Superstition, Ethics, and Transformative Consumer Research

(1)

Superstition, Ethics, and Transformative

Consumer Research

STUART VYSE

ABSTRACT The growing popularity of research on the role of superstition and other extraordinary beliefs in the marketplace presents new challenges and opportunities for the enhancement of consumer well-being. Drawing upon the three major ethical traditions of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, I offer some preliminary proposals for how this area of investigation might adopt the principles of transformative consumer research (TCR) and promote the goals of consumer welfare and sustainability. The common types of studies in this area are categorized, as well as the degree of risk these studies pose for possible negative consumer and societal outcomes. Finally, I discuss some issues to be considered and offer some suggestions for applying the goals of TCR to research on superstition and extraordinary beliefs.

I

n a recent chapter on environmental psychology and con-sumer behavior, I bemoaned the fact that, for many de-cades, the goals of consumer research were largely in con-flict with those of environmental psychology (Vyse 2018b). Of the two disciplines, environmental psychology has had the more direct historical path. In the decades after World War II, the United States experienced a great period of eco-nomic growth that was accompanied by the establishment of the Interstate Highway system, suburban development, and the construction of many new government and commercial structures. Social psychology was already a well-established field; because industrial and residential development raised questions about the psychological implications of the design and furnishings of homes, schools, and work environments, “architectural psychology”emerged in the 1950s and 1960s (Bailey, Branch, and Taylor 1964; Pol 2007). Subsequently, environmental psychology grew into a multidisciplinary, largely appliedfield. During the 1960s and 1970s, environ-mental concerns gained prominence, leading to an emphasis on “green” buildings and sustainability, as well as greater concern for human well-being in built and natural environ-ments (Canter and Craik 1981; Pol 2007). Although the de-sign of any built structure represents a compromise among the needs of various stakeholders (i.e., owners, builders, users), thefield of environmental psychology retains a focus on the twin concerns of environmental sustainability and human well-being.

Although consumer research has been shaped by some of the same historical events as environmental psychology,

the discipline’s development has been more circuitous. An important existential question for this area of research has been how to balance the interests of marketers and con-sumers. Adam Smith’s (1776/1827) optimism about the invisible hand of the marketplace serving both buyers and sellers has been validated by the growth of free-market econ-omies, but in many important respects, the interests of mar-keters and consumers are at odds with each other. For exam-ple, in recent years the United States has enjoyed sustained economic growth, but a decade after the Great Recession, many consumers are still living quite precarious ﬁnancial lives, carrying substantial levels of household debt (Vyse 2018a). Over the history of the discipline, the relative prom-inence given to consumer welfare issues has varied substan-tially.

Like environmental psychology, consumer and marketing research experienced a great expansion in response to the postwar period of economic growth, and in the 1960s and 1970s a number of forces kept attention on the needs of con-sumers. Ralph Nader’s bookUnsafe at Any Speedwas pub-lished in 1965, the Consumer Federation of America was founded in 1968, and a number of consumer and marketing research associations and journals appeared in the late 1960s and the 1970s. The Association for Consumer Research (ACR) was founded in 1969, and in the early years of the as-sociation, representatives of proconsumer groups often at-tended the annual conference. Similarly, the early issues of theJournal of Consumer Research(founded in 1974) included research on consumer education, product safety, and con-Stuart Vyse ([email protected]), Stonington, CT.

(2)

sumer credit (Mick et al. 2012a). However, in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a surge of optimism about capitalism and its desserts, and researchers turned more consistently to busi-ness interests. As a result, for a period of over two decades, consumer welfare issues were less often addressed by con-sumer and marketing research. But in the early years of the new century, the pendulum began to swing back.

Working with others, David Mick used his 2005 ACR presidential address to launch an initiative called transfor-mative consumer research (TCR; Mick 2006; Mick et al. 2012b).“By transformative research we mean investigations that are framed by a fundamental problem or opportunity, and that strive to respect, uphold, and improve life in rela-tion to the myriad condirela-tions, demands, potentialities, and effects of consumption”(Mick 2006, 2).

Among the topics that Mick mentioned were vulnerable consumer groups, gambling, product safety, andﬁnancial and medical decision making. Within the TCR movement, the goals of consumer research and environmental psychol-ogy were in much greater harmony.

