10 11280 12 13281 14 15 16282 17 18283 19 20284 21 22285 23 24 286 25 26 27287 28 29288 30 31 32289 33 34290 35 36 291 37 38 39292 40 41293 42 43294 44 45 46 295 47 48 49296 50 51297 52 53298 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

―premature closure‖: They make a decision before considering all available alternatives (Ibanez, Czermak, & Sutter, 2009; Keinan, 1987). Severely stressful events, such natural disasters, are associated with extreme hypervigilance decision-making (Janis & Mann, 1977). Under these conditions, responses to the situation are relatively automatic (heuristic). Under hypervigilance, information is often collected non-systematically (Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, & Tabak, 1997). In contrast, vigilance is a less excited state in a threatening situation in which potential alternatives can still be considered (Janis & Mann, 1977; Lepisto et al., 1991). In this case, stress can be positive, possibly resulting in heightened (reflective) information processing (Lepisto et al., 1991). This is consistent with research on affect and dual process thinking, which indicates that negative moods lead to more reflective information processing whereas positive moods result in heuristic thinking (Howard & Barry, 1994; Kahneman, 2011). Taken together, research and theories on the relationship between stress and the evaluation of information indicates that compared with a low-level stress baseline, moderate levels of stress (vigilance) lead to greater reflective processing. Compared with that same baseline, high levels of stress lead to greater heuristic processing. Thus: Proposition 5b. Compared to purchases with low levels of stress, EPSs with moderate (high) levels of stress lead consumers to evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

4. Purchase involvement in an EPS: The role of product importance, purchase risk, and product substitutability in the consumer decision making process Aside from regulatory focus, perceived time pressure, and stress, which are core elements of consumers‘ subjective response to EPSs, we expect that emergency purchases differ such that various contexts also produce different levels of motivation to process product information. In this section we review three product-related factors that can affect decision-making processes in an EPS: perceived

seeking in the form of other consumers‘ recommendations. Indeed, researchers have treated risk (and, by extension, anxiety) reduction as one of the main reasons for seeking other people‘s advice, ranging from traditional word-ofmouth to online recommendations (Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006; Roselius, 1971).

Emergency Purchasing Situations

12

299 1300 2 3 301 4 5 6302 7 8 9303 10 11304 12 13305 14 15 16306 17 18307 19 20308 21 22309 23 24 310 25 26 27311 28 29 30312 31 32313 33 34314 35 36 315 37 38 39 40316 41 42317 43 44318 45 46 47319 48 49 50 320 51 52 53321 54 55322 56 57323 58 59 60324 61 62 63 64 65

product importance (Bloch & Richins, 1983), purchase risk (e.g., Laurent & Kapferer, 1985), and product substitutability (Mittal, 1989; Zaichkowsky, 1986). Importance, risk and substitutability together represent the dimension of purchase involvement. Given the unexpected nature of EPSs, these three interrelated factors are likely to play an important role in consumers‘ decision making processes. In the duality of mind literature, purchases of greater importance, such as expensive products or risky purchases, and purchases for which consumers expect to be held accountable by others lead to more reflective decisions (Strack et al., 2006) through greater involvement (Bloch & Richins, 1983). Product involvement is related to the concept of personal relevance, which occurs when an issue has significant consequences for a person‘s life, leading to greater motivation to elaborate on the content of a message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). For example, Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) show that participants who were manipulated to be highly involved with a certain product were less likely to be affected by peripheral cues, such as celebrity endorsement. Conversely, participants who were not manipulated to be involved with the product were more likely to be affected by peripheral cues. Since consumer choices in an EPS are evaluated and perceived in light of risks and goals (e.g., getting a product replaced by a certain deadline), which entail important and difficult decisions involving trade-offs (Luce, Bettman, & Payne, 2001), purchase involvement should also be related to stress (Moschis, 2007). Hence: Proposition 6. EPSs associated with higher (lower) purchase involvement will lead to higher (lower) perceived stress among consumers.

