Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Classic Paper:
“Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating
effect of ease of imagery,”
study based on: imagining hypothetical events or outcomes the occurrence of such events is
quite probable
based on: cognitive heuristics; the availability heuristic
suggestion: increased availability -> heightened likelihood of events when imagining or
explaining hypothetical future outcomes
Study’s new aspect: comparing the judgement of likelihood based on easy-to-imagine
scenarios with difficult-to-imagine
Research: control (reading only) and experimental (imagining) subjects
control subjects: judge the likeliness of contracting the disease
experimental subjects: write a description of their feelings and reactions during
the three weeks of contracting the disease + rating the difficulty to imagine
these symptoms
Results: compared to those encountering easy-to-imagine symptoms subjects who had to
imagine or read about difficult-to-imagine symptoms rated themselves less likely to contract the
disease
hypothesis supported: effect occurred mainly among subjects imagining the disease
indication of the probability of contracting the disease was not differential among subjects of the
control group
the rule of the ease of imaginability: not always feasible -> vivid and striking events can be
easily recalled
further research suggestion: in the area of health behavior, preventative compliance by vivid
presentation of medical problems with easy-to-imagine terms
“The group-contagion effect: The influence of spatial groupings on perceived contagion and
preferences,”
Theoretical background of the study -> contagion theory
arrangement of objects in a group changes people’s preference
belief of different (be it good or bad) qualities are contagious and transferable
The research: good or bad quality in an object is transferable to others in the same group ->
“Group Contagion Effect”
tables with balls, only difference is the arrangement of the balls
win scenario: choose from table where balls are close together
lose scenario: choose the table where balls are farther apart
in case of a gain, closer objects have a higher likelihood of transferring positive attributes as
long as farther objects have a lower possibility of transferring negative attributes when
expecting loss.
first study: subjects had to choose objects from contagious (close objects) and noncontagious
(objects farther apart) groups when these objects were perceived as being infused by gain or loss
second study: to measure the level of contagion by heightening the probability of either gain or
loss situation
Results: people prefer to choose from closely arranged groups of items when those items are
carrying promise of gain and they tend to choose from widely spaced items when facing the
probability of loss by those objects
extended contagion theory: contagion can occur in a group without a clearly defined source of
target, and contagion effect was more significant when the level of contagion was increased
future studies: healthy eating
Discussion Questions:
1. Can you recall a situation from your everyday life when you used the Group Contagion
Effect?
2. How do you think group contagion theory can damage or improve a company’s image on the
market?
Examined How effective in task, how reliable, effective than similar products, trust
dymensions towards effectiveness, to what extent will it work, side effect likeliness
Experiment 1A Position of two product to be Without t-test
images (close vs. more effective diagnostic info,
far) when close judged
effectiveness
Experiment 1B two changes: position of product and effect image Product more effective
interchanged, when close, people
choose the hypothetical product or real acne choosing close
product condition: hyp.prod.
Experiment 2 Test basic effect Product Close images, Strength of
with another relatedness 0 to more effective relatedness:
product category 100 (mediation product pictures close,
analysis) more related
Experiment 3 Less vs. high Low knowledge: influenced Two-way
knowledge about High knowledge: not influenced ANOVA
the product
Experiment 4 casual processes vs. mechanical Mental exercise Mechanical
causal process before test group more
influenced
Experiment 5A Special proximity is dependent of Immediate effect Long-term effect
timing of the effect. (immediate vs. (close more (far more
long-term) effective) effective)
Experiment 5B Changed headlines in the advertisement-changed Same results as
expectation of effect Experiment 5A
“Probable cause: The influence of prior probabilities on forecasts and perceptions of magnitude,”
Theoretical Background: Magnitude of benefit or harm of a product shapes consumers’
purchase decisions
Prior (provided) probability information biases people’s magnitude judgements-> biased
by outcome’s prior probability
Larger magnitude is beneficial for a person-> larger outcome to be perceived
Main proposal: this phenomenon exists because an outcome is perceived more probable
when that outcome is generated by more powerful antecedents
Expectations about outcome’s magnitude are shaped by the information provided
formats of outcome magnitudes: visual, numeric, arithmetic
10 studies:
1A-1F: consumers forecasting and recognizing larger probabilities lead to larger
magnitude of an outcome; additionally, later unfolding is perceived as large as well
Study 2: presumption of the same antecedent causes probability and it’s magnitude
Study 3: impact of magnitude judgements on consumers’ intended behavior (not only
influenced to consume, but recommend as well)
Study 4A: impact of magnitude judgement when participants were incentivized
Study 4B: field study (click rate), probability-based magnitude judgements’ impact on
consumer
Based on result: highlighting a product’s high chance of providing meaningful impact on the
outcome helps marketers to augment consumers’ perception of the magnitude of the
suggested impact, therefore increase sales
Future research: contexts where contrast effect is generated rather than assimilation effect,
contexts where people are familiar with probability of a given antecedent generating an
outcome
Discussion Questions:
1. When buying a product in which case (product category) does probability of…
A. Producing a benefit
B. Producing a harm
…Influence you most in your purchase decision?
2. Given article examined that same antecedent caused an outcome’s probability and magnitude
as well, but there might be cases where this assumption does not stand. What could be such
cases?