Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control

Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control Derek D. Rucker*, Sharlene He Northwestern University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 22 December 2015 Accepted 4 January 2016 Available online xxx

The present work discusses how psychological mindsetsdorientations that affect how consumers encode, interpret, and respond to informationd can help, as well as hurt, portion control. To this end, the current article first provides an overview of the general idea of psychological mindsets. Subsequently, evidence from three distinct areas of mindset research is reviewed: power and powerlessness; fixed and growth; promotion and prevention. For each literature, the relevant mindsets are discussed, and their implications for consumer behavior generally and portion control specifically are illuminated. The paper also provides a discussion of gaps in mindset research with consideration given to how to bridge the theoretical development on mindsets to practical applications. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mindsets Portion control Power and powerlessness Fixed and growth Promotion and prevention

Imagine two consumers, Charlotte and Connor, considering the purchase of a decadent ice cream treat. The treat comes in three distinct sizes: small, medium, and large, and each varies in the caloric intake involved. Charlotte purchases the small option, whereas Connor purchases the large option. This situation raises a number of questions for those interested in consumer behavior, consumption, and portion control. Why did Charlotte and Connor choose different options? Do situations exist where Charlotte would choose a larger option and Connor would choose a smaller option? For policy makers, can the behavior of these consumers be shaped to encourage healthier choices in the form of either smaller and less caloric options or reduce the frequency at which unhealthy treats are consumed? For marketers, how can financial payoffs of larger options be reconciled with the caloric cost to consumers? These questions can be explored from a variety of perspectives ranging from ingrained habits of the consumer (Wood & Neal, this issue) to persuasive efforts targeted to change consumers' beliefs (Rucker & Petty, 2006) to considerations around product innovation and a brand's assortment of offerings (Chandon & Wansink, 2012; Rubera, Ordanini, & Calantone, 2012). In this article, we introduce the reader to how * Corresponding author. Sandy & Morton Goldman Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies in Marketing, Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, Marketing Department-Leverone Hall, #462 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-2001, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.D. Rucker).

psychological mindsets guide and direct consumption. Our core premise is that the human mind possesses the capacity to interpret the world through a multitude of distinct lenses. For example, people can assess their environment and make decisions through the lens that the self is mutable and changeableda growth mindsetdwhereas others can view the self as immutable and unchangeableda fixed mindset (Murphy & Dweck, 2016a). Importantly, as will be discussed, a number of distinct mindsets can be invoked within the consumer, and this large cadre of mindsets can have a variety of profound implications for consumers' behavior, self-regulation, and portion control. We first provide a brief introduction to the concept of a “psychological mindset.” Subsequently, we review work on distinct mindsets documented to influence consumption. We offer snapshots from three distinct domains of inquiry: power and powerlessness mindsets; fixed and growth mindsets; promotion and prevention mindsets. In each of these snapshots we provide a brief overview of the mindsets studied within the given domain, discuss how the mindsets shape and influence consumer behavior, and provide either direct evidence or informed speculation about their implications for portion control. Finally, we discuss research needs in the literature both in terms of the psychological study of mindsets as well as bridging the theoretical development of mindsets to practical applications.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005 0195-6663/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