4.1. Product importance The short time frame characteristic of an EPS results from the combination of an unexpected event and high product importance. A product with enduring importance (e.g., car) may break down, leading to a need for an emergency repair or replacement. A product may also attain situational importance (e.g., snow chains) as a result of a change in circumstances (e.g., an approaching blizzard). With respect to enduring importance, Maslow‘s (1943) classical hierarchy of needs is useful to Emergency Purchasing Situations

13

325 1326 2 3 327 4 5 6328 7 8329 9 10330 11 12331 13 14 15332 16 17333 18 19334 20 21335 22 23 24336 25 26337 27 28 29338 30 31339 32 33340 34 35 36341 37 38342 39 40343 41 42 43344 44 45 345 46 47 48 49346 50 51 52347 53 54348 55 56349 57 58350 59 60 61351 62 63 64 65

understand which category of goods will have the most importance to consumers. For household goods, for example, consumers most likely will judge those pertaining to primary needs in the hierarchy— physiological needs (e.g., food, cooking appliances) or safety needs (e.g., a door lock)—as important products. They will consider other goods (e.g., a television, microwave oven) useful but not essential for the functioning of a household. However, this conceptualization neglects the subjective nature of product importance, which is reflected in Bloch and Richins‘s (1983, p. 72) definition of enduring importance as ―a long-term, cross-situational perception of product importance, based on the strength of the product's relationship to central needs and values.‖ Bloch and Richins argue that for a product to carry high enduring importance, pleasure needs to be derived from the consumption of that product. Similarly, product importance can vary depending on the degree of symbolic significance of the product to be purchased. EPSs in which a product to be bought belongs to an upmarket, premium, or luxury category might also require additional attention because of the high-involvement nature of these categories of products (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Second, products may be important because the situation makes them important. Bloch and Richins (1983, p. 72) refer to the situational nature of importance as instrumental product importance, or a ―temporary perception of product importance based on the consumer's desire to obtain particular extrinsic goals that may derive from the purchase and/or usage of the product.‖ For example, a consumer who lives in a sub-tropical climate (and would not normally consider snow chains for her car as important) may find herself in an unexpected blizzard after taking her car to a mountainous region. We postulate that, along with unexpectedness, high product importance is a prerequisite for the short time-frame characteristic of EPSs (Postulate 2, Figure 1). 4.2. Purchase risk Marketing scholars have traditionally distinguished between enduring involvement, defined as a consumer‘s degree of interest in a product category, and situational involvement, in which a consumer is motivated to make the right choice (Mittal & Lee, 1988). People who are more involved with a product category have greater interest in information search and attribute comparison, while also exhibiting stronger brand preferences (Zaichkowsky, 1986). Situationally, involvement is heightened with greater Emergency Purchasing Situations

14

352 1353 2 3 354 4 5 6355 7 8356 9 10357 11 12358 13 14 15359 16 17 18360 19 20361 21 22362 23 24 25363 26 27 28364 29 30365 31 32366 33 34 35367 36 37 38368 39 40369 41 42370 43 44371 45 46 372 47 48 49373 50 51 52374 53375 54 55376 56 57 58377 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

perceived risk associated with product purchase, which depends on both the perceived importance of negative consequences if the choice turns out to be a poor one and the perceived probability of making such a mistake or mis-purchase (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985). Factors that heighten purchase risk include potential consequences that come with the expense and the commitment evident in the acquisition of ―subscription‖ products, such as services and durables (Murray, 1991; Sharp, Wright, & Goodhardt, 2002). This aspect of perceived risk overlaps4 with product importance (see Section 4.1). In addition, the short time frame associated with emergency purchases is likely to increase consumers‘ sensitivity to potential service failure, such as the non-timely delivery of a replacement product. In short, perceived purchase risk in EPSs should motivate consumers to process information about products in a more careful and deliberate (reflective) manner to reduce potential negative consequences of a poor choice. Thus: Proposition 7. EPSs associated with higher (lower) perceived purchase risk lead consumers to evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

4.3. Product substitutability Mittal (1989) investigates differences in involvement between regular purchases and special circumstance purchases, including emergencies and special occasions. He measured involvement by asking respondents about their perceived differentiation of brands, their concerns about making the right brand choice, and the importance of the outcome of their choice. He conjectured that in contrast with buying wine for a special occasion, for example, an emergency situation would result in less caring about making a good purchase and, thus, lower purchase involvement. In the case of eyeglasses, Mittal (1989, p. 158) used the following scenario to describe the emergency context to research participants: You are on a week-long out-of-town trip, and you forgot your eyeglasses back home. You absolutely wouldn't have bought a second pair of glasses but for the fact that you do need them during your trip. Fortunately, you always have your prescription with you, so you need to spend money only for eyeglasses.