By several measures the TCR movement has been a suc-cess. The group sponsors its own annual conference and has produced a substantial edited volume on the topic (Mick et al. 2012b). In addition, the ACR website has a special section devoted to TCR, and several journals have published special issues on TCR. Perhaps some of the most important achieve-ments of TCR can be seen in consumer and marketing jour-nals where consumer welfare issues have become more prom-inent and the results of research studies are frequently interpreted with respect to both consumer and marketing implications. For example, Inman, Winer, and Ferraro (2009), conducted a large-scale study of the inﬂuences on grocery shopper’s planned and unplanned grocery store purchases, and the discussion section of that publication begins with “Consumer Welfare Implications”and is followed by“ Mana-gerial Implications.”Managerial implications are described as“theﬂip side”of the consumer implications (Inman et al. 2009, 28). So, even when consumer and business interests in research are at odds with each other, the needs of both are more likely to be addressed in the literature.

Which brings us to superstition. How might a TCR strat-egy be applied to research on superstition and other forms of extraordinary belief? What are the consumer issues with respect to superstition? What are ethical issues for manag-ers who employ the ﬁndings of research on superstition? I should start by acknowledging that, for the purposes of this article, I will be deﬁning superstition rather broadly. There is a tendency to associate superstition with the

con-cept of“luck”and to restrict it to efforts to produce good luck or reduce bad luck (e.g., Ang, Lai, and Leong 2014). But superstition has sometimes been defined as an error of attribution with respect to cause and effect relationships and, in particular, a claim of a causal relationship that is not consistent with current scientific knowledge (Vyse 2014). Thus, use or belief in a“lucky”horse shoe is a superstition, but for the purposes of this article, so are the beliefs that ho-meopathic medicines work (beyond a placebo effect) or that a titanium necklace or bracelet will enhance athletic perfor-mance (Hudson 2011). However, I will limit the definition to those beliefs and behaviors that have a pragmatic aspect. Thus, unless you act on the idea that your house is haunted by ghosts, your belief is paranormal but not superstitious.

To begin with, we acknowledge the varied ways that super-stition appears in the marketplace. First, the product itself may be based on superstition. For example, a recent search of Amazon.com located 13 different sellers of rabbit’s feet keychains, some“natural color”and others dyed bright hues. One rabbit’s foot model had received 108 customer reviews, with an average rating of 3.5 stars out of 5. Amazon also of-fers mounted four-leaf clovers, lucky horse shoes, and a wide variety of healing crystals. In addition, both Amazon and Etsy.com offer many pages of“spell kits,”which, if carefully employed, purport to attract the user’s desired mate, bring money, or ward off troublesome people.

Services based on superstitious beliefs are also common. We see fewer television commercials for psychics than we once did, but the Internet has provided a new vehicle for psy-chics and astrologers. Estimating the growth of an industry— like all predictions of the future—is a perilous enterprise, but according to one estimate, by 2020 the online astrology in-dustry in India will be a $3 billion business (Tandon 2014; Magon 2017). In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration estimated that homeopathic medicine, which is based on a theory that is not supported by scientific evidence, was a $3 billion business in the United States. So pseudoscientific and superstition-based products are common, and they are potentially very profitable forfirms and costly for consumers. If superstition is not the product, it can still play a role in the consumption of other goods and services. When super-stition encourages sales, marketers sometimes have the op-portunity to exploit consumers’irrational beliefs to increase profits. Perhaps the most obvious example is the role of var-ious superstitions in gambling (Joukhador, Blaszczynski, and Maccallum 2004; Guttentag and Havitz 2010), but super-stition can also affect investor behavior (Jadlow and Mowen 2010; Chung, Darrat, and Li 2014; Hirshleifer, Jian, and

(3)

Zhang 2016) and the choice and timing of purchases (Wang et al. 2012; Bayer et al. 2018). For example, Guttentag and Havitz (2010) list a number of superstition-based strategies that casino owners can employ to foster customer loyalty and discourage switching among casinos. As a result, con-sumer’s superstitious beliefs have both marketing and consumer-welfare implications. Finally, there is evidence that consumer superstitions can have nonconscious effects on the evaluation of a product after it fails (Kramer and Block 2007).

