- Email: [email protected]
Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior
JCPS-00497; No. of pages: 4; 4C:
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx – xxx
Research Dialogue
Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior Derek D. Rucker a,⁎, Adam D. Galinsky b a
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
b
Received 24 June 2015; accepted 24 June 2015
Abstract In this commentary, we reflect on several important issues and questions provoked by Murphy and Dweck's target article. First, we define a mindset as a frame of mind that affects the selection, encoding, and retrieval of information as well as the types of evaluations and responses an individual gives. As such, we suggest that while studying fixed versus growth mindsets is important, it is critical to explore and understand how a variety of mindsets affect consumer behavior, including regulatory focus, construal level, implementation versus deliberation, and power. Second, we argue that it is necessary to understand if a hierarchy exists among this variety of mindsets, with some mindsets being more foundational and more important than others. Finally, we raise questions about whether matching effects, where information matches a mindset, always produce more persuasion, or whether cases might exist where mismatches, or complementarity, are better. © 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keyword: Mindsets
Introduction Murphy and Dweck provide a provocative and compelling case for the role of fixed versus growth mindsets in consumer behavior; they are comprehensive in delineating the distinct types and full range of consumer behaviors affected by whether people are in one or the other of these mindsets. It is an impressive and important summarization. As a good article should, the authors do not fully satisfy our appetite for understanding mindsets. Rather, their commentary provoked in us a series of questions that we think can push the field of mindsets even farther. In this commentary, we propose three critical considerations. We offer these ideas not as criticisms of the target article, but as a springboard to important and largely unexplored issues, which we believe will serve as a foundation to further the exploration of mindsets and consumer behavior. Our hope is that this commentary will ignite the desire for additional research in what we believe is an important and integral area for consumer psychology. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel: + 8474912714.
Consideration no. 1: Mindsets aren't just for breakfast anymore A famous commercial for orange juice proclaimed, “It's not just for breakfast anymore!” This simple phrase informed the audience that orange juice had multiple uses and could be consumed multiple times of the day. In a similar vein, our first suggestion is to broaden readers' scope and use of the mindset terminology beyond the scope of fixed versus growth. We believe it is of paramount importance to acknowledge that psychological mindsets are not limited to, and in fact extend far beyond, those related to beliefs regarding whether human traits are fixed or can change. We define a mindset as a psychological orientation that affects the selection, encoding, and retrieval of information; as a result, mindsets drive evaluations, actions, and responses. As our definition makes clear, the concept of a mindset extends beyond fixed and growth mindsets and connects to literatures on construal level (Trope & Liberman, 2010), power (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015), regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997), implemental-deliberative (Gollwitzer et al., 1990), and selfmonitoring (Snyder & DeBono, 1985), to name but a few.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009 1057-7408/© 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
2
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
To take a concept we have some familiarity with, research has suggested that structural differences in power can give rise to a psychological mindset that is consistent with our definition. Indeed, power has been directly labeled as a mindset (e.g., Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Rucker, 2012). By understanding that power functions as a mindset, many of the important questions raised by Murphy and Dweck on fixed versus growth mindsets become applicable to how power affects consumer behavior. Importantly, a power mindset need not inherently reflect any differences in beliefs related to the fixed versus growth beliefs. Instead, power can affect people's evaluations and actions based on fundamentally different principles. A high-power mindset is known to decrease perspective-taking (Galinsky et al., 2006), empathy (Van Kleef et al., 2008), and generosity (Rucker, Dubois, & Galinsky, 2011); decrease psychological distance (Lammers et al., 2012; Magee and Smith (2013); and increase agency and confidence (Fast et al., 2009; Galinsky et al., 2003), whereas a low-power mindset is known to increase inhibition, decrease psychological distance, and increase one's sense of communion (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015). These power mindsets shift the lens people use to approach the world and can affect a wide variety of consumer behavior outcomes such as the products consumers seek (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009), how they spend money on gifts for themselves and others (Rucker et al., 2011), and how they view money (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2010; for a review see Rucker, Galinsky, & Dubois, 2012). Thinking of power as mindset helps us understand that power can affect both propensities (i.e., the tendency to engage in certain