Mittal‘s research shows that compared with the regular buy of eyeglasses (mean of 6.27 on the 4

Although product importance increases purchase risk, the latter does not necessarily lead to the former.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

15

378 1379 2 3 380 4 5 6381 7 8382 9 10383 11 12384 13 14 15385 16 17 18386 19 20387 21 22388 23 24 389 25 26 27 28390 29 30391 31 32392 33 34 393 35 36 37 38394 39 40395 41 42396 43 44397 45 46 398 47 48 49399 50 51400 52 53 54401 55 56 57402 58 59403 60 61 62 63 64 65

involvement scale), the emergency buy scored significantly lower (mean of 5.08). According to the author, the emergency situation induced less caring and concern about making a good purchase. Similar to product substitutability in relation to product-class involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1986), the temporary or secondary nature of such an emergency purchase is associated with low purchase decision involvement. It is likely that the involvement levels would have been more similar if the scenario had been about a loss or breakage of the existing glasses, implying a replacement rather than temporary substitution and acquisition of a secondary pair. Under those conditions, the perceived importance of the purchase and its outcome should have been relatively unaffected. Thus, in contrast with EPSs in which permanent solutions or primary product acquisitions are made, indicating low product substitutability, purchases representing temporary fixes or secondary product acquisitions, indicating high product substitutability, should favor greater heuristic processing in product evaluations. Proposition 8. EPSs that involve a permanent or primary (substitute or secondary) product purchase lead consumers to evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

5. Individual differences in EPSs: The role of expertise and trust Given that a central element of the EPSs concept is unexpectedness, enduring variables are likely to play an important role in the consumer decision-making process. We show how two important characteristics, expertise and trust (McGuire, 1976), can potentially moderate situational variables, overall affecting consumers‘ decision making processes in an EPS. While expertise enables consumers to draw on previous knowledge to make better decisions, trust is likely to facilitate persuasion of consumers. For each variable, we discuss and suggest different ways in which they can interact with some of the previously mentioned situational factors. 5.1. Expertise in EPS Due to the unexpected nature of an EPS, consumers will not have predicted the incidence or timing of the situation and are less likely to have acquired knowledge relevant to the purchase. As a

Emergency Purchasing Situations

16

404 1405 2 3 4406 5 6 7407 8 9408 10 11409 12 13410 14 15 16411 17 18412 19 20413 21 22414 23 24 25415 26 27 28416 29 30417 31 32418 33 34419 35 36 420 37 38 39421 40 41422 42 43423 44 45 46424 47 48 49425 50 51 52426 53 54 55427 56 57 58428 59 60429 61 62 63 64 65

consequence, previously acquired consumer expertise within the category of decision-making is likely to affect decision-making differently in an EPS than in a standard purchasing situation. Consumer expertise has long been recognized as one of the core enduring variables in consumer psychology (see Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Experts typically possess more elaborate personal knowledge than novices (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000) as a result of higher involvement in the processing of information and deeper processing of the information presented. The literature on attitude formation and decision making indeed suggests that experts, more than novices, rely on reflective thinking when processing information (Petty & Cacioppo 1986; Petty et al., 1981). As a consequence of their extensive knowledge, experts tend to have more accessible attitudes toward the products and product categories in which they are experts (Fazio, 1995). In an EPS, experts may therefore mobilize existing knowledge more readily than novices, which in turn triggers different attitudes. Consumers with low levels of expertise, on the other hand, are likely to exhibit the opposite pattern of information processing by relying on System 1 or fast thinking to process information (Alba & Hutchinson, 2000). This is because novices tend to find that systematic information processing takes a lot of time and is of little help (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Such attitudes toward reflective information processing are likely to be reinforced in an EPS, because non-experts see their information-processing capacities reduced by situational factors like perceived time pressure and stress. In turn, this could lead to an even greater reliance on heuristics. Low-expertise consumers might initially process a relatively large number of cues more extensively, not knowing what to search for. This might eventually cause them to rely on heuristics in order to save time and effort. Proposition 9. In an EPS, experts (novices) will evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

5.2. Consumer trust in EPS Trust has been referred to as one of the key variables in both persuasion and decision-making (Rilling & Sanfey, 2011). In itself, trust is a broad concept that has been conceptualized in several Emergency Purchasing Situations