ETHICS OF SUPERSTITION IN THE MARKETPLACE

The ethical implications of products based on superstition and of marketing techniques that exploit cultural supersti-tions adhere to various agents. If the product is based on su-perstition, the primary agents are the marketer and the con-sumer. The marketer is offering a product that claims to operate by magical, nonscientiﬁc means, and the consumer is investing in that claim. In the case of cultural superstitions used as a marketing strategy, the primary ethical agent is the marketer. However, in addition to the buyers and sellers, there are often a variety of other stakeholders to any trans-action (Mick and Schwartz 2012). For example, where su-perstition in the marketplace worsens social problems (e.g., problem gambling) or encourages irrational methods of deci-sion making, it could have negative implications that extend beyond individual marketers and consumers. The following sections explore some of the implications of applying utili-tarian, deontological, and virtue ethical standards to super-stition in the marketplace.

THE UTILITARIAN VIEW

One method of assessing the effects of superstition is to consider the immediate outcomes for consumers, as well as the possible longer-term effects, in an approach inspired by Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill. Does superstition increase satisfaction, and does it lead to longer-term benefits or harms—both for consumers and for society as a whole? In making a judgement about benefits or harms, it is important to also consider the cost of the good or service. For example, in most cases, the purchase of a four-leaf clover charm for everyday used will be rather benign. The charm itself is likely to be very inexpensive, and usually the effect on consumers will be either positive or neutral. The typical buyer is likely to be happy to have the charm and may experience psycho-logical—if not more tangible—benefits. Similarly, a red rice cooker sold in the Chinese market may be more popular

be-cause red is considered a lucky color, but the consequences of believing red is lucky in this context seem minimal.

More substantial consequences of superstition typically involve greaterﬁnancial or health costs. For example, tele-phone psychics at the time of this writing cost between one and six dollars per minute. It would be very easy to rack up a large bill consulting with a distant stranger who claims to have powers that they don’t have. Similarly, a belief in luck could encourage costly gambling or other kinds of un-wise spending. In 2016, Bally Gaming, Inc., was granted a patent for a slot machine system that would provide var-ious forms of feedback in response to players’superstitious screen gestures, such as tapping the screen while the wheels are spinning (Kelly et al. 2016). These goods and services employ superstition in ways that could result in substantial costs.

Finally, superstitious beliefs may produce opportunity costs by discouraging other more positive actions. The use of pseudoscientific health remedies, such as homeopathic medicines or healing crystals, may cause consumers to delay or forgo science-based treatments, creating serious health risks. In an extreme case, a Canadian couple was convicted of not providing the necessities of life in the 2012 meningi-tis death of their 19-month old son (Graveland 2017; Rathi 2017). The parents treated the boy with natural medicines for 2 and a half weeks and took him to a naturopathic clinic to obtain echinacea, but they did not bring him to a hospital until he stopped breathing. This kind of episode is very rare, but given the popularity of homeopathy, naturopathy, and other unsubstantiated medical treatments, it is likely that many less drastic yet still unwise medical decisions are made on a daily basis. The collective effect of superstitious and pseudoscientific treatments on the productivity and well-being of the larger community is difficult to estimate, but it could be quite large.

It is interesting to note that, with respect to homeopathic medicines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently taken a similarly utilitarian approach. In a draft guidance document entitled“Drug Products Labeled as Ho-meopathic: Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry”posted for comment in December of 2017, the government proposed taking a“risk-based”approach (US Food and Drug Adminis-tration 2018a). According to the proposed policy, the regula-tory efforts of the FDA would concentrate on homeopathic remedies that were advertised for the treatment of serious ailments, such as cancer, and on remedies whose active in-gredients are harmful (e.g., belladonna). This last concern is somewhat ironic given that homeopathic medicine is based

(4)

on the discredited theory that medications are increasingly effective the more they are diluted. As a result, most homeo-pathic medicines—whether based on poisons or not—are so completely diluted that they represent perfect placebos (Shaw 2010).

The FDA’s proposed policy would allow homeopathic medicines that have“safe”ingredients and are aimed at rel-atively minor ailments to avoid regulatory control. However, this harm-based approach does not address the possibility of some longer-term consequences that extend beyond the individual users.

THE DEONTOLOGICAL VIEW

Unlike utilitarianism, the deontological view associated with Immanuel Kant is a more rule-based approach consistent with conventional moral understandings of right and wrong. Just as Newtonian physics has revealed mathematical prop-erties that apply universally, Kant suggested that there were natural moral categories of good and bad, and that moral principles, like mathematical laws, should govern our behav-ior in all circumstances, regardless of the immediate conse-quences (MacIntyre 1996). A rule is a rule.