actions) and also needs that activate compensatory impulses. For example, the high-power mindset leads to action more generally, but the low-power mindset leads to action when that action serves the need for status (i.e., compensatory status consumption, Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Furthermore, the power mindset can be driven by either the experiences of power or the expectations for power (Rucker, Hu, & Galinsky, 2014). When a high-power mindset is made up of the expectations people have for power, it leads them to behave in accordance with these role prescriptions. For example, powerful consumers who have thought about what is expected of them are more likely to purchase status-signaling products and to be more careful and thoughtful in their processing of information (Rucker et al., 2014). However, when a high-power mindset is focused on the internal experience of having power, the opposite pattern of results occurs, consistent with the effect described above. The key first point is that consumer researchers should not limit their emphasis on fixed versus growth mindsets. We do not challenge the importance of these mindsets. Rather, we simply note that fixed and growth mindsets represent just two important parts in a much larger cast of characters. Consideration no. 2: Who among the mindsets is king? If one accepts that multiple mindsets exist, an important question that naturally follows is how all of these different mindsets relate to one another. One possibility is that a hierarchy
exists among these mindsets, such that some mindsets are more important or more foundational than others. For example, the large body of research cited by Murphy and Dweck could be taken as evidence that fixed and growth mindsets are relatively robust mindsets that govern much of human behavior. Perhaps such mindsets form a cornerstone that largely subsumes other mindsets. Or it could be that when these mindsets are pitted against other mindsets, their influence diminishes. In either case, an important direction for future research is to establish whether the various mindsets could ultimately be boiled down to a smaller subset of mindsets. For example, research might examine whether fixed versus growth mindsets are a better predictor of behavior compared to other mindsets such as power, construal level, or regulatory focus. Or researchers could test whether some mindsets are responsible for (i.e., mediate) the effects of other mindsets. For example, we know that power is closely connected to both regulatory focus (Keltner et al., 2003) and construal level (Magee & Smith, 2013; Smith & Trope, 2006). Is power a foundational mindset that can help explain how these other mindsets affect behavior? Might some cases exist where regulatory or construal level can be reduced to power but other cases where they work independently? Different mindsets might be more relevant in particular contexts or multiple mindsets may operate in the same context. For example, fixed versus growth mindsets might affect consumer behavior in competitive contexts or in educational contexts as these mindsets are particularly relevant for helping consumers know where they stand in terms of their abilities. Or construal level may matter when people are in a high sense-making mode. Or power may matter in organizational contexts, especially when there is a clear, formal hierarchy. By broadening the concept of mindsets, we also heed the original Lewinian call that all behavior is a joint product of both the person and the situation. That is, which mindset is on active duty is likely driven by both dispositional factors (chronic accessibility) and situational factors (temporary accessibility). Thus, in a given situation, both chronic and situational factors likely govern which mindset is accessible. According to the principles of accessibility (Higgins, 1996), the most accessible mindset might serve to guide how people select, encode, and retrieve information. We believe this idea of determining when each mindset is more likely to be on active duty is an exciting direction for future research. Specifically, scholars could focus on understanding the natural triggers that would make different mindsets more applicable. Thus, instead of the common approach of studying different mindsets in isolation (e.g., fixed vs. growth, powerless vs. powerful, low vs. high construal), researchers could examine antecedents of when one mindset is most likely to operate. The key point here is that by broadening the emphasis beyond fixed versus growth mindsets, researchers can carve out an important direction to understand when a given mindset will exert more or less influence on evaluations, actions, and responses. In addition, it is possible that multiple mindsets could operate in the same context in an interactive fashion. In one demonstration of this possibility, Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh (2001) found that
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
people's chronic relationship orientation, communal versus exchange, interacted with their situationally defined level of power to predict whether people gave or took from a community pool of resources. Specifically, people who were communally orientated gave more, but only when the chronic communal mindset was accompanied by a temporary mindset of high power. From the perspective of mindsets, one can view this as a situation where one mindset, a communal or exchange lens, was steered by a second mindset of power. Thus, in addition to studying factors that may lead one mindset to prevail, by broadening our understanding of mindsets, we can explore how multiple mindsets can be active at one time and work in conjunction to determine consumer behavior.