17

430 1431 2 3 432 4 5 6433 7 8434 9 10 11435 12 13436 14 15 16437 17 18438 19 20439 21 22440 23 24 441 25 26 27442 28 29443 30 31 32444 33 34445 35 36 446 37 38 39447 40 41448 42 43449 44 45 450 46 47 48451 49 50452 51 52 53453 54 55454 56 57 58 455 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

different ways in the literature (Kennedy, Ferrell, & Leclair, 2001). For example, Matthews and Shimoff (1979) identify trust as a risk-related concept, in which people accept the risk of a potential loss when trusting a person. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define ―consumer trust‖ as a multi-dimensional construct that comprises beliefs about the expertise of the provider of the goods, beliefs that the provider will serve the interests of the consumer, and the provider‘s perceived integrity and honesty. Trust, in term of both consumer trust and source trust, can play an important role in EPS decision making for several reasons. First, if greater prevention focus is triggered by an EPS, consumers will search for sources that inspire trust. This search may be based on both detailed information (e.g., product reviews) and heuristic cues (e.g., brand names or popularity). Second, trust is conceptually related to risk and risk perception. Trust involves accepting a certain degree of vulnerability in a consumer or business relationship (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and plays a key role in situations in which the consumer has no previous experience with the source (McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002). This can be the case in many EPSs, in which purchases are so infrequent that consumers have stored no preferences or attitudes in memory. Prior research has shown that consumer trust affects decision-making processes and is crucial for companies that want to establish long-term relationships (Doney & Cannon 1997; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). Consumer trust is also sensitive to whether consumers suspect a source to be biased or to have received incentives to endorse a product (Folkes, 1988). Kang and Herr (2006) show that source characteristics can be processed both heuristically and reflectively. Because of consumers‘ greater vigilance in EPSs and potentially heightened sensitivity to purchase risk, it can be assumed that consumer distrust should induce more careful information processing and the use of a reflective strategy. Consumer trust, on the other hand, can lower consumers‘ guard and lead to a lighter informationprocessing strategy in the form of reliance on heuristics. Proposition 10. In an EPS, consumers with low (high) levels of trust will evaluate products more reflectively (heuristically).

Emergency Purchasing Situations

18

456 1 2457 3 4458 5 6 7459 8 9460 10 11461 12 13462 14 15 16463 17 18464 19 20465 21 22466 23 24 467 25 26 27468 28 29 30469 31 32470 33 34471 35 36 472 37 38 39473 40 41474 42 43475 44 45 476 46 47 48477 49 50478 51 52 53479 54 55480 56 57 481 58 59 60482 61 62 63 64 65

6. Summary and Discussion This article reflects on a new conceptualization of a specific type of buying context—namely, that of Emergency Purchasing Situations (EPSs). We define EPSs as buying contexts characterized by unexpectedness (either due to an unanticipated need or an unanticipated timing of a need), high product importance and a shortened decision-making time frame. Our discussion offers an approach to understanding consumers‘ evaluations of products in EPSs when pressing circumstances are likely to disrupt normal decision-making processes. We advance a series of independent propositions related to the core elements of EPSs and their effects on heuristic vs reflective decision making modes in product evaluation. These propositions cover subjective states in the form of changes in regulatory focus (induced by the short purchase time frame of EPSs and different types of need recognition), perceived time pressure and stress. We also consider the effects of purchase involvement factors (product importance, purchase risk, and product substitutability) and individual differences (consumer trust and expertise) on product evaluations. Due to the short time frame characteristic of an EPS, our model suggests greater prevention focus and reflective product evaluations in emergency contexts. Prevention focus and reflectivity may be enhanced further if the unexpected event that triggers the EPS is a change in current product state (e.g., product failure or loss), which may represent a typical EPS scenario. This would imply that baseline product evaluation processes in an EPS are often relatively reflective. However, our model also suggests that other core consumer perceptions in these situations, namely perceived time pressure and stress, present subjective forces that may counter reflectivity through heuristic product evaluations. Heuristic processing should be particularly dominant if high levels of time pressure or stress coincide with the evaluation of inexpensive, low-involvement consumer goods, where a focus on basic functional attributes leads to high product substitutability in an emergency situation. The nature of the products bought in an EPS is likely to affect the decision-making process. In many cases, EPSs will occur for goods with a long life span (e.g., household appliances), for which consumers typically have little experience or expertise. Nelson (1974) distinguishes between search and experience goods. Search goods can be researched. They are products for which ideal properties or

