Studying Priming Effects

Today, “ever-larger, more complex and sophisticated representations are hypothesized to be prime-able” (Bargh, 2006; p. 151). However, priming research is already nearing “childhoods end” and there are now calls for researchers to move beyond “first generation questions” which are strictly concerned with identifying novel priming effects (Bargh, 2006; p. 147). Within social psychology, research questions may be classified as first generation, second generation or third generation questions (Tenenbaum & Eklund, 2007). First generation questions are typically “is”

questions that ask whether there is a phenomenon, an effect or a relationship present.

Second generation questions involve determining when effects will occur and are therefore involved in the search for moderating variables. Finally, third generation questions seek to identify mediating variables that can help answer how and why these effects manifest themselves (Tenenbaum & Eklund, 2007).

In recent years, numerous authors have highlighted the urgent need for greater replication efforts within social psychology (Cesario, 2014; Koole & Lakens, 2012;

Simons, 2014). Replications allow researchers to test the robustness and generalisability of priming effects (Yong, 2012). Importantly, replication studies allow social scientists to narrow the effect sizes of priming to more ecologically valid

18

parameters. Consequently, replication efforts provide researchers with more confidence in both the strength and generalizability of the discovered priming effect (Simons, 2014).

Consumer researchers have a particular interest in priming effects associated with “mindsets”. Mindsets have been found to influence a wide variety of consumer behaviours (for a review see Wyer & Xu, 2010). Newly discovered, bolstering and counterarguing and mindsets have been found to regulate consumer resistance (Xu &

Wyer, 2012). Consequently, these mindsets have potentially far reaching implications for consumers and marketers. Counterarguing and bolstering responses occur across a wide range of consumer contexts and dictate the effectiveness of marketers’

persuasive appeals and consumers’ resistive responses. However, to our knowledge, no research has yet attempted to replicate these mindsets. The conditions that influence the strength of these mindsets is a theoretically important, second generation question that remains unanswered. Research that could provide a diagnostic tool for identifying individuals who are more vulnerable to bolstering and counterarguing mindsets would make an important contribution to the scarce literature.

2.3. Mindsets

‘‘The stream of our thought is like a river. On the whole, easy simple flowing predominates in it, the drift of things is with the pull of gravity, and effortless attention is the rule’’ (James, 1890; p. 451).

The Oxford English dictionary defines a mindset as “a set of attitudes or fixed ideas that somebody has and that are often difficult to change”. Within academic literature

19

the term mindset has been loosely defined. For example, some authors have conceptualised mindsets broadly as artefacts of culture (Uskul, Oyserman, Schwarz, Lee, & Xu, 2013; Xu, Shen, & Wyer, 2012) or as personality traits (Kühnen &

Oyserman, 2002). Other researchers proffer more narrowly defined conceptualisations. For example, Xu and Wyer (2007; p. 556) define “procedural”

mindsets as being characterised by “the persistence of cognitive processes and judgement criteria that are activated in the course of performing a task”. Since the current research seeks to extend the work of Xu and Wyer (2012), the author duly adopts their definition of mindset for the purposes of the current research. According to Xu and Wyer (2012), a bolstering mindset occurs when the cognitive procedure of reaffirming a belief is carried over and automatically enacted in a conceptually similar yet unrelated situation (Xu & Wyer, 2012). Conversely, a counterarguing mindset occurs when the cognitive procedure of refuting the implications of a message is carried over and automatically enacted in a conceptually similar yet unrelated situation (Xu & Wyer, 2012).

