Gut Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0633

References

  • Aaker D. A.Building Strong Brands (1996) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Anand P., Holbrook M. B., Stephens D. The formation of affective judgment: The cognitive-affective model versus the independence hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. (1988) 15(3):386–391CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baronchelli A., Caglioti E., Loreto V. Measuring complexity with zippers. Eur. J. Phys. (2005) 26(5):69–77CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Benson P. J., Perrett D. I. Extracting prototypical facial images from exemplars. Perception (1993) 22(3):257–262CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Berger J., Heath C. Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. J. Consumer Res. (2007) 34(August):121–134CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Berlyne D. E. Curiosity and exploration. Science (1966) 153(3731):25–33CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bloch P. H. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Marketing (1995) 59(3):16–29CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bornstein R. F. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psych. Bull. (1989) 106(2):265–289CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bornstein R. F., D'Agostino P. R. The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Soc. Cognition (1994) 12(2):103–128CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Busse M., Silva-Risso J., Zettelmeyer F. $1,000 cash back: The pass-through of auto manufacturer promotions. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2006) 96(4):1253–1270CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chitturi R., Raghunathan R., Mahajan V. Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J. Marketing (2008) 72(3):48–63CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Donderi D. C. Visual complexity: A review. Psych. Bull. (2006) 132(1):73–97CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Elrod T., Gaul W., Schader M. Inferring an ideal-point product-market map from consumer panel data. Data, Expert Knowledge and Decisions (1988) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin) 240–249CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fader P. S., Lattin J. M. Accounting for heterogeneity and nonstationarity in a cross-sectional model of consumer purchase behavior. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(3):304–317LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fitzmaurice G. M., Laird N. M., Ware J. H.Applied Longitudinal Analysis (2004) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
  • Golder P. N., Tellis G. J. Growing, growing, gone: Cascades, diffusion, and turning points in the product life cycle. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(2):207–218LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Halberstadt J. B., Rhodes G. The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psych. Sci. (2000) 11(4):285–289CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kamakura W. A., Srivastava R. K. An ideal-point probabilistic choice model for heterogeneous preferences. Marketing Sci. (1986) 5(3):199–218LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Labroo A. A., Kim S. The “instrumentality” heuristic: Why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psych. Sci. (2009) 20(1):127–134CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Labroo A. A., Lee A. Y. Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(3):374–385CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Labroo A. A., Dhar R., Schwarz N. Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. J. Consumer Res. (2008) 34(6):819–831CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Langlois J. H., Roggman L. A. Attractive faces are only average. Psych. Sci. (1990) 1(2):115–121CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lee A. Y. The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (2001) 27(10):1255–1266CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lee A. Y., Labroo A. A. The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(2):151–165CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Muller D., Judd C. M., Yzerbyt V. Y. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2005) 89(6):852–863CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Perrett D. I., May K. A., Yoshikawa S. Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature (1994) 368(6468):239–242CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pinheiro J., Bates D., DebRoy S., Sarkar D.R Core Team nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. (2008) . R Package version 3.1–90Google Scholar
  • Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. (2004) 8(4):364–382CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Reber R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psych. Sci. (1998) 9(1):45–48CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rhodes G., Tremewan T. Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psych. Sci. (1996) 7(2):105–110CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schwarz N. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J. Consumer Psych. (2004) 14(4):332–348CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shocker A. D., Srinivasan V. Multiattribute approaches for product concept evaluation and generation: A critical review. J. Marketing Res. (1979) 16(2):159–180CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Simonsohn U. Lessons from an oops at Consumer Reports®: Consumers follow experts and ignore invalid information. J. Marketing Res. (2011) 48(1):1–12CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sriram S., Chintagunta P. K., Neelamegham R. Effects of brand preference, product attributes, and marketing variables in technology product markets. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(5):440–456LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Sukhdial A. S., Chakraborty G., Steger E. K. Measuring values can sharpen segmentation in the luxury auto market. J. Advertising Res. (1995) 35(1):9–22Google Scholar
  • Sullivan S. A., Birch L. L. Pass the sugar, pass the salt: Experience dictates preference. Developmental Psych. (1990) 26(4):546–551CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tellis G. J., Johnson J. The value of quality. Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(6):758–773LinkGoogle Scholar
  • West B. T., Welch K. B., Galecki A. T.Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software (2007) (Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL) Google Scholar
  • Winkielman P., Cacioppo J. T. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2001) 81(6):989–1000CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Winkielman P., Halberstadt J., Fazendeiro T., Catty S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psych. Sci. (2006) 17(9):799–806CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Yohai V., Stahel W. A., Zamar R. H., Stahel W., Weisberg S. A procedure for robust estimation and inference in linear regression. Directions in Robust Statistics and Diagnostics Part II (1991) (Springer, New York) 365–374CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zajonc R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Personality Soc. Psych. Monogr. (1968) 9(2, Part 2):1–27CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zettelmeyer F., Morton F. S., Silva-Risso J. How the Internet lowers prices: Evidence from matched survey and automobile transaction data. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(2):168–181CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.