2

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

1. On the nature of mindsets

1.1. Power and powerlessness mindsets

Formally, as defined elsewhere, we view a mindset as “a psychological orientation that affects the selection, encoding and retrieval of information,” (Rucker & Galinsky, 2016).1 This broad definition incorporates a diverse set of constructs from fixed versus growth theories of the mind (Murphy & Dweck, 2016a) to power versus powerlessness (Rucker, Galinsky, & Dubois, 2012) to promotion versus prevention regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Some mindsets appear to operate on a continuum (e.g., fixed and growth, power and powerlessness), while others are orthogonal such that an individual can be high or low on both at the same time (e.g., promotion and prevention). However, common to various mindsets is that they can lead two people to perceive or interpret the exact same situation, product, or service differently and thus cause otherwise similar individuals to reach divergent outcomes. For example, the experience of having or lacking power affects people's preference for status-related products (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009), the information people attend to (Rucker et al., 2012), and even people's perceptions of objects (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2010). Mindsets can arise from both chronic aspects of the individual, which might be shaped by personality or nurture, as well as from temporary situational inducements. For instance, some individuals chronically see the world through the lens of fixed versus growth theories. Yet, at the same time, a fixed versus growth mindset can be situationally induced (e.g., Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997). In a similar vein, although individuals vary in their chronic sense of power, which can produce a power mindset, individuals' experience of power can vary based on the situation they are in (e.g., at work versus at home), who they are in the presence of (e.g., upper management versus an entry-level employee), and even through reflection on a past time when they were powerful or powerless (see Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015). Similarly, the relative strength of a promotion versus prevention mindset can be measured as an individual difference as well as situationally manipulated (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004). Individuals need not be aware of their mindset for it to influence and affect their behavior. Many of the consequences of mindsets might operate outside of consumers’ awareness. In fact, awareness of a mindset might even produce efforts to correct for it (for a discussion of correction processes see Wegener & Petty, 1997). Although mindsets can affect behavior through various processes (see Rucker, 2012 for mindsets specifically, and Petty, 1997 for multi-process remarks more generally), here we focus primarily on how mindsets bias consumers’ selection of and response to information. We use the term bias to refer to differential attention, weighting, or response to information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Rucker & Petty, 2006). For example, in our opening example, it is possible that Charlotte may have placed greater weight on the consumption of fewer calories in choosing the small option, whereas Connor placed little or no weight on the caloric information in purchasing the large option. In contrast, Connor may have placed greater weight on getting value for his money, whereas Charlotte may have been relatively insensitive to the price.

Power describes a structural asymmetry in control over resources between one or more individuals (Fiske, 1993). For example, in the hierarchical structure of a workplace, managers often have power over subordinates. Although power can arise from structural differences in resources, a large literature now suggests that a power or powerless mindset can be incited independent of structural differences (see Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003). For example, having people recall a past time they possessed or lacked power can induce a mindset of power or powerlessness. This “episodic recall task” invokes a feeling of power or powerlessness that affects consumers’ downstream behaviors, despite individuals having no difference in actual structural power (for a review see Galinsky et al., 2015). One consequence of power mindsets is that they affect consumers’ sensitivity to, and selection of, status products. People induced to feel low power show an increased preference for status objects (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008; see also Gal, 2012; Rucker, Hu, & Galinsky, 2014). Rucker and Galinsky (2008) explain this desire for status in the form of a “compensatory hypothesis.” People show an enhanced desire for status-related products, even unbeknownst to themselves, as a means to compensate for their loss of power. Consistent with this hypothesis, Rucker and Galinsky (2008) find that individuals in a low-power mindset were willing to spend more on a framed portrait of their university than individuals in a high-power mindset, but this was only true when a product was of high, rather than low, status (c.f., Rucker & Galinsky, 2009; Rucker et al., 2014). The fact that a low-power mindset can increase people's desire for status-related objects has implications for portion control. In particular, Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2012) introduce the argument that the association between low power and status seeking can predict people's portion size preferences. Dubois and colleagues reason that when consumers choose among a set of differentially sized options, they are in essence making a hierarchical choice. Moreover, larger options in a hierarchy, compared to smaller ones, are typically associated with greater status (see Baudrillard, 1998, 2005). This relationship might partially result from the fact that larger items often cost more to acquire and thus can serve as a signal of one's wealth. For example, larger televisions and homes tend to be associated with greater status than smaller ones. As a consequence of the size-to-status relationship, Dubois and colleagues suggest that a low-power mindset can lead consumers to prefer larger options within a hierarchy of choices. To test this idea, in one experiment, participants were induced into a low- or high-power mindset via recalling a past experience of power (Galinsky et al., 2003). Subsequently, participants were asked what size of smoothie they would select if they could have one at that moment from a list of three possible options: small, medium, or large. Participants in a low-power mindset were more likely to select the larger option compared to participants in a highpower mindset. In real life such a difference in size can equate to a considerable difference in calories between the small (e.g., 200 calories) and large (e.g., 410 calories) options. The results of this experiment suggest that a low-power mindset may ultimately hurt portion control due to the positive association between size and status. However, according to Dubois and colleagues' theory, a low-power mindset does not orient people towards consumption of larger objects per se; a low-power mindset orients people towards objects associated with status. As a consequence, to the extent that the size-to-status relationship is negative (i.e., smaller equals greater status) a low-power mindset should trigger consumption of smaller portions. This latter hypothesis was tested directly by the authors (Dubois et al., 2012;