In contrast, the free market economic systems that dom-inate the western world are based on the libertarian idea that the unfettered invisible hand of the marketplace will benefit both sellers and buyers, as well as the nation as a whole. However, most free market economies value the moral prin-ciples of honesty and fairness, and as a result, most countries impose some restrictions on free trade. For example, too much market power in the form of a monopoly can maximize profits for afirm at the expense of consumers (Pindyck and Rubinfeld 2005), which most people consider to be an unfair market advantage. Similarly, most economies are built on the assumption that markets are more efficient and fair when information is freely available to people on both ends of the exchange. As a result, governments have introduced rules that stand in for these basic moral principles. In the United States, these rules are established and/or enforced by a number of agencies, including the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Com-mission, the Consumer Product Safety ComCom-mission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others. In the case of the FDA, the agency’s regulation of homeopathic remedies is consistent with its history. One of the earliest functions of the FDA was the enforcement of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which was passed partly in response to the widespread marketing of patent medicines (US Food and Drug Administration 2018b).

Although the proposed homeopathy policy might give a different impression, most of these US Regulatory organi-zations are founded on a deontological moral footing. The words“fairness”and“unfair”occur quite often in the lan-guage of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which created the Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Com-mission 2017). However, the consumer protection language of the act reflects a more utilitarian harm-reduction ap-proach. For example, the act declares unfair and deceptive acts or practices unlawful, but it defines these as practices that“cause or [are] likely to cause substantial injury to con-sumers which is not reasonably avoidable by concon-sumers them-selves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to con-sumers or to competition”(15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(n)).

As we have seen—at least with respect to the proposed policy for homeopathic medicines—the FDA has adopted a utilitarian philosophy that takes no moral stand on the ac-ceptability of medical treatments based on unsubstantiated theories of disease. A moral approach that prioritized truth and evidence in the marketing of goods and services might diminish the role of superstition in the marketplace, but as of this moment, such rules are generally lacking. Individ-ual psychics have been challenged in court. For example, in 2010 Sean David Morton, who described himself as“ Amer-ica’s Prophet,”was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for having defrauded 100 investors out of a total of $6 million (US Securities and Exchange Commis-sion 2010). Morton and his wife were ultimately ordered to pay $14 million in damages for having made false claims about his past performance as a psychic and for committing other, nonpsychicalfinancial irregularities. Similarly, in 1991 a Flor-ida psychic sought damages from Home Depot Inc., claiming that she lost some of her psychic powers after an accident at a Home Depot store. She was awarded damages for her phys-ical injuries but not for the loss of psychic ability because she was unable to prove she possessed the psychic powers before the accident (Keller 1991). However, as we have seen, many other practitioners claiming psychic abilities charge signifi -cant sums for their services—so far, without challenge from the FTC or any other regulatory bodies. Thus, the scientifi -cally invalid claims of marketers offering superstitious prod-ucts are not disallowed by any regulatory agency, and the ex-ploitation of customers’superstitious beliefs for financial gain does not run afoul of deceptive advertising standards. THE VIRTUE ETHICAL VIEW

In creating the framework for a transformative consumer re-search agenda, Mick and colleagues have taken inspiration

(5)

from a more Aristotelean virtue ethics approach (Mick et al. 2012a; Mick and Schwartz 2012). This classical view empha-sizes the goal ofeudaemonia, a concept defined as well-being orflourishing. Rather than employing a strictly rule-based moral philosophy, these authors advocate a more nuanced view that employs Aristotle’s notion ofphronesisor“practical wisdom.”Practical wisdom is construed as a kind of master virtue that manages and balances the other virtues with re-spect to the current question or demand. For example, Mick and Schwartz (2012) point out that“many consumer behav-iors require, for instance, balances between needs and de-sires, frugality and indulgence, and short- and long-term preferences”(665). Unlike the rule-based deontological ap-proach,finding the right Aristotelean mean for any given sit-uation will require a multivariate formula that gives appro-priate weight to several factors.

