2016/05/03 by Young Eun Huh, Joachim Vosgerau, Carey K. Morewedge · 29 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · Decision Sciences · Psychology · #Advertising #Brand names #Business #Cognitive psychology #Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification #Cultural Differences and Values #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics #Psychology #Social psychology #Stimulus (psychology)
paper · doi:10.1177/0956797616640705
published in Psychological Science 27(6), 894-903 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2016/05/03 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/26
When people cannot get what they want, they often satisfy their desire by consuming a substitute. Substitutes can originate from within the taxonomic category of the desired stimulus (i.e., within-category substitutes) or from a different taxonomic category that serves the same basic goal (i.e., cross-category substitutes). Both a store-brand chocolate (within-category substitute) and a granola bar (cross-category substitute), for example, can serve as substitutes for gourmet chocolate. Here, we found that people believe that within-category substitutes, which are more similar to desired stimuli, will more effectively satisfy their cravings than will cross-category substitutes (Experiments 1, 2a, and 2b). However, because within-category substitutes are more similar than cross-category substitutes to desired stimuli, they are more likely to evoke an unanticipated negative contrast effect. As a result, unless substitutes are equivalent in quality to the desired stimulus, cross-category substitutes more effectively satisfy cravings for the desired stimulus (Experiments 3 and 4).