1 Murphy and Dweck (2016b) refer to mindsets specifically as, “The beliefs that people have about the nature of human traits and characteristics.” We adopt a broader perspective compatible with the use of mindsets in the power literature (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2003) and elsewhere (e.g., Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, & Steller, 1990; see Rucker & Galinsky, 2016 for discussion). Similarly, whereas prior research often uses the terms “promotion focused” and “prevention focused,” the use of these terms fit with our broader definition of mindsets and have been described as mindsets by others (e.g., Molden & Finkel, 2010; Rothman, Bartels, Wlashin, & Salovey, 2006).

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

Experiment 5). The authors manipulated participants' power mindset by asking them to recall a previous time they possessed or lacked power. Subsequently, participants were brought into a separate room and invited to sample one of four hors d'oeuvres that varied in size. The research assistant varied the size-to-status relationship by informing participants that either a) smaller hors d'oeuvres were served at prestigious social occasions, whereas larger hors d'oeuvres were served at more common events (negative size-to-status relationship); or b) larger hors d'oeuvres were served at prestigious social occasions, whereas smaller hors d'oeuvres were served at more common events (positive size-tostatus relationship). Participants in the low-power condition were more inclined to select larger hors d'oeuvres when the size-tostatus relationship was positive, but smaller hors d'oeuvres when the size-to-status relationship was negative.2

1.2. Fixed versus growth mindsets Dweck and colleagues have developed a large stream of work that emphasizes the importance of fixed and growth mindsets. As noted, individuals with a growth mindset believe personal characteristics are mutable and changeable, whereas those with a fixed mindset believe the self is fixed and unchangeable. Regardless of whether such a mindset is innate to the individual or induced by the situation, fixed and growth mindsets have a diverse number of effects on consumer behavior (Murphy & Dweck, 2016a). And, of particular interest to this review, these mindsets can affect selfregulation and thus portion control. Broadly speaking, individuals with a growth mindset about a personal attribute (e.g., intelligence) appear more successful at self-regulation relative to those with a more fixed mindset. In particular, fixed and growth mindsets affect the strategies individuals use to attain their goals, and a growth mindset can lead individuals to adopt more effective strategies for at least two reasons (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). First, a growth mindset orients individuals towards learning goals, which are concerned with improvement and mastery. Learning goals encourage individuals to increase their efforts toward the goal and to seek challenges (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In contrast, a fixed mindset prompts a focus on performance goals, in which individuals desire positive evaluations of their personal abilities. As people with a fixed mindset believe that abilities cannot be changed, failure threatens the self and these individuals respond by avoiding the goal or challenge altogether (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Second, a growth mindset leads individuals to adopt more effective strategies by affecting the attributions that they make for failure (e.g., attributing failure to insufficient effort and thus addressable). Consistent with this perspective, across a series of experiments, Hong et al. (1999) find that individuals who receive negative performance feedback respond differently based on their mindset. Individuals with a growth mindset are more likely to attribute failure to effort (i.e., a changeable feature) compared to those with a fixed mindset, who tend to attribute failure to ability (a relatively more fixed feature). Because individuals with a growth mindset believe that additional effort can improve future performance, they are more likely to take subsequent actions after failure to enhance future success. In contrast, those with a fixed mindset are less likely

