ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
From Evaluating People to Evaluating Products: the Effect of Ascription Versus Achievement Mind-Set in Consumer
Decisions
Zhi Wang, Hong Kong Baptist University
Individuals typically acquire social statuses by either inherited characteristics (e.g., ethnic, family background) or performances of
tasks (e.g., educational attainment, job performance). The former status is known as ascribed status (who one is) and the latter is called
achieved status (what one does) in sociology (Linton, 1936; Foladare, 1969; Pfeffer & Fabian, Forthcoming) The present study
applies the ascription/achievement concepts to consumer research. Based on the product personality conceptualization developed by
Jordan (1997), we draw an analogy that products, similar to individuals, also have "ascribed status" given by product’s origin (e.g.,
country-of-origin or COO, brand image) and “achieved status” derived from product’s performance of function (e.g., functional
attributes). Founded on theories of mind-set, we propose that drawing consumers’ attention to people’s ascribed (vs. achieved) status
in a prior situation can induce an ascription (vs. achievement) mind-set. The mind-set, in turn, increases consumers’ preference for
products with favorable ascribed (vs. achieved) status in a subsequent unrelated purchase situation. The present study applies the
ascription/achievement concepts to consumer research. Based on the product personality conceptualization developed by Jordan
(1997), we draw an analogy that products, similar to individuals, also have "ascribed status" given by product’s origin (e.g., countryof-origin or COO, brand image) and “achieved status” derived from product’s performance of function (e.g., functional attributes).
Founded on theories of mind-set, we propose that drawing consumers’ attention to people’s ascribed (vs. achieved) status in a prior
situation can induce an ascription (vs. achievement) mind-set. The mind-set, in turn, increases consumers’ preference for products
with favorable ascribed (vs. achieved) status in a subsequent unrelated purchase situation. Two experiments were designed to test
hypotheses. Study 1 (already conducted) investigated how consumers' situationally induced ascription/achievement mind-set impacts
preference of products with favorable ascribed/achieved status. Study 2 (in progress) examines how psychological distance of
purchase moderates the effect of ascription/achievement mind-set on consumers’ preference of products.
[to cite]:
Zhi Wang (2012) ,"From Evaluating People to Evaluating Products: the Effect of Ascription Versus Achievement Mind-Set in
Consumer Decisions", in AP - Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds. , Duluth, MN : Association for
Consumer Research, Pages: 440-441.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1011233/volumes/ap11/AP-10
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
|
Zhi Wang, Hong Kong Baptist University
INTRODUCTION
Individuals typically acquire social statuses by
either inherited characteristics (e.g., ethnic, family
background) or performances of tasks (e.g.,
status is known as ascribed status (who one is) and
the latter is called achieved status (what one does) in
sociology (Linton, 1936; Foladare, 1969; Pfeffer &
Fabian, Forthcoming)
The present study applies the ascription/
achievement concepts to consumer research.
Based on the product personality conceptualization
developed by Jordan (1997), we draw an analogy that
products, similar to individuals, also have “ascribed
status” given by product’s origin (e.g., country-oforigin or COO, brand image) and “achieved status”
derived from product’s performance of function (e.g.,
functional attributes). Founded on theories of mindset, we propose that drawing consumers’ attention
to people’s ascribed (vs. achieved) status in a prior
situation can induce an ascription (vs. achievement)
mind-set. The mind-set, in turn, increases consumers’
preference for products with favorable ascribed (vs.
achieved) status in a subsequent unrelated purchase
situation.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A mind-set concerns the effect of performing
a cognitive or motor behavior in one situation
(e.g., focusing on a person’s ascribed status when
evaluating a person) on the likelihood of performing
a conceptually similar behavior in subsequent,
unrelated situations (e.g., focusing on a product’s
ascribed status when evaluating a product, Xu,
cognitive procedures. The underlying mechanism of
a mind-set can be conceptualized using knowledge
accessibility (Higgins, 1996; Bargh, 2002).
concepts, cognitive procedures) is stored in memory
and varies in terms of accessibility. When processing
new information, some of this knowledge is activated
and used. The likelihood that a unit of knowledge is
activated is a function of the recency with which it
has been activated and applied before. The effect of
mind-set can be seen as one manifestation of this type
of persistence. Moreover, this persistency effect can
occur for reasons of which individuals are unaware.
Ascription mind-set consumers,
compared to achievement mind-set consumers, are
more likely to prefer products with favorable ascribed
status.
: Achievement mind-set consumers,
compared to ascription mind-set consumers, are more
likely to prefer products with favorable achieved
status.