Emergency Purchasing Situations

19

483 1484 2 3 485 4 5 6486 7 8487 9 10488 11 12 13489 14 15 16 490 17 18 19491 20 21492 22 23493 24 25494 26 27 28495 29 30496 31 32497 33 34 35498 36 37499 38 39500 40 41 42501 43 44 502 45 46 47503 48 49504 50 51505 52 53 506 54 55 56507 57 58508 59 60509 61 62 63 64 65

qualities can be determined before purchase (e.g., a television set). Experience goods are products that cannot easily be evaluated until experienced (e.g., a plumber). Given the nature of EPSs, it might be that many products bought under an EPS will be experience goods. King and Balasubramanian (1994) suggest that consumers tend to rely on product attribute search and reflective information processing for search goods, whereas they are more likely to also rely on external sources (in the form of recommendations) for experience goods. 6.1 Further research The predictive utility and power of EPS variables‘ effects needs to be considered in future work. For example, would the impact of variables associated with heuristic processing (e.g., high levels of perceived stress or time pressure, high product substitutability) cancel out or even overrule the effect of other core EPS variables associated with reflective processing (e.g., prevention focus and high purchase risk)? Sequences of decision making can also be investigated. For instance, how do EPSs affect the order and composition of consumer decision-making stages? Following recent debates in the duality of mind literature, do any of these stages‘ product evaluation processes occur in parallel or sequentially (Evans ,

2007, 2008)? We can also expect associations between EPS variables that were treated as a core set of independent propositions here, most notably between need recognition (i.e., change in current versus desired state) and aspects of purchase involvement (e.g., substitutability), as well as between regulatory focus, perceived time pressure and stress. Further consideration and testing of potential independence and interactions between EPS variables could contribute to a more balanced and complete account of consumer decision-making. Research in the decision-making area has often highlighted the existence of a complex interaction and combination of contextual factors, dispositions, and level of involvement in determining whether a cue is processed using a central (reflective) or peripheral (heuristic) route (Maclnnis and Jaworski, 1989; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993). Research on regulatory fit, for example, implies that decisionmaking is sensitive to content, but that heuristic processing occurs independently of regulatory focus. Studies suggest that the congruence between individuals‘ regulatory focus and prevention or promotion cues will have a greater effect on attitudes and behavior under high time pressure and low involvement

Emergency Purchasing Situations

20

510 1511 2 3 512 4 5 6513 7 8 9514 10 11515 12 13516 14 15 16517 17 18518 19 20519 21 22520 23 24 521 25 26 27522 28 29523 30 31524 32 33525 34 35 36526 37 38 39527 40 41528 42 43529 44 45 530 46 47 48531 49 50532 51 52533 53 54534 55 56 57535 58 59536 60 61 62 63 64 65

conditions than contexts fostering reflective processing (Aaker & Lee, 2006). We would also expect enduring variables (trust or expertise) to moderate some of the relationships between our model‘s situational variables. Consumer trust is likely to interact with perceived purchase risk, for example, as consumers should require more trust in a risky purchase context and less trust in a low-risk situation. Integrating the present EPS propositions with the literature on dual-process models of persuasion could also open new and interesting research areas. Many providers of services related to EPSs (e.g. locksmiths or plumbers) heavily rely on advertising (including direct marketing) to attract new clients. Understanding how consumers process communication materials in an EPS will allow the elaboration of more persuasive messages. Following the literature on dual-process models of persuasion (Chaiken 1980; Eagly & Chaiken 1993; Petty & Cacioppo 1986), consumers are likely to pay attention to elements such as the quality and logic of arguments, when EPS induce reflective processing (Samson & Voyer, 2012, p 51). In the case of EPS inducing heuristic processing, consumers are likely to pay more attention to the emotional nature of messages, such as the attractiveness of the source, or the aesthetics of goods (Samson & Voyer, 2012, p 51). In addition, some variables traditionally studied in the persuasion literature might prove very relevant for EPS research. Word of mouth, for instance, could play a critical role in an EPS, as consumers might judge a source that experienced a similar situation as a highly trusted one. Finally, if the EPS results from an event like product failure or loss, the consequence of EPS on decision making are likely to extend beyond the purchase of a replacement product. Consumers‘ satisfaction with an emergency purchase could be studied from the perspective of the literature on postpurchase satisfaction (e.g. Folkes, 1984; McCollough, Berry, & Yadav, 2000). This may include the extent to which satisfaction is determined by a replacement product‘s performance relative to the original (McCollough et al., 2000), as well as the consequence of an EPS resulting from different types of consumer attributions (Folkes, 1984). EPS associated with dispositional attributions (e.g. buying a pair of sunglasses because the consumer left them at home) might, for instance, might result in less favorable product evaluations than those associated with situational attributions (e.g. replacing sunglasses that were stolen). Testing propositions about EPSs and decision-making will require experimental designs that