Consideration no. 3: Complementarity considerations Our final consideration raises the question of whether matching information to a consumers' mindset always produces an optimal outcome for marketers. Murphy and Dweck summarize that matching can produce desirable outcomes related to both relationships and advertising effects. Indeed, this could be likened to a variety of “mindset matching effects.” For example, research related to our definition of the mindset construct has shown that individuals low and high in self-monitoring prefer different types of information (Snyder & DeBono, 1985). For example, Snyder and DeBono (1985) demonstrated that individuals that approach the world through a lens of how others will perceive them (i.e., high-self monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that emphasize the image a product conveys, whereas individuals that view the world more through their own internal standards (i.e., low self-monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that emphasize the quality of a product. Put differently, a chronic focus on one's internal standards or the external world changes what information people are responsive to. Similarly, in our own research, we have shown evidence of matching effects with regard to power and persuasion. Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (working paper) find that low-power consumers are persuaded by appeals that emphasize warmth and communality, where high-power consumers are persuaded by messages characterized by agency. In this case, the power mindset steers consumers towards appeals that match the essence of the mindset. However, we hasten to add that it is unlikely to be the case that matching will always produce desirable outcomes compared to complementarily or mismatching. One area where complementarity matters is social hierarchy. A number of studies find that hierarchical differentiation between people (i.e., a high-power person interacting with a low-power person) produces more satisfying work relationships (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007). These studies suggest that dominance and submissiveness are complementary—dominance behavior by one person provokes submissive behavior by another person. From a consumer behavior perspective, a high-power consumer may prefer a salesperson to act submissively, whereas a low-power consumer may be attracted to a salesperson that takes control of the situation. Appreciating that the same mindset—power—can produce both matching and mismatching effects, adds richness to our
3
understanding of when, why, and how mindsets matter for consumer behavior. Such mismatching effects are possible because of a key idea in persuasion—any given variable can affect outcomes through multiple processes (Petty, 1997). For example, in some cases, matching the content in a message may result in greater persuasion by serving as a simple heuristic that the message “feels correct.” Or individuals may find a message that matches their mindset more persuasive because they fundamentally care about different information. However, it is also the case that matching content to a mindset may affect whether or not people decide to process information carefully or not. For example, when the message content aligns with an individual's psychological mindset, the individual might think, “I should attend to this.” And, as much prior research has shown, carefully attending to information can lead to more persuasion when the message is strong and compelling but less persuasion when the message is weak and specious (Briñol & Petty, 2006; Briñol, Tormala, & Petty, 2013). As an example in the domain of self-monitoring, Petty and Wegener (1998) examined the relationship between selfmonitoring and persuasion as a function of whether appeals matched versus mismatched people's self-monitoring orientation. Specifically, individuals chronically high or low in self-monitoring were presented with information about several products (e.g., a message for a shampoo that varied in whether it emphasized the image or quality of the product). The expected outcome of this, based on Synder and DeBono (1985), coupled with the general principal that matching is good, is that high self-monitors would be more persuaded by image appeals whereas low self-monitors would be more persuaded by quality appeals. Importantly, unlike prior efforts, Petty and Wegener (1998) also varied the quality of the arguments such that the underlying content of the communication was either strong and cogent or specious and weak. The authors found that, when message arguments were weak, individuals were less persuaded by an appeal designed to match their orientation. Why did matching reduce persuasion in Petty and Wegener (1998)? They suggested that matching led people to scrutinize the information more carefully, which resulted in people being more aware of the faults in the weak arguments. Importantly, this provides but one example of how matching need not always produce desirable consequences from the perspective of a persuader. Although Murphy and Dweck demonstrate that matching can certainly produce desired outcomes, the notion that fixed versus growth mindsets, as well as mindsets more broadly, can affect the level and amount of information processing provides one means by which mindsets might lead to more or less favorable outcomes depending on the quality of the information presented. Our point here is not merely that information processing provides the exception to the rule, but that it is one of many potential processes that could help explain and predict reversals (for further discussion, see Briñol & Petty, 2006; Briñol, Tormala, & Petty, 2013). A comprehensive model of mindsets must account for both matching and mismatching effects.