One of the major contributions of the virtue ethical ap-proach advocated by TCR is a much wider, more inclusive, view than was evident in prior research. In addition to giving consumer well-being a greater priority, TCR advocates argue that practical wisdom requires consideration of a wide range of stakeholders and both short- and long-term effects of any decision or policy. Much of the responsibility for a more vir-tuous path falls on the shoulders of researchers. Mick et al. (2012a) suggests that some of the popular cynicism about science and scientists has come from pursuing knowledge without adequate consideration of how that knowledge will be applied. In the case of consumer research, Mick et al. (2012a) point out that many marketers“take advantage of human biases and unconscious tendencies, among them be-ing cognitive heuristics, social jealousies and fears, fantasies and hopes, and impulsivities and addictions”(9). The supersti-tious beliefs of consumers could also be included in this list. CONSUMER RESEARCH AND SUPERSTITION Each of these three moral perspectives adds something to the discussion of ethics and superstition in the marketplace, but some questions remain unanswered. For example, the TCR virtue ethical approach emphasizes sustainability and long-term well-being, but how do we apply the question of sustainability to products based on superstition? If we as-sume that, in general, a society based on reason is more sustainable than one based on superstition and unscientiﬁc thinking, what obligation, if any, do researchers and policy makers have to discourage the role of superstition in the marketplace and elsewhere? The utilitarian risk-based ap-proach to superstition and pseudoscience may avoid many

of the more immediate harms of unscientiﬁc goods and services, but it does not address some longer-term effects (e.g., consumer debt). In addition, this form of utilitarianism stops short of a general condemnation of ineffective and un-scientiﬁc products. A deontological perspective could allow such a condemnation or prohibition, but given the current market environment, restrictions on trade seem highly un-likely.

At the moment, our primary concern is the responsibili-ties of investigators in this small but increasingly active area of consumer research. Belief in superstition and a variety of paranormal phenomena is quite widespread in the general public (Moore 2000; Carroll 2007), and as a result, it is quite likely that people who buy products or services based on su-perstition are believers—or are at least sufﬁciently tempted by superstition to reject reason and acquiesce to their intu-itions (Risen 2016). It is also possible that some psychics and some purveyors of rabbits’feet and spell kits actually be-lieve their own claims. Some more cynical business people may not believe and may have some recognition of their own false advertising, but (right or wrong) these business practices appear to be relatively low on the priority lists of the relevant regulatory agencies.

But what about consumer researchers? How should a science-based discipline respond? How might we consider all the various stakeholders in consumer research and the goal ofeudaemonia? I have no deﬁnitive answers, but in the balance of this article, I offer some issues for consideration and some possible responses.

Perhaps we should acknowledge that one option is to drop this area of research entirely. If you believe that super-stition should be discouraged in all its forms and that any re-search on superstition could increase its role in the market-place (even if that is not the researcher’s intention), then avoiding this topic completely might be an option. However, as we have seen, from a utilitarian point of view, it is not clear that all superstitions have deleterious effects; they may, in some cases, be beneficial in the short run (e.g., Brooks et al. 2016). Furthermore, as I argue below, it seems likely that some forms of research on superstition actually discour-age or have little or no effect on future use. So a full prohi-bition is not likely and, in some cases, would not be benefi -cial. What follows is a discussion of some of the issues that might accrue to four categories of research in this area. The dividing lines among these categories are quitefluid, and it is important to point out that individual research publica-tions may span more than one of these types.

(6)

STUDIES OF THE CAUSES OF SUPERSTITION/ EXTRAORDINARY BELIEF

There is a long tradition of investigations primarily designed to explore the causes of superstitious belief and behavior. Some of these studies have revealed the motivational con-ditions and personality traits associated with superstition (Mowen and Carlson 2003; Carlson and Mowen 2009; Carl-son, Mowen, and Fang 2009), and others have explored the cognitive and behavioral processes that result in irrational or superstitious belief and behavior (Zhang, Hosey, and Risen 2014; Hamerman and Morewedge 2015; Brooks et al. 2016; Risen 2016). In some instances, researchers have ar-gued that superstition and other forms of irrational behavior are beneficial (Risen and Gilovich 2009; Brooks et al. 2016), but even when the behavior in question has no obvious ben-efit, research on the psychological foundations of supersti-tion creates the potential benefit of disenchantment—of revealing the natural forces behind purportedly supernatu-ral things. If we assume that, in genesupernatu-ral, it is best to live in a society based on reason rather than unreason, research on the psychological underpinnings of superstitious behav-ior is helpful simply because it naturalizes these phenomena and reveals their cultural and psychological sources.