Emergency Purchasing Situations

21

537 1 2538 3 4 5539 6 7 540 8 9 10541 11 12542 13 14543 15 16 544 17 18 19545 20 21546 22 23547 24 25548 26 27 28549 29 30550 31 32551 33 34552 35 36 553 37 38 39554 40 41555 42 43556 44 45 46557 47 48 49 558 50 51 52559 53 54560 55 56561 57 58562 59 60 61563 62 63 64 65

balance psychological and mundane realism with ethical research considerations. 6.2. Managerial implications Our conceptualization of EPSs sheds more light on the duality of mind in consumers‘ evaluations of products by highlighting practical situations in which consumers are more or less likely to rely on heuristic versus reflective processes. This carries a series of managerial implications, especially for marketers working in service industries that traditionally target EPS customers (e.g., locksmiths, road-side assistance, pharmacies or insurance companies). Managers can use our conceptualization to better understand their customers and, in turn, adapt their marketing communications. Although consumers increasingly rely on the internet to purchase products, consumer goods are more readily available in bricks-and-mortar stores. The location of a store might also affect the likelihood that consumers shopping at that store will be an EPS situation. This would be the case, for instance, of convenience stores or gas stations, which might see a higher proportion of consumers buying in an EPS. Retail managers could use this research to adapt the type of information provided to customers who visit their store in emergency situations. These could, for instance, involve displaying information for easier heuristic processing (e.g. immediate availability of the good or service, non-verbal messages and/or concise communication, or recommended options) in an EPS. Managers could also test and implement heuristic cues (e.g., message frames) for low-involvement products or high time pressure situations that fit consumers‘ regulatory focus (Aaker & Lee, 2006). Finally, by gaining a better understanding of the affective and cognitive implications of emergency contexts more generally, companies and consumer advocates may also develop strategies to help consumers cope with those unexpected situations. 7. Conclusion This article introduced Emergency Purchasing Situations (EPSs), buying contexts characterized by unexpectedness, high product importance and shortened decision-making time frames. We advanced a series of independent propositions related to the core elements of EPSs and their effects on decisionmaking. Specifically, we discussed the role of subjective states (regulatory focus, time pressure and stress), purchase involvement and individual differences on heuristic vs reflective product evaluation modes. We further considered the implications of our model and how it can inform future research and Emergency Purchasing Situations

22

564 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

theorizing. Finally, we discussed how our EPS framework can be used to improve managerial practice.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

23

565 1566 2 3567 4 5568 6 7569 8570 9 10571 11 12572 13 14573 15574 16 17575 18 576 19 20 21577 22 23578 24579 25 26580 27 581 28 29 30582 31583 32584 33 34 585 35 36586 37 38587 39588 40 41589 42 43590 44 45591 46592 47 48593 49 50594 51 52595 53596 54 55597 56 598 57 58 59599 60600 61 62 63 64 65

References

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1519. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 123-156. Alós-Ferrer, C., & Strack, F. (2013) From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology. Online first doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.12.005 Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Tabak, N. (1997). The effect of need and ability to achieve cognitive structuring on cognitive structuring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1158–1176. Bayus, B. L. (1991). The consumer durable replacement buyer. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 42-51. Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69-81. Brocas, I., & Carrillo, J. D. (2013). Dual-process theories of decision-making: A selective survey. Journal of economic psychology(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.01.004 Brown, A. L., Mann, N. C., Daya, M., Goldberg, R., Meischke, H., Taylor, J., . . . & Cooper, L. (2000). Demographic, belief, and situational factors influencing the decision to utilize emergency medical services among chest pain patients. Circulation, 102(2), 173-178. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.2.173 Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 212-216. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-51. Drolet, A., & Luce, M. F. (2004). The rationalizing effects of cognitive load on emotion‐based trade‐off avoidance. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 63-77. Duhackek, A. (2005). Coping: A multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses to stressful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 41-53. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