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
4
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
Conclusion In summary, Murphy and Dweck make a compelling case for the prominence of fixed versus growth mindsets as important determinants of consumer behavior. Our own particular enthusiasm for their piece, however, comes not in the impressive summary of prior research, but in the seeds it has sewn for future research to broaden the exploration of mindsets in consumer behavior. Perhaps this is indicative of the growth mindset we took on as we reviewed their article. We hope that our commentary has broadened the concept of mindsets and opened up new possibilities for researchers. We believe that by appreciating the larger concept of mindset, researchers can tackle several key questions: when does one mindset matter more than other mindsets? Is there a hierarchy of mindsets, with some mindsets being more foundational than others? How do different mindsets interact with each other? When does a mindset produce outcomes that are more beneficial via matching versus mismatching (i.e., complementarity effects)? Answering these questions will allow consumer behavior researchers to not be fixed on a single mindset but to grow into a mature understanding of mindsets. References Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Fundamental processes leading to attitude change: Implications for cancer prevention communications. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S81–S104. Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Ease and persuasion: Multiple processes, meanings, and effects. In C. Unkelbach, & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 101–118). London: Psychology Press. Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173–187. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). The accentuation bias: Money literally looms larger (and sometimes smaller) to the powerless. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 199–205. , http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/1948550610365170. Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control a generative force behind power's far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502–508. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074. Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In J. Simpson, M. Mikulincer, & P. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal relationships. Vol. 3. (pp. 421–460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119–1127.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. , http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0033-295x.110.2.265. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social and Personality Psychological Science, 3(3), 282–290. Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186. Petty, R. E. (1997). The evolution of theory and research in social psychology: From single to multiple effect and process models of persuasion. In C. McGarty, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society, Vol. XIII. (pp. 268–290). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240. Rucker, D. D. (2012). Advertising strategy: Consumer mindsets and message alignment. Handbook of Marketing Strategy, 186–197. Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinksy, A. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015–1029. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/588569. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 549–555. Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps. 2011.06.001. Rucker, D. D., Hu, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The experience versus the expectations of power: A recipe for altering the effects of power on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 381–396. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596. Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586. Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. 84.3.558. Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 402–414. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx – xxx
Research Dialogue
Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior Derek D. Rucker a,⁎, Adam D. Galinsky b a
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
b
Received 24 June 2015; accepted 24 June 2015
Abstract In this commentary, we reflect on several important issues and questions provoked by Murphy and Dweck's target article. First, we define a mindset as a frame of mind that affects the selection, encoding, and retrieval of information as well as the types of evaluations and responses an individual gives. As such, we suggest that while studying fixed versus growth mindsets is important, it is critical to explore and understand how a variety of mindsets affect consumer behavior, including regulatory focus, construal level, implementation versus deliberation, and power. Second, we argue that it is necessary to understand if a hierarchy exists among this variety of mindsets, with some mindsets being more foundational and more important than others. Finally, we raise questions about whether matching effects, where information matches a mindset, always produce more persuasion, or whether cases might exist where mismatches, or complementarity, are better. © 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keyword: Mindsets
Introduction Murphy and Dweck provide a provocative and compelling case for the role of fixed versus growth mindsets in consumer behavior; they are comprehensive in delineating the distinct types and full range of consumer behaviors affected by whether people are in one or the other of these mindsets. It is an impressive and important summarization. As a good article should, the authors do not fully satisfy our appetite for understanding mindsets. Rather, their commentary provoked in us a series of questions that we think can push the field of mindsets even farther. In this commentary, we propose three critical considerations. We offer these ideas not as criticisms of the target article, but as a springboard to important and largely unexplored issues, which we believe will serve as a foundation to further the exploration of mindsets and consumer behavior. Our hope is that this commentary will ignite the desire for additional research in what we believe is an important and integral area for consumer psychology. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel: + 8474912714.