2

Of course, power can affect behavior through a wide variety of processes. For example, power mindsets are more likely to validate consumers' thoughts and goals ~ ol et al., 2007; DeMaree, 2012). These addirelative to powerless mindsets (Brin tional processes can have distinct implications for portion control. For a discussion of multiple processes see Petty (1997) and Rucker (2012).

3

to take additional actions as failure is viewed as static and something that cannot be addressed with additional effort. Directly related to food consumption, Burnette (2010) found that individuals with a growth mindset regarding weight loss were more successful at losing weight than those with a fixed mindset. In particular, when individuals faced setbacks in dieting, they responded less adaptively when they believed their body weight was fixed (i.e., a fixed mindset) compared to malleable (i.e., a growth mindset). Burnette found this relationship held regardless of whether individuals' mindsets were measured or manipulated. For example, in one experiment, participants’ mindsets were manipulated via a Psychology Today article that argued body weight was either fixed or malleable. Subsequently, participants responded to a series of items regarding their self-regulation of weight loss behavior (e.g., willingness to maintain an exercise program). Those with a growth mindset were more likely to endorse efforts to regulate their weight loss behavior. These recent findings on growth versus fixed mindsets relate to portion control in several ways. First, given that the amount of food consumed can be dependent on one's ability to self-regulate (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998), the lay theories people hold about their own self-regulation may influence their overall consumption. For example, research shows that people's lay beliefs about willpower (i.e., the capacity for selfcontrol) can affect their success in self-regulation (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010). Individuals that believe their willpower is unlimited do not show decrements in performance when they are depleted, whereas those with a fixed mindset regarding willpower decline in performance when depleted. Second, a growth versus fixed mindset might apply to how individuals think about their weight or food habits. For example, people that believe weight is predetermined by body type (i.e., a fixed mindset) might be more prone to engage in the consumption of larger portions than those with a growth mindset. As such, one means to curb consumption would be to emphasize growth mindsets around weight and food habits or behaviors.3

1.3. Promotion versus prevention mindsets Promotion and prevention represent two distinct motivational orientations in regulating goal pursuit. Individuals with a promotion mindset emphasize the goal of nurturance, focus on their hopes, aspirations, and ideals, and are sensitive to gains and nongains. Individuals with a prevention mindset manifest the goal of safety, focus on their duties, obligations, and “oughts,” and are concerned with losses and nonlosses (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Chronic differences in individuals’ regulatory focus can be assessed based on their prior promotion and prevention success (Higgins et al., 2001). In addition, promotion versus prevention mindsets can be induced via tasks such as having people thinking about hopes, aspirations, and ideals (promotion) or their duties, obligations, and oughts (prevention; see Freitas & Higgins, 2002). Several aspects of promotion and prevention mindsets suggest that a prevention mindset might help with portion control more than a promotion mindset. Consumers in a prevention mindset tend to be better at avoiding temptations when in pursuit of a goal

3 At present, it remains unclear whether portion control might sometimes be aided by a fixed mindset. For example, perhaps a fixed mindset is also valuable when people are performing well on a portion-control regiment as it reinforces the idea that they are the type of person who can succeed. The question of when fixed mindsets might be beneficial versus harmful for portion control merits future attention.