STUDIES OF SUPERSTITION IN RELATION TO PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR

A few studies have examined the relationship between su-perstition and pathological gambling and other problem be-haviors (Joukhador, Blaszczynski, and Maccallum 2004; Jad-low and Mowen 2010). The larger motivation for this line of research is therapeutic, with the primary goal of understand-ing the nature and causes of a social problem. Popular deﬁ -nitions of pathological or problem gambling include a num-ber of forms of self-defeating behavior (e.g., chasing losses, lack of control over gambling) as well as the potential dam-age to or loss of important social relationships (American Psychiatric Association 2013), and it has been estimated that approximately a quarter of the revenues generated at US casinos comes from problem gamblers (Cotte and LaTour 2012). In addition, the evidence suggests that problem gam-blers exhibit greater levels of superstition than non-problem gamblers (Joukhador et al. 2004). As a result, despite being concerned with deﬁcits rather than virtues, the goals of this line of inquiry are consistent with the philosophy of TCR, and these studies have the potential to make important con-tributions to consumer well-being.

DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES OF SUPERSTITION IN THE MARKETPLACE

Although it is something of a taboo to confess to being su-perstitious, public evidence of superstitious belief can be found in many areas of modern life, and this is particularly true in commercial world, where lucky products succeed and hotel guests are reluctant to take a room on the 13thﬂoor (Carroll 2007). Some consumer research has been primarily descriptive in nature, investigating how cultural supersti-tions are reﬂected in marketers pricing and advertising strat-egies (Fortin, Hill, and Huang 2014; Hirshleifer, Jian, and Zhang 2016). For example, Simmons and Schindler (2003) provide evidence that, when establishing the price of prod-ucts, Chinese marketers tend to choose prices that end with the lucky number 8 and avoid endings with the unlucky number 4. Other studies have evaluated the effects of Feng Shui on preferences for houses (Peng, Hsiung, and Chen 2012).

Although this line of research also creates the potential for socially beneﬁcial demystifying effects, marketers are the most likely nonacademic audience for theseﬁndings. As a re-sult, descriptive studies of superstitious practices in commer-cial environments may end up promoting their further use. STUDIES OF THE EFFECT OF SUPERSTITION ON ECONOMIC DECISION MAKING

Investigations of superstitious influences on consumer deci-sion making represent a relatively active area within this sub-field. Typically, these are experimental studies that involve the presentation of actual superstitious stimuli (Bayer et al. 2018; Dong and Labroo 2018) or the priming of supersti-tious cognitions (Hernandez et al. 2008; Block and Kramer 2009; Kramer and Block 2011; Ang et al. 2014), followed by measurement of the effects of these manipulations on hy-pothetical consumer choices or preferences. In some cases, investigators employ questionnaires to determine partici-pants’levels of superstitious belief and then assess the rela-tionship of these beliefs to consumer behavior (e.g., Wang et al. 2012). Studies of this type are perhaps the most likely to be of benefit to marketers and, in some cases, detrimental to consumers. However, many of these studies are not merely applied investigations of an irrational independent vari-able on a consumer behavior. A number of them also contrib-ute to our basic understanding of superstition. For example, Dong and Labroo (2018) showed how superstitious behav-ior—holding a rabbit’s foot—affected risky online hotel book-ing choices when participants were primed in the direction

(7)

of either losses or gains. This study has marketing implica-tions, but it also reveals something new about how supersti-tion affects risk-seeking and risk-aversion.

If we were to apply the principles of sustainability and so-cial responsibility adopted by the TCR movement to these categories of consumer research on superstition, what changes would they bring? What issues should we consider when con-ducting research and reporting results? What follows are just a few somewhat idiosyncratic suggestions aimed at stimulat-ing debate about responsible research on an irrational form of consumer behavior.

TOPICS CHOSEN FOR STUDY

Superstitious behavior can adhere to activities that range from the trivial to the very costly. The sustainability and well-being goals of TCR reflect a concern for consumers’ so-cial, psychological, and economic lives; as a result, from a strictly utilitarian risk-based approach, it follows that cer-tain topics should be addressed with caution and, at the very least, a heightened sense of responsibility. Studies that have managerial implications may lead to the use of superstition to encourage consumption, and when the product or service under study has the potential to lead to significantfinancial or health losses, researchers should approach the project with a heightened level of concern for consumer well-being. As discussed above, it is unlikely that anyone will adopt a rule-based prohibition on any given area of research, but the responsibilities of the researcher should be appropriate to the topic. Studies of the use of various lucky or unlucky num-bers in the pricing of products seem relatively benign when compared to studies that might encourage gambling, the use of homeopathic medicines, or telephone psychics.