Consideration no. 1: Mindsets aren't just for breakfast anymore A famous commercial for orange juice proclaimed, “It's not just for breakfast anymore!” This simple phrase informed the audience that orange juice had multiple uses and could be consumed multiple times of the day. In a similar vein, our first suggestion is to broaden readers' scope and use of the mindset terminology beyond the scope of fixed versus growth. We believe it is of paramount importance to acknowledge that psychological mindsets are not limited to, and in fact extend far beyond, those related to beliefs regarding whether human traits are fixed or can change. We define a mindset as a psychological orientation that affects the selection, encoding, and retrieval of information; as a result, mindsets drive evaluations, actions, and responses. As our definition makes clear, the concept of a mindset extends beyond fixed and growth mindsets and connects to literatures on construal level (Trope & Liberman, 2010), power (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015), regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997), implemental-deliberative (Gollwitzer et al., 1990), and selfmonitoring (Snyder & DeBono, 1985), to name but a few.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009 1057-7408/© 2015 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
2
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
To take a concept we have some familiarity with, research has suggested that structural differences in power can give rise to a psychological mindset that is consistent with our definition. Indeed, power has been directly labeled as a mindset (e.g., Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Rucker, 2012). By understanding that power functions as a mindset, many of the important questions raised by Murphy and Dweck on fixed versus growth mindsets become applicable to how power affects consumer behavior. Importantly, a power mindset need not inherently reflect any differences in beliefs related to the fixed versus growth beliefs. Instead, power can affect people's evaluations and actions based on fundamentally different principles. A high-power mindset is known to decrease perspective-taking (Galinsky et al., 2006), empathy (Van Kleef et al., 2008), and generosity (Rucker, Dubois, & Galinsky, 2011); decrease psychological distance (Lammers et al., 2012; Magee and Smith (2013); and increase agency and confidence (Fast et al., 2009; Galinsky et al., 2003), whereas a low-power mindset is known to increase inhibition, decrease psychological distance, and increase one's sense of communion (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015). These power mindsets shift the lens people use to approach the world and can affect a wide variety of consumer behavior outcomes such as the products consumers seek (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009), how they spend money on gifts for themselves and others (Rucker et al., 2011), and how they view money (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2010; for a review see Rucker, Galinsky, & Dubois, 2012). Thinking of power as mindset helps us understand that power can affect both propensities (i.e., the tendency to engage in certain actions) and also needs that activate compensatory impulses. For example, the high-power mindset leads to action more generally, but the low-power mindset leads to action when that action serves the need for status (i.e., compensatory status consumption, Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Furthermore, the power mindset can be driven by either the experiences of power or the expectations for power (Rucker, Hu, & Galinsky, 2014). When a high-power mindset is made up of the expectations people have for power, it leads them to behave in accordance with these role prescriptions. For example, powerful consumers who have thought about what is expected of them are more likely to purchase status-signaling products and to be more careful and thoughtful in their processing of information (Rucker et al., 2014). However, when a high-power mindset is focused on the internal experience of having power, the opposite pattern of results occurs, consistent with the effect described above. The key first point is that consumer researchers should not limit their emphasis on fixed versus growth mindsets. We do not challenge the importance of these mindsets. Rather, we simply note that fixed and growth mindsets represent just two important parts in a much larger cast of characters. Consideration no. 2: Who among the mindsets is king? If one accepts that multiple mindsets exist, an important question that naturally follows is how all of these different mindsets relate to one another. One possibility is that a hierarchy
exists among these mindsets, such that some mindsets are more important or more foundational than others. For example, the large body of research cited by Murphy and Dweck could be taken as evidence that fixed and growth mindsets are relatively robust mindsets that govern much of human behavior. Perhaps such mindsets form a cornerstone that largely subsumes other mindsets. Or it could be that when these mindsets are pitted against other mindsets, their influence diminishes. In either case, an important direction for future research is to establish whether the various mindsets could ultimately be boiled down to a smaller subset of mindsets. For example, research might examine whether fixed versus growth mindsets are a better predictor of behavior compared to other mindsets such as power, construal level, or regulatory focus. Or researchers could test whether some mindsets are responsible for (i.e., mediate) the effects of other mindsets. For example, we know that power is closely connected to both regulatory focus (Keltner et al., 2003) and construal level (Magee & Smith, 2013; Smith & Trope, 2006). Is power a foundational mindset that can help explain how these other mindsets affect behavior? Might some cases exist where regulatory or construal level can be reduced to power but other cases where they work independently? Different mindsets might be more relevant in particular contexts or multiple mindsets may operate in the same context. For example, fixed versus growth mindsets might affect consumer behavior in competitive contexts or in educational