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

4

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

(Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002). In contrast, consumers in a promotion mindset tend to experience intense positive feelings that may sensitize them to pleasure. Individuals with a promotion mindset succumb to temptations more readily than individuals with a prevention mindset due to a greater emphasis on the gains from gratification (Sengupta & Zhou, 2007). In addition, Dholakia, Gopinath, Bagozzi, and Nataraajan (2006) find that consumers with a promotion mindset experience more intense desire when encountering tempting food. Although this research also indicates that promotion focused consumers can effectively self-regulate away from the desire, to the extent the pleasure associated with consumption is made salient, a promotion mindset might hurt consumers’ ability to engage in portion control. They might be more likely to indulge in tempting food to begin with, and they may consume greater quantities of it. In contrast, inducing a prevention mindset might aid in portion control by strengthening consumers' resolve against temptations (Freitas et al., 2002). As with other mindsets, it is naïve to assume that a particular mindset will unambiguously help or hurt portion control. Promotion and prevention interact with factors such as activated goals to affect how people respond to their environment. For example, research suggests that a promotion mindset can lead people to initiate behavioral change (e.g., strive towards desired states), whereas a prevention mindset can be more effective for maintenance (e.g., preserving desired states). As a consequence, promotion may aid portion control when it represents a new goal for an individual, but prevention may aid portion control when it represents an ongoing goal. Consistent with this proposition, Fuglestad, Rothman, and Jeffery (2008) found a relationship between promotion and prevention mindsets, and people's ability to initiate and maintain changes, respectively, to their weight following an eight-week weight loss program. Overall, individuals with a promotion mindset lost more weight than those with a prevention mindset over the course of the study, which lasted more than a year. However, promotion individuals' weight loss occurred primarily during treatment and in the six months following treatment, suggesting that a promotion mindset benefits goal initiation. In contrast, people with a more prevention mindset exhibited a greater likelihood of keeping off lost weight over the next year, suggesting that they were better at goal maintenance. With regard to portion control, a promotion mindset might be used to initiate a change in one's portions (e.g., selecting smaller options), but a prevention mindset might be used to maintain that change. €rster, Grant, Idson, and Higgins (2001) sugFinally, work by Fo gests that promotion and prevention mindsets interact with the type of feedback individuals receive to affect motivation during goal pursuit. Specifically, as a promotion mindset is sensitive to

gains, success feedback matches this eagerness for gains and thus helps to sustain goal pursuit. In contrast, as a prevention mindset is focused on losses, failure feedback intensifies vigilance against losses and pushes the individual to maintain the goal. Consistent €rster and colleagues find that success feedback is with this idea, Fo more motivating for individuals with a promotion mindset, but failure feedback is more motivating for individuals with a prevention mindset. These findings could be relevant to portion control objectives and have practical applications. For example, knowing whether a consumer is guided by a more promotion or prevention mindset could help a weight loss program tailor the type of feedback it provides. During the course of a month, a consumer might exhibit both successes and failures at portion control. A weight loss program could provide feedback that emphasizes their successes during that month (e.g., meeting portion objectives), or that emphasizes their failures (e.g., overeating and exceeding portion objectives). 1.4. Mindsets and portion control summary Across three distinct literature that have examined mindsets, we observe evidence that mindsets shape people's consumption behavior by affecting how they weight or respond to information (see Table 1). A low-power mindset can gravitate consumers towards status, which leads to a greater likelihood of consuming larger portions when the size-to-status relationship is positive, but a greater tendency to consume smaller portions when the size-tostatus relationship is negative. Differences in fixed versus growth mindsets can also affect how people respond to failure in a diet and thus their ultimate success in achieving diet goals. Promotion and prevention mindsets may lead people to be differentially effective at initiating behavioral change in portion control and maintaining that change, respectively. Each of these literature provides a useful starting point for understanding the relationship between mindsets and portion control. 2. Research gaps and needs Proper knowledge of mindsets seems required for a complete understanding of consumer behavior broadly, and portion control specifically. Yet, research on mindsets is still very much at an early stage, particularly when it comes to understanding how mindsets might be used to address real world problems of portion control. In this final section we examine several research gaps and needs. Of particular salience are gaps between the science of studying mindsets and application to the real world, predicting what mindset is most important in a given situation, and whether

