نقش مقایسه اجتماعی برای عوا حداکثرسازی و رضایت بخش: وعده بهترین و یا تمایل به بهترین؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|37027||2015||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||13220 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 25, Issue 3, July 2015, Pages 372–388
Abstract Consumers chose between options that paired either an objectively inferior good with high relative standing (Your laptop is rated 60/100 in quality; others' laptops are rated 50/100) or an objectively superior good with low relative standing (Your laptop is rated 80/100 in quality; others' laptops are rated 95/100). Decision makers who try to make the “best” decision, known as maximizers (Schwartz et al., 2002), pursued relative standing more than decision makers who are satisfied with outcomes that are “good enough” (known as satisficers). That is, maximizers were more likely than satisficers to choose objectively inferior products when they were associated with higher relative standing. Subsequent analyses investigating decisions across time showed that maximizers' interest in relative standing persisted even when the nature of the tradeoff was made overt, suggesting it is a conscious aspect of the maximizer identity. Overall, results suggest that the maximizer self concept is more complex than has been previously assumed—they are focused on relative outcomes in addition to absolute outcomes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Conclusions The current studies show that in addition to “positional goods” there may be an identifiable group of “positional individuals” (maximizers) who are willing to sacrifice objective quality for relative standing in a wide variety of situations. Indeed, the fact that maximizers—decision makers whose primary concern is in obtaining “the best”—are repeatedly choosing objectively inferior products and outcomes is in some sense ironic. However, choosing the worst in order to be the best helps to illuminate the larger and more general conclusion that the current paper has brought to light, namely that the maximizer self concept is more complicated than has been previously assumed and includes not only an aspect that focuses on product quality in an objective sense but also a facet that emphasizes social status and social competition. This insight not only contributes to our practical marketing knowledge by suggesting novel product positioning combinations but also increases our theoretical understanding of the relationship between individual differences in maximization and the classical decision making concepts of maximizing and satisficing.