GIVE CONSUMER IMPLICATIONS EQUAL STANDING

When investigators write up their research, it is sometimes easy to lose track of the audience. In many cases, the audi-ence is assumed to be other academics—the manuscript re-viewers, colleagues in thefield, and students. It is an added benefit if your studyfinds a readership in the business world or beyond, but a successful academic career does not require it. As suggested in the brief history above, when consumer research has been applied in the marketplace, marketers have used it more often than consumers. The TCR approach would nudge investigators to toward a rebalancing of constituen-cies. For example, as in the case of Inman et al. (2009), when-ever possible, the discussion sections of empirical studies should include separate headings for “Consumer

Implica-tions” and“Marketing or Managerial Implications.” Some journals, including theJournal of Consumer Researchand the Journal of Consumer Psychology, already have a focus on the consumer, but wherever research on extraordinary beliefs is published, investigators should make an effort to consider and report the implications of their work for consumers. The interests of buyers and sellers will sometimes be in conﬂict, as they were in Inman et al. (2009), but if consumers are to enter the economic playingﬁeld on more equal terms, it would help if the interests of consumers were given at least equal weight to those of marketers.

CALL IT IRRATIONAL

Call it irrational when it is. Again, perhaps because we as-sume our audience is other scientifically minded people, there is a tendency to not state the obvious. Avoiding a hotel room because it is on the 13thfloor or being attracted to an airline because their company phone number is made up en-tirely of lucky numbers (BBC 2003) is not rational. The mo-mentary pleasure of dialing the lucky number will be a rather fleeting experience and, while undoubtedly a happy thing for many customers, should have little or no impact on con-sumer choice. Investigators sometimes assume that everyone recognizes what is rational and irrational about consumer behavior, but research in this area may have a more con-structive influence on consumer well-being if the rationality of the behavior in question is assessed and clearly stated. To their credit, some investigators have done this (e.g., Kramer and Block 2011), and whenever the shoefits, other research-ers should do the same.

Taking this approach will not always be as easy as it seems. Researchers may have to engage in a cost benefit as-sessment of the phenomenon under investigation. It is be-coming clearer that there are some benefits to superstition and that, as a number of studies have pointed out, behavior that is not rational may not be entirely bad (Risen and Gilo-vich 2009; Brooks et al. 2016). But some discussion of the rationality and the costs and benefits of the phenomena un-der study would provide consumers with the tools to make more informed decisions.

CONCLUSION

In his bookEnlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker (2018) provides sub-stantial evidence (as measured by many indexes, including

(8)

health, wealth, and peace) that the human species has made remarkable progress over the last two centuries and that this progress is not limited to just a few countries but can be seen throughout the world. Pinker also makes a strong case that most of this progress can be attributed to the ap-plication of the Enlightenment ideas of reason and the pur-suit of knowledge. If we assume that Pinker is right and if we also want to continue the kind of progress he points to, superstition and other forms of irrational behavior should be discouraged. However, marketers, who generally have more narrow and short-term goals, sometimes hope to employ popular superstitions for commercial gain. As a result, this is another area in which business interests will sometimes be in conﬂict with some goals of the larger community.

The philosophy inherent in the transformative consumer research movement, as well as those of all three major ethical traditions—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics— provide for a more thoughtful approach to the study of su-perstition in the marketplace. If researchers value science and evidence, the possibility that their work is contributing to the spread of superstition should give them pause. In the foregoing pages, I have offered a few preliminary thoughts about how to bring a concern for sustainability and human well-being to this area of research. I hope that others will consider these issues and make their own contributions to this effort.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (2013),Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Ang, Swee Hoon, Wai Kit Lai, and Siew Meng Leon (2014),“The Effects of Superstition on Choice and Latency,”Psychology and Marketing, 31 (12), 1074–83.

Bailey, R., H. Branch, and C. Taylor (1964),Architectural Psychology and Psychiatry: An Exploratory International Research Conference, Salt Lake City: University of Utah.

Bayer, Ya’akov M., Bradley J. Rufﬂe, Ze’ev Shtudiner, and Ro’I Zultan (2018),“Costly Superstitious Beliefs: Experimental Evidence,” Work-ing Paper No. 2018-8, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis, Waterloo, Ontario.