Table 1 Summary of mindsets and relation to portion control. Type of mindset Power

Features of the mindset

Sense of high control over resources and others in the social environment Powerlessness Sense of low control over resources and others in the social environment Fixed Belief that personal characteristics cannot be changed Growth Belief that personal characteristics are changeable Promotion Focused on “ideals” and personal growth; sensitive to gains and nongains Prevention Focused on “oughts” and personal security; sensitive to losses and nonlosses

Implications for portion control and practical application Individuals that feel powerless tend to choose larger portion sizes due to a positive association between size and status. However, interventions around creating a negative association between size and status in a given situation might provide one means to aid portion control among the powerless. Consumers with a growth mindset respond more adaptively to setbacks (e.g., failure to attain a portion control goal). They attribute failure to a changeable reason (e.g., effort), and strive for improvement. Those with a fixed mindset cope more poorly after failure, hindering goal pursuit. Fixed versus growth mindsets can also be created around the capacity to self-regulate one's weight. Promotion and prevention mindsets have different benefits at different stages of goal pursuit. A promotion mindset might help individuals initiate the goal of portion control; a prevention mindset might aid people in maintaining this goal. Furthermore, promotion and prevention focused individuals are more motivated by success and failure feedback, respectively, an insight applicable to keeping individuals motivated over time.

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

mindsets can be used to simultaneously benefit both consumer welfare and firms’ profits. Addressing these gaps is an important step in bridging the science of mindsets to real-world interventions promoting portion control and healthy eating. 2.1. From the science to the application A pressing gap is how to take the science of mindsets and make it applicable to policy makers and practitioners alike. We believe consideration of applications begins with the fundamental principle that mindsets can be both chronic and induced by the situation. First, the chronic nature of mindsets offers the ability to measure and predict individuals' behavior. Practitioners might measure mindsets directly with existing measures, but another potentially valuable approach is to map mindsets onto demographic and economic correlates with greater precision. For instance, recent research suggests that one correlate of people's experienced power is socioeconomic status (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2015). As such, socioeconomic status provides one possible segmentation variable to identify individuals that are more likely to have a low- or high-power mindset. Second, the fact mindsets can be situationally induced means that policy makers and practitioners alike could consider communication strategies that naturally shift people's mindsets. In addition, it is possible that strong cultural or societal events (e.g., a booming economy versus an economic recession) may shift the general mindset of the populace. Although a number of efforts have induced mindsets with writing tasks, such as listing one's “ideals” or “oughts” (Freitas & Higgins, 2002), initial evidence suggests that mindsets can also be invoked through aspects of the situation or the environment. For example, Dubois et al. (2012) find that power can be evoked via banners that emphasize consumers' power or lack thereof. Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky (2011) suggest that power mindsets might also be activated via the use of advertising copy. Although these efforts are still nascent and remain to be tested under actual market conditions, we believe they represent a step towards bridging the gap between theory and practice. Future work could examine how advertising or instore displays affect consumers purchase decisions. In the modern era, with the ability to order food online (e.g., grubhub.com), one might also consider how mindsets could be induced in the context of website design, online banner advertising, or email promotions. Even if consumers can be segmented or mindsets can be induced, questions remain as to what should be done with this knowledge. For policy makers, this knowledge might be used to influence consumers in their portion control of unhealthy options. For example, take the relation between feeling powerless and a desire for greater-status options within a choice hierarchy (Dubois et al., 2012). As noted, emphasizing the status associated with a slim physique could produce a focus on how smaller portions are better. In a similar vein, brands could use mindsets as a means to present their options more effectively to the consumer. For example, the fact that consumers might prefer larger options in a hierarchy does not mean that a brand needs to introduce larger and more caloric options. In fact, brands might possibly shrink all their options in terms of calories, but still maintain a hierarchy. 2.2. Predicting the importance of different mindsets Researchers have had the luxury of studying different mindsets in isolation under controlled laboratory situations. However, as the mapping of various mindsets increases, it will be valuable to