contexts as these mindsets are particularly relevant for helping consumers know where they stand in terms of their abilities. Or construal level may matter when people are in a high sense-making mode. Or power may matter in organizational contexts, especially when there is a clear, formal hierarchy. By broadening the concept of mindsets, we also heed the original Lewinian call that all behavior is a joint product of both the person and the situation. That is, which mindset is on active duty is likely driven by both dispositional factors (chronic accessibility) and situational factors (temporary accessibility). Thus, in a given situation, both chronic and situational factors likely govern which mindset is accessible. According to the principles of accessibility (Higgins, 1996), the most accessible mindset might serve to guide how people select, encode, and retrieve information. We believe this idea of determining when each mindset is more likely to be on active duty is an exciting direction for future research. Specifically, scholars could focus on understanding the natural triggers that would make different mindsets more applicable. Thus, instead of the common approach of studying different mindsets in isolation (e.g., fixed vs. growth, powerless vs. powerful, low vs. high construal), researchers could examine antecedents of when one mindset is most likely to operate. The key point here is that by broadening the emphasis beyond fixed versus growth mindsets, researchers can carve out an important direction to understand when a given mindset will exert more or less influence on evaluations, actions, and responses. In addition, it is possible that multiple mindsets could operate in the same context in an interactive fashion. In one demonstration of this possibility, Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh (2001) found that
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
people's chronic relationship orientation, communal versus exchange, interacted with their situationally defined level of power to predict whether people gave or took from a community pool of resources. Specifically, people who were communally orientated gave more, but only when the chronic communal mindset was accompanied by a temporary mindset of high power. From the perspective of mindsets, one can view this as a situation where one mindset, a communal or exchange lens, was steered by a second mindset of power. Thus, in addition to studying factors that may lead one mindset to prevail, by broadening our understanding of mindsets, we can explore how multiple mindsets can be active at one time and work in conjunction to determine consumer behavior.
Consideration no. 3: Complementarity considerations Our final consideration raises the question of whether matching information to a consumers' mindset always produces an optimal outcome for marketers. Murphy and Dweck summarize that matching can produce desirable outcomes related to both relationships and advertising effects. Indeed, this could be likened to a variety of “mindset matching effects.” For example, research related to our definition of the mindset construct has shown that individuals low and high in self-monitoring prefer different types of information (Snyder & DeBono, 1985). For example, Snyder and DeBono (1985) demonstrated that individuals that approach the world through a lens of how others will perceive them (i.e., high-self monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that emphasize the image a product conveys, whereas individuals that view the world more through their own internal standards (i.e., low self-monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that emphasize the quality of a product. Put differently, a chronic focus on one's internal standards or the external world changes what information people are responsive to. Similarly, in our own research, we have shown evidence of matching effects with regard to power and persuasion. Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (working paper) find that low-power consumers are persuaded by appeals that emphasize warmth and communality, where high-power consumers are persuaded by messages characterized by agency. In this case, the power mindset steers consumers towards appeals that match the essence of the mindset. However, we hasten to add that it is unlikely to be the case that matching will always produce desirable outcomes compared to complementarily or mismatching. One area where complementarity matters is social hierarchy. A number of studies find that hierarchical differentiation between people (i.e., a high-power person interacting with a low-power person) produces more satisfying work relationships (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007). These studies suggest that dominance and submissiveness are complementary—dominance behavior by one person provokes submissive behavior by another person. From a consumer behavior perspective, a high-power consumer may prefer a salesperson to act submissively, whereas a low-power consumer may be attracted to a salesperson that takes control of the situation. Appreciating that the same mindset—power—can produce both matching and mismatching effects, adds richness to our
3
understanding of when, why, and how mindsets matter for consumer behavior. Such mismatching effects are possible because of a key idea in persuasion—any given variable can affect outcomes through multiple processes (Petty, 1997). For example, in some cases, matching the content in a message may result in greater persuasion by serving as a simple heuristic that the message “feels correct.” Or individuals may find a message that matches their mindset more persuasive because they fundamentally care about different information. However, it is also the case that matching content to a mindset may affect whether or not people decide to process information carefully or not. For example, when the message content aligns with an individual's psychological mindset, the individual might think, “I should attend to this.” And, as much prior research has shown, carefully attending to information can lead to more persuasion when the message is strong and compelling but less persuasion when the message is weak and specious (Briñol & Petty, 2006; Briñol, Tormala, & Petty, 2013). As an example in the domain of self-monitoring, Petty