24

601 602

1 2 603 3 4604 5 6605 7606 8 9607 10 11608 12609 13 14610 15611 16 17 18612 19613 20 21614 22615 23 24 616 25 26617 27 28618 29619 30 31620 32 33621 34 35622 36623 37624 38 39 40625 41626 42627 43 44628 45 46629 47 48630 49631 50 51632 52 633 53 54 55634 56635 57 58636 59 637 60 61 62 63 64 65

Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101(July), 519–527. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(4), 321-339. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength (pp. 247-282). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17. Florack, A., Friese, M., & Scarabis, M. (2010). Regulatory focus and reliance on implicit preferences in consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 193–204. Florack, A., Keller, J., & Palcu, J. (2013). Regulatory focus in economic contexts. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 127-137. Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398-409. Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 13–23. Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636 Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Taylor Bianco, A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148-164. Frankish, K., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2009). The duality of mind: an historical perspective. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 1–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669. Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret: What, when, and why. Psychological Review, 102, 379-395. Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 3‐14. Griffin, D. W., & Varey, C. A. (1996). Toward a consensus on overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(March), 227–231. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

25

638 639 1 2640 3 4641 5642 6643 7 8 644 9 10645 11 12646 13647 14 15648 16 17649 18 19650 20 21651 22652 23 24653 25 26654 27655 28 29656 30 657 31 32 33658 34659 35 36660 37661 38 39 40662 41663 42 43664 44665 45 46666 47 48667 49668 50 51669 52 670 53 54 55671 56672 57673 58 59674 60 61675 62 63 64 65

Howard, D. J., & Barry, T. E. (1994). The role of thematic congruence between a mood-inducing event and an advertised product in determining the effects of mood on brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 1-27. Ibanez, M., Czermak, S., & Sutter, M. (2009). Searching for a better deal: On the influence of group decision making, time pressure and gender on search behavior. Journal of economic psychology, 30(1), 1-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.10.003 Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J., & Kohn Berning, C. (1976). Time and consumer behavior: An interdisciplinary overview. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 320-339. Janis, I. (1982). Decision making under stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 69-80). New York: Free Press. Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002), Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics of intuitive judgment: Extensions and applications (pp. 49-81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kang, Y. S., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 123-130. Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under controllable and uncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 639-644. Kennedy, M. S., Ferrell, L. K., & LeClair, D. T. (2001). Consumers' trust of salesperson and manufacturer: an empirical study. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 73-86. King, M. F., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). The effects of expertise, end goal, and product type on adoption of preference formation strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 146-159. Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and who you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216–247. Kossowska, M., & Bar-Tal, Y. (2012). Need for closure and heuristic information processing: The moderating role of the ability to achieve the need for closure. British Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12001. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53. Lee, K., Choi, J., & Li, Y. J. (2014). Regulatory focus as a predictor of attitudes toward partitioned and combined pricing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.01.001. Lepisto, L. R., Stuenkel, J. K., & Anglin, L. K. (1991). Stress: An ignored situational influence. In R. H. Holman, & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 18, pp. 296-302). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Emergency Purchasing Situations

26

676 1677 2 678 3 4 5679 6680 7 8681 9682 10 11 12683 13684 14685 15 16686 17 18687 19688 20 21689 22 23690 24 691 25 26 27692 28693 29 30694 31695 32 33 34696 35697 36 37698 38699 39 40 700 41 42701 43 44702 45703 46 47704 48 49705 50 51706 52 53707 54708 55 709 56 57 58710 59711 60 61 62 63 64 65

Psychology, 75, 5-18. Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (2001). Emotional decisions: Trade off difficulty and coping in consumer choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Maclnnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23. Maes, S., Vingerhoets, A., & Van Heck, E. (1987). The study of stress and disease: Some developments and requirements. Social Science Medicine, 25, 567-578. Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317-336. Magaret, N. D., Clark, T. A., Warden, C. R., Magnusson, A. R., & Hedges, J. R. (2002). Patient satisfaction in the emergency department—A survey of pediatric patients and their parents. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(12), 1379-1388. doi: 10.1197/aemj.9.12.1379 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370. Mason, R. (2005). Missing links: Product classification theory and the social characteristics of goods. Marketing Theory, 5(3), 309-322. Mathur, A., Moschis, G. P., & Lee, E. (2006). Consumer stress-handling strategies: Theory and research findings. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 193-203. Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1979). Expansion of exchange monitoring trust levels in ongoing exchange relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23, 538-560. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. McCollough, M. A., Berry, L. L., & Yadav, M. S. (2000). An empirical investigation of customer satisfaction after service failure and recovery. Journal of Service Research, 3, 121-137. McGuire, W. J. (1976). Some internal psychological factors influencing consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 302-319. doi: 10.2307/2488659 McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for ecommerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research, 13(3), 334-359. Mitra, A. (1995). Price cue utilization in product evaluations: The moderating role of motivation and attribute information. Journal of Business Research, 33, 187-195. Mittal, B. (1989). Measuring purchase-decision involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 147-162. Mittal, B., & Lee, M.-S. (1988). Separating brand-choice involvement from product involvement via consumer involvement profiles. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 15, pp. 43-49). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Mittal, B., & Lee, M. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 363-89.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