Hamilton et al. (2011) maintain that research on mindsets can be traced back to early psychology studies (see Ach, 1905). However, other authors adopt a narrower perspective on mindsets and thus attribute the seminal studies on mindset to more contemporary sources. For example, Xu (2010) suggest that the origins of research on mindsets can be traced back to studies on behavioural rigidity (Luchins, 1942; Rees &

Israel, 1935). These studies demonstrated that when individuals successfully applied a strategy to solve a problem they were subsequently more likely to rely on this strategy to solve similar problems in the future. For example, Luchins (1942) provided participants with three jars of varying volumes and then asked them to measure out a

20

particular volume of water using only the containers provided. Solving the task required participants to use a particular sequence of steps in order to measure the correct volume of water. Specifically, participants were required to fill the largest container with water before then using the smaller containers to subtract the excess water to arrive at the correct volume. The research demonstrated that once individuals successfully completed the puzzle they were likely to use the same strategy to successfully complete similar puzzles. Luchins (1942) found that individuals employed the same problem solving strategy on subsequent tasks even though much easier solutions were available. In short, the research demonstrated that behavioural rigidity predisposed individuals to select cognitively accessible strategies that were inappropriate or ineffective in future situations (e.g. Luchins 1942; Rees & Israel 1935). Despite the differing opinions regarding the nature and origins of mindsets, there is a general consensus among researchers that mindsets are cognitive phenomena which influence perceptual, behavioural, cognitive and even physiological responses to stimuli (Wyer & Xu, 2010).

Mindsets are found to exert influence at all stages of information processing.

For example, mindsets can influence comprehension (e.g. Higgins & Chaires, 1980;

Ulrich Kühnen, Hannover, & Schubert, 2001; Wakslak & Trope, 2006), evaluation (e.g. Hirt, Kardes, & Markman, 2004; Kray & Galinsky, 2003) and decision making processes (e.g. Gollwitzer & Bayer, 1999; Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, & Steller, 1990;

Shen & Wyer, 2010). Due to the fact that mindsets infiltrate and influence all stages of information processing, they influence a wide range of human behaviour both within and outside of consumer contexts (for a review see Wyer & Xu, 2010). For example, mindsets that influence comprehension processes often change the relational

21

connections between stimuli. Abstract (or conversely concrete) mindsets induce individuals to process information at higher (or conversely lower) levels of abstraction (Trope & Liberman, 2000). Individuals in an abstract (or conversely concrete) mindset attend to broad (or conversely fine grained) detail during information processing which predisposes them to sorting information into more wider (or conversely narrower) categories (Trope & Liberman, 2000). Metaphorically speaking, while those exhibiting an abstract mindset see the forest, those with a concrete mindset see the trees (Dhar & Kim, 2007). Similarly, while a holistic mindset induces individuals to view stimuli as whole entities, a piecemeal mindset induces individuals to consider the constituent parts of an entity (Higgins & Chaires, 1980). Differences in relational thinking associated with these mindsets was found to influence an individual’s ability to solve the Dunker candle problem (a puzzle which requires individuals to find a way to mount a candle to a wall with a cardboard box and a bunch of tacks).

Decision making processes may also be affected by mindset. For example, Kray and Galinsky (2003) found that when evaluating a goal, a counterfactual mindset induced individuals to become more sensitive to the potential disadvantages of pursing the goal. Similarly, Hirt et al. (2004) found that a counterfactual mindset induced individuals to make more realistic assessments of the likelihood of their favourite team winning the National Basketball Championship (NBA).

Behaviours may also be affected by mindsets. Xu and Wyer (2008) demonstrated that making comparative evaluations in one scenario increased the likelihood of comparative evaluations being made in a subsequent shopping task.

Since shopping behaviours typically involve making comparative judgements, the

22

carryover of this cognitive procedure was found to increase purchasing behaviours.

For example, Xu and Wyer (2008) demonstrated that asking individuals to make comparisons between the physical attributes of different animals or making comparisons between two potential dating partners served to prime increased purchasing behaviours in a follow up task.

Similarly, Shen and Wyer (2008) found that information search strategies (i.e.

ranking items from high to low or low to high along a product dimension) induced future shopping behaviours to be informed by this type of behaviour. Mindsets can also improve learning ability and academic performance (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Dweck, 2010; Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). For example, Dweck (2010) demonstrated that a growth mindset can dramatically influence learning ability and academic performance, especially among children who belong to stereotyped groups (Aronson et al., 2002; Good et al., 2003). The influence of mindsets is not restricted to cognition.