and Wegener (1998) examined the relationship between selfmonitoring and persuasion as a function of whether appeals matched versus mismatched people's self-monitoring orientation. Specifically, individuals chronically high or low in self-monitoring were presented with information about several products (e.g., a message for a shampoo that varied in whether it emphasized the image or quality of the product). The expected outcome of this, based on Synder and DeBono (1985), coupled with the general principal that matching is good, is that high self-monitors would be more persuaded by image appeals whereas low self-monitors would be more persuaded by quality appeals. Importantly, unlike prior efforts, Petty and Wegener (1998) also varied the quality of the arguments such that the underlying content of the communication was either strong and cogent or specious and weak. The authors found that, when message arguments were weak, individuals were less persuaded by an appeal designed to match their orientation. Why did matching reduce persuasion in Petty and Wegener (1998)? They suggested that matching led people to scrutinize the information more carefully, which resulted in people being more aware of the faults in the weak arguments. Importantly, this provides but one example of how matching need not always produce desirable consequences from the perspective of a persuader. Although Murphy and Dweck demonstrate that matching can certainly produce desired outcomes, the notion that fixed versus growth mindsets, as well as mindsets more broadly, can affect the level and amount of information processing provides one means by which mindsets might lead to more or less favorable outcomes depending on the quality of the information presented. Our point here is not merely that information processing provides the exception to the rule, but that it is one of many potential processes that could help explain and predict reversals (for further discussion, see Briñol & Petty, 2006; Briñol, Tormala, & Petty, 2013). A comprehensive model of mindsets must account for both matching and mismatching effects.
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
4
D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx, x (2015) xxx–xxx
Conclusion In summary, Murphy and Dweck make a compelling case for the prominence of fixed versus growth mindsets as important determinants of consumer behavior. Our own particular enthusiasm for their piece, however, comes not in the impressive summary of prior research, but in the seeds it has sewn for future research to broaden the exploration of mindsets in consumer behavior. Perhaps this is indicative of the growth mindset we took on as we reviewed their article. We hope that our commentary has broadened the concept of mindsets and opened up new possibilities for researchers. We believe that by appreciating the larger concept of mindset, researchers can tackle several key questions: when does one mindset matter more than other mindsets? Is there a hierarchy of mindsets, with some mindsets being more foundational than others? How do different mindsets interact with each other? When does a mindset produce outcomes that are more beneficial via matching versus mismatching (i.e., complementarity effects)? Answering these questions will allow consumer behavior researchers to not be fixed on a single mindset but to grow into a mature understanding of mindsets. References Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Fundamental processes leading to attitude change: Implications for cancer prevention communications. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S81–S104. Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Ease and persuasion: Multiple processes, meanings, and effects. In C. Unkelbach, & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 101–118). London: Psychology Press. Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173–187. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). The accentuation bias: Money literally looms larger (and sometimes smaller) to the powerless. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 199–205. , http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/1948550610365170. Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control a generative force behind power's far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502–508. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074. Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In J. Simpson, M. Mikulincer, & P. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal relationships. Vol. 3. (pp. 421–460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119–1127.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. , http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0033-295x.110.2.265. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social and Personality Psychological Science, 3(3), 282–290. Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186. Petty, R. E. (1997). The evolution of theory and research in social psychology: From single to multiple effect and process models of persuasion. In C. McGarty, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society, Vol. XIII. (pp. 268–290). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240. Rucker, D. D. (2012). Advertising strategy: Consumer mindsets and message alignment. Handbook of Marketing Strategy, 186–197. Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinksy, A. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015–1029. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/588569. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 549–555. Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps. 2011.06.001. Rucker, D. D., Hu, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The experience versus the expectations of power: A recipe for altering the effects of power on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 381–396. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596. Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586. Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. 84.3.558. Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 402–414. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.
Please cite this article as: Rucker, D.D., & Galinsky, A.D., Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009