METHODOLOGY
Two experiments were designed to test hypotheses.
Study 1 (already conducted) investigated how
consumers’ situationally induced ascription/
achievement mind-set impacts preference of products
with favorable ascribed/achieved status. Study 2
(in progress) examines how psychological distance
of purchase moderates the effect of ascription/
achievement mind-set on consumers’ preference of
products.
Study 1 had a 3 (Mind-set Type: Ascription
vs. Achievement vs. No) x 2 (Laptop Product Version:
functional attributes second vs. functional attributes
undergraduate students participated in the study.
The last factor was included to rule out any possible
primacy and/or recency effects of information on
product evaluations, the dependent variable. Mindset was manipulated by exposing participants to
anecdotes of celebrities bearing either ascribed
status (derived from family background) or achieved
status (given by personal efforts and performances).
Product A had positive value on COO but negative
value on functional attributes (e.g., CPU). For B, the
values were the opposite. So which product would be
preferred by participants should depend on which kind
of product status (ascribed or achieved) was perceived
as more salient. All product stimuli information was
way repeated measure. As no reliable effects of
Information Order were observed (p > .10) and the
patterns of results were the same w/o this factor, it
was dropped from further analysis. Results of a twoway repeated measure then revealed a main effect of
the product version (F(1, 72) = 4.32, p < .05), showing
that laptop A was evaluated more positively (M =
4.32) than laptop B (M = 4.52). However, consistent
distance of purchase) that can moderate the effect.
Last, it contributes to product personality literature by
providing a new perspective to classify product status
(ascribed vs. achieved). To the author’s knowledge,
F(2, 72) = 15.61,
p < .01) of Mind-set Type and Product Version.
REFERENCES
Bargh, John A. (2002), “Losing Consciousness:
of laptop A (M = 5.28) than laptop B (M = 4.07, F(1,
72) = 26.39, p < .01); in the Achievement Mind-set
evaluation of laptop B (M = 4.47) than laptop A (M =
3.91, F(1, 72) = 6.82, p < .05); in the control condition,
however, participants’ evaluations of the two versions
M_ A =
4.51, M_ B = 4.37,F(1, 72) = 0.42, p > .50). Further
simple effects tests showed that the effects of Product
Version depended on different conditions of Mind-set
Type, all three p’s < .05.
Study 2 further explores the boundary
condition of the effect. Consistent with literature
(e.g., Han, 1989; Maheswaran, 1994), we argue that
statuses (e.g., those based on various functional
attributes) of products, ascribed statuses (those
based on COO and brand image, etc.) are more
abstract, general and global. According to Construal
level theory (Psychological distance Construal
level Prediction, evaluation and behavior, Trope &
Liberman, 2010), Ascription Mind-set should exert an
effect only for psychological distant purchases while
Achievement Mind-set should affect evaluation only
for psychological near purchases. This hypothesis will
be tested in Study 2, which has a 3 (Mind-set Type)
x 2 (Product Version) x 2 (Psychological distance:
psychological distance will be manipulated along the
temporal distance dimension because of its wide use
in research concerning Construal Level Theory.
DISCUSSION
This research contributes to literature in three
ways. First, while most previous research focuses
on conscious information processing in product
evaluation, we provides evidence that unconscious
processes (mind-set) may also play a role. Second,
concept has ever been introduced to consumer
behavior research.
Behavior, and Motivation,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 29 (2), 280-85.
Han, C. Min (1989), “Country Image: Halo or
Summary Construct?” Journal of Marketing
Research, 26 (May), 222-29.
Higgins, E. Tory (1996), “Knowledge Activation:
Accessibility, Applicability and Salience,”
in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
Principles, ed. E. Tory Higgins and Arie W.
Kruglanski, New York, NY: Guilford, 133-68.
Jordan, Patrick W. (1997), “Products as
Personalities,” in Contemporary Ergonomics, ed.
M A. Hanson, London, UK: Taylor & Francis,
73-8.
Linton, Ralph (1936), “Status and Role,” in The
Study of Man, New York, NY: D. AppletonCentury.
as Stereotypes: The Effects of Consumer
Expertise and Attribute Information on Product
Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21
(2), 354-65.
Pfeffer, Fabian T. (2011), “Status Attainment
and Wealth: Revisiting the Achievementascription Debate,” in The Comparative Study of
Intergenerational Mobility, ed. Robert Erikson,
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2010),
“Construal-Level Theory of Psychological
Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 44063.
Xu, Alison Jing and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2007), “The
Effect of Mind-sets on Consumer Decision
Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(4), 556-66.