5

understand when various mindsets are active (Rucker & Galinsky, 2016) as well as whether distinct aspects of mindsets interact with one another (Murphy & Dweck, 2016b).4 As a starting point, we believe that whatever mindset is most accessible in a situation will tend to exert the largest effect (Higgins, 1996; Rucker & Galinsky, 2016). An additional possibility is that aspects of the situation may affect what mindset is utilized. For example, given power is a social construct rooted in hierarchy, an individual's power mindset may be of particular salience when one is making a decision or judgment about her resources relative to others. In contrast, fixed and growth mindsets emphasize the malleability of the self; as such, these mindsets may be of particular importance when an individual is assessing the ability to change her behavior. Factors that make one mindset more or less relevant than another mindset is an understudied topic that merits additional research. One might ask a related question of whether chronic mindsets are more or less powerful than a mindset induced by the situation. This remains an open question, but our suspicion is that such a question is ultimately answered by understanding, in a particular context, the strength of both the person and the situation. That is, a very strong chronic mindset is likely to overwhelm a weak situational mindset inducement; a very strong mindset inducement is likely to overwhelm a weak chronic mindset. It is also possible that when different chronic and situational mindsets are present, additional variables will determine which exerts a stronger influence. For example, research on self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974) suggests that people can monitor their external environment to different degrees. Low self-monitors focus more on their internal states, while high self-monitors attend to the external environment so that they can tailor their behavior to the situation. One possibility is that low-self monitors will be more influenced by chronic mindsets (i.e., internal states), whereas high-self monitors will be more influenced by environment factors that induce mindset (i.e., external factors). Although the relative strength of different chronic and situational mindsets remains an open question, some recent evidence indicates that it is important to consider the implications of activating potentially conflicting chronic and situational mindsets. Using promotion and prevention as well as power and powerlessness mindsets, Lisjak, Molden, and Lee (2012) find that incongruity between chronic and situational mindsets can deplete cognitive resources. For example, chronically promotion focused individuals induced with a prevention mindset performed worse on GRE problems. As cognitive resources can be required to pursue the effortful goal of portion control, the activation of conflicting mindsetsdor a mindset one is uncomfortable withd might make it more difficult for individuals to attain this goal.

2.3. Mindsets, portion control, and profitability As orientations that steer behavior, mindsets can have both positive and negative effects when it comes to consumer welfare. Indeed, it might be argued that a natural tension exists between educating companies about mindsets and portion control, and trying to benefit consumers. As the title of this article suggests, mindsets can help or hurt portion control. For brands, to the extent greater consumption is associated with more profits, this suggests that knowledge of mindsets might be used to aid the brand at the

4 Some of the mindsets that we have discussed seem to operate along a continuum (e.g., power versus powerlessness, growth versus fixed). Such a continuum appears to necessitate a tradeoff between these particular pairs of mindsets. However, one could feel powerful or powerless and, orthogonal to this, perceive herself as growth or fixed. Documenting what mindsets involve tradeoffs and what mindsets can interact is an important direction for future research.