Mindsets may help individuals to “overcome physiological limits with psychological means” (Draganich & Erdal, 2014; p. 858). Perhaps the most well-known manifestations of mindset is that of the placebo effect (Benson & Friedman, 1996). Draganich and Erdal (2014) demonstrated that supplying individuals with false feedback regarding their past night sleep quality was sufficient to influence their subsequent performance on cognitive tasks. Specifically, participants who were led to believe that they were sleep deprived performed worse on cognitive tests than participants who were told they had gained sufficient sleep. Interestingly, individuals’

self-reported sleep did not influence their subsequent task performance. Mindset are even found to influence metabolism (Crum, Corbin, Brownell, & Salovey, 2011;

23

Crum & Langer, 2007). For example, Crum et al. (2011) found that individuals who believed they were drinking a low (high) calorie milkshake demonstrated different physiological responses to the same food. Specifically, individuals who believed that they had drunk a high calorie milkshake exhibited a more pronounced decline in the gut peptide ghrelin than individuals who believed they had drunk a low calorie milkshake. The authors concluded that an individual’s “mindset (sensible or indulgent) meaningfully affects physiological responses to food” (Crum et al, 2011; p.

424). Other research has demonstrated that mindsets can improve visual acuity (Langer, Djikic, Pirson, Madenci, & Donohue, 2010). Specifically, the authors demonstrated that an individual’s vision could be improved by activating the concept of a pilot. Participants in the experimental condition were primed by undertaking a realistic flight simulator task. These individuals subsequently exhibited improved vision when compared to those in the control condition. Another study demonstrated that individuals primed with a motivational mindset “try and you will succeed”

exhibited improved vision compared to those in the control condition (Langer et al., 2010).

A large body of research now demonstrates that mindsets can influence information processing at comprehension, evaluation and decision making stages (for a review see Wyer & Xu, 2010). Consequently, mindsets have the power to colour perceptions and thus steer behaviours outside of conscious awareness (Wyer & Xu, 2010). For example, abstract mindsets promote decision making based on broad, personal values (Torelli & Kaikati, 2009) while concrete mindsets promote decision making based on low level, detailed analysis (Goldsmith & Dhar, 2008). Prevention-focus mindsets induce individuals to Prevention-focus on their responsibilities, while

promotion-24

focus mindsets induce individuals to focus on their personal goals (Higgins, 1997). A holistic mindset promotes conceptual thinking, while a piecemeal mindset promotes thinking in fine grain detail (Higgins & Chaires, 1980). A counterfactual mindset induces individuals to consider alternatives (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Hirt et al.

2004), while a mating mindset induces individuals to think creatively (Monga &

Gürhan-Canli, 2012). A configural mindset aids decision making when distracted, while a featural mindset compromises decision making when distracted (Lerouge, 2009).

Mindsets may also influence relational thinking towards objects and people.

For example, the consumer goal of utility maximisation (getting the most value for the investment made) can lead to a maximising mindset. A maximising mindset induces upward comparisons but also increases feelings of regret and loss (Ma & Roese, 2014). The maximising mindset also increases both product dissatisfaction and the likelihood that an individual will return a product that fails to live up to expectation.

Mindsets can also influence behaviours and goal pursuit strategies (Gollwitzer et al., 1990). Deliberative mindsets promote open mindedness which facilitates critical thinking and unbiased decision-making. In contrast, an implemental mindset promotes closed mindedness and biased information processing. Consequently, a deliberative mindset facilitates the evaluation of pre-decisional goal pursuit options (Gollwitzer et al., 1990), while an implemental mindset facilitates post-decisional, goal focused behaviours (Gollwitzer et al., 1990). Research on implemental and deliberative mindsets has highlighted how mindsets may influence goal pursuit strategies that individuals enact both within and outside of consumer domains. However, little research has investigated specific goal pursuit strategies relating to the important goal

25

of resistance. The current research aims to address this imbalance in the academic literature. However, in order to fully appreciate the power that mindsets exert on consumer behaviour the reader must firstly understand the processes that govern their operation.