27

712 713

1 2 714 3 4715 5 6716 7 8717 9718 10 11 12719 13720 14721 15 16722 17 18723 19724 20725 21 726 22 23 24727 25728 26 27729 28730 29 30 31731 32732 33 34733 35734 36 37 735 38 39736 40 41737 42738 43 44739 45 46740 47741 48 49742 50743 51 52744 53 54745 55746 56 57747 58 59748 60 61749 62 63 64 65

Moschis, G. P. (2007). Stress and consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 430-444. Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10–25. Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising As Information. Journal of Political Economy, 81(July/August), 729–754. Nowlis, S. M. (1995). The effect of time pressure on the choice between brands that differ in quality, price, and product features. Marketing Letters, 6, 287-295. Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2006). On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: Retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 983-1002. Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (1996). When time is money: Decision behavior under opportunity-cost time pressure. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 66, 131–152. Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563–576. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 123-205. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argumentbased persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267-278. Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518. Pham, M. T., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Promotion and prevention in consumer decision making: The state of the art and theoretical propositions. In S. Ratneshwar, & D. G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 8-43). London: Routledge. Ramanathan, S., & Dhar, S. K. (2010). The effect of sales promotions on the size and composition of the shopping basket: Regulatory compatibility from framing and temporal restrictions. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 542-552. Rieskamp, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 258–276. Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 23-48. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56-61. Emergency Purchasing Situations

28

750 751

1 2 752 3 4753 5 6754 7755 8 9756 10 11757 12 13758 14759 15760 16 17 18761 19762 20 21763 22 23764 24 765 25 26 27766 28767 29 30768 31769 32 33 34770 35771 36 37772 38773 39 40 774 41 42775 43 44776 45777 46 47778 48 49779 50 51780 52781 53782 54 55 783 56 57784 58 59785 60 61 62 63 64 65

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Samson, A., & Voyer, B. (2012). Two minds, three ways: Dual system and process models in consumer psychology. AMS Review, 2, 48–71. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 379–385. Sengupta, J., & Zhou, R. (2007). Understanding impulsive choice behaviors: The motivational influences of regulatory focus. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 297-308. Setz, C., Arnrich, B., Schumm, J., La Marca, R., Troster, G., & Ehlert, U. (2010). Discriminating stress from cognitive load using a wearable EDA device. Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on, 14(2), 410-417. Sharp, B., Wright, M. & Goodhardt, G. (2002). Purchase loyalty is polarised into either repertoire or subscription patterns. Australasian Marketing Journal, 10(3), 7–20. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220-247. Strack, F., Werth, L., & Deutsch, R. (2006). Reflective and impulsive determinants of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 205-216. Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 92-104. Theriault, C. M., Aaker, J. L., & Pennington, G. L. (2008), Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 670–681. Verplanken, Bas. (1993). Need for cognition and external information search: Responses to time pressure during decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(3), 238-252. Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1-15. Weber, E. U., & Lindemann, P. G. (2008). From intuition to analysis: Making decisions with your head, your heart, or by the book. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 191-207). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101–126. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4-34.

Emergency Purchasing Situations

29

786 1787 2 3 788 4 5 6789 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43790 44 45791 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

APPENDIX

Figure 1

Emergency Purchasing Situations

30

Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making.

Highlights     

We offer propositions on how emergency purchasing situations affect decision-making Decision-making is framed in terms of reflective vs heuristic product evaluation Current product state-change, short time frame and risk foster reflective processes High time pressure, stress, and product substitutability foster heuristic processes We suggest expertise and trust as moderators of EPS decision-making