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

6

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7

cost of the consumer health.5 This may strike some as especially troubling given the notion that mindsets can be activated without consumers’ awareness and thus may lead them down a path they would not actively seek. Although the moral dilemma between portion control and brand profits is beyond the scope of this article, our consideration of this issue led us to look for common grounds where portion control, or lack thereof, could be good for both the brand and the health of the consumer. For example, consider a restaurant that offers consumers an all-you-can-eat buffet at a fixed price. Here, using mindsets to motivate portion control may provide a winewin for both consumers' health and the brand. Portion control in this context serves consumers' health because of reduced caloric intake; portion control also serves the brand because the price per consumer is fixed. As another example, consider the fact that people may choose larger options because they want the best or want to signal that they can afford the premium option in a category (Dubois et al., 2015). One option is for brands to create smaller premium options. A brand might introduce a new tasty bite-sized treat positioned as superior in quality, but also priced higher, than larger portion offerings. As such, this option might be more profitable for its size compared to larger and more caloric items. Here, the consumer would enjoy a tasty yet calorically controlled treat and the brand would maintain its profits. Indeed, some brands now offer, at an equal or higher price, calorie controlled packs (e.g., 100 calories) that help with weight management but might also maintain profits. Finally, while we have emphasized portion control, in some cases greater consumption may be good for both consumers and the brand. If a brand has a healthy option, encouraging consumers to buy a larger portion may result in more profits for the brand but better health outcomes for the consumer. For example, a consumer that fills up on the healthier option at a restaurant (e.g., a salad) may have less of a need for a late night snack when they return home. 3. Conclusions The present article sought to introduce the reader to the idea that psychological mindsets shape how consumers see the world. A core implication of mindsets is that they are not inherently good or bad with respect to consumers' welfare generally, or portion control, specifically. Mindsets can both harm and hurt consumers’ portion control. Overall, we believe that the next wave of research on mindsets will benefit from applying psychological theories of mindsets to real world environments, examining when various mindsets are active, and exploring how mindsets can be used for the benefit of consumers and brands alike. References Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer Society: Myths and structures. , London: Sage. Baudrillard, J. (2005). The system of objects, London: Verso. Berger, Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555e569. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 74(5), 1252e1265. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development, 78(1), 246e263. Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 410e422.

5 Of course, larger portions may offer consumers value in other forms (e.g., savings per ounce, a sense of a good deal). Thus, consumer welfare may hinge, in part, on whether health or finances or psychological value is viewed as more important.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: transfer from” feeling right. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(3), 388. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2012). Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutrition Reviews, 70(10), 571e593. Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19e30. Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in the experience and self-control of desire for temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 163e175. 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), 199e205. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047e1062. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: when and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 436e449. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256e273. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621e628. €rster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, Fo expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: how regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253e260. Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: the role of regulatory fit. Psychological science, 13(1), 1e6. Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 291e298. Fuglestad, P. T., Rothman, A. J., & Jeffery, R. W. (2008). Getting there and hanging on: the effect of regulatory focus on performance in smoking and weight loss interventions. Health Psychology, 27(3S), S260eS270. Gal, D. (2012). A mouth-watering prospect: salivation to material reward. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1022e1029. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453e466. Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In APA handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 421e460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133e168). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280e1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1e46. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3e23. Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588e599. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletioneis it all in your head? implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological science, 21(11), 1686e1693. Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). Primed interference: the cognitive and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 889e909. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2016a). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127e136. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2016b). Mindsets and consumer psychology: a response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 165e166. Petty, R. E. (1997). The evolution of theory and research in social psychology: from single to multiple effect and process models of persuasion. In The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 268e290). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. New York: Springer. Rubera, G., Ordanini, A., & Calantone, R. (2012). Whether to integrate R&D and marketing: the effect of firm competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 766e783. Rucker, D. D. (2012). Advertising strategy: consumer mindsets and message alignment. In Handbook of marketing strategy (pp. 186e197). Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015e1029. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257e267. 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), 549e555. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Growing beyond growth: why multiple

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005

D.D. Rucker, S. He / Appetite xxx (2016) 1e7 mindsets matter for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 161e164. 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), 352e368. 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), 381e396. Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Increasing the effectiveness of communications to consumers: recommendations based on elaboration likelihood and attitude

7

certainty perspectives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 39e52. Sengupta, J., & Zhou, R. (2007). Understanding impulsive eaters' choice behaviors: the motivational influences of regulatory focus. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 297e308. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526e537. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: the role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 142e208.

Please cite this article in press as: Rucker, D. D., & He, S., Psychological mindsets affect consumption: How different mindsets help (hurt) portion control, Appetite (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.005