BBC (2003), “China’s ‘Lucky’ Phone Number,” BBC News, August 19, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-paciﬁc/3163951.stm.

Block, Lauren, and Thomas Kramer (2009),“The Effect of Superstitious Beliefs on Performance Expectations,”Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 37 (2), 161–69.

Brooks, Alison Wood, Juliana Schroeder, Jane L. Risen, Francesca Gino, Adam D. Galinsky, Michael I. Norton, and Maurice E. Schweitzer (2016),

“Don’t Stop Believing: Rituals Improve Performance by Decreasing Anxiety,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137 (November), 71–85.

Canter, David V., and Kenneth H. Craik (1981),“Environmental Psychol-ogy,”Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1 (1), 1–11.

Carlson, Brad D., John C. Mowen, and Xiang Fang (2009),“Trait Supersti-tion and Consumer Behavior: ReconceptualizaSupersti-tion, Measurement, and Initial Investigations,”Psychology and Marketing, 26 (8), 689–713. Carroll, Joseph (2007),“Thirteen Percent of Americans Bothered to Stay

on Hotels’13th Floor,”Gallup, March 15, http://news.gallup.com /poll/26887/thirteen-percent-americans-bothered-stay-hotels-13th -ﬂoor.aspx.

Chung, Richard, Ali F. Darrat, and Bin Li (2014),“Chinese Superstition in US Commodity Trading,”Applied Economics Letters, 21 (3), 171–75. Cotte, June, and Kathryn A. LaTour (2012),“Gambling Beliefs versus

Re-ality: Implication for Transformative Public Policy,”inTransformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being, ed. David Glen Mick, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann, and Julie L. Ozanne, New York: Taylor & Francis, 485–98.

Dong, Ping, and Aparna A. Labroo (2018),“Expectancy Neglect: Why Su-perstitious Acts Increase Risk Seeking in Gains but Risk Avoidance in Losses,”Journal of the Association of Consumer Research, 3 (4), in this issue. Federal Trade Commission (2017),“A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission’s Investigative and Law Enforcement Authority,”Federal Trade Commission, March 1, https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we -do/enforcement-authority.

Fortin, Nicole M., Andrew J. Hill, and Jeff Huang (2014),“Superstition in the Housing Market,”Economic Inquiry, 52 (3), 974–93.

Graveland, Bill (2017),“Judge Upholds Convictions of Alberta Parents Who Tried to Treat Toddler’s Meningitis with Natural Remedies,”Star, November 15, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/15 /judge-upholds-convictions-of-alberta-parents-who-tried-to-treat-toddlers -meningitis-with-natural-remedies.html.

Guttentag, Daniel A., and Mark E. Havitz (2010),“Superstition as a Personal Moderator in the Development of Commitment and Loyalty to and within Casinos,”Leisure/Loisir, 34 (1), 1–25.

Hamerman, Eric J., and Carey K. Morewedge (2015),“Reliance on Luck: Identifying Which Achievement Goals Elicit Superstitious Behavior,”

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (3), 323–35.

Hernandez, Monica D., Yong Jian Wang, Michael S. Minor, and Qian Liu (2008),“Effects of Superstitious Beliefs on Consumer Novelty Seeking and Independent Judgment Making: Evidence from China,”Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7 (6), 424–35.

Hirshleifer, David, Ming Jian, and Huai Zhang (2016),“Superstition and Financial Decision Making,”Management Science, 64 (1), 235–52. Hudson, William (2011),“What’s the Power of a Good Luck Charm?”CNN,

October 26, https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/health/power-good -luck-charm/.

Inman, J. Jeffrey, Russell S. Winer, and Rosellina Ferraro (2009),“The In-terplay among Category Characteristics, Customer Characteristics, and Customer Activities on In-Store Decision Making,”Journal of Market-ing, 73 (5), 19–29.

Jadlow, Janice W., and John C. Mowen (2010),“Comparing the Traits of Stock Market Investors and Gamblers,”Journal of Behavioral Finance, 11 (2), 67–81.

Joukhador, Jackie, Alex Blaszczynski, and Fiona Maccallum (2004),“ Su-perstitious Beliefs in Gambling among Problem and Non-Problem Gam-blers: Preliminary Data,”Journal of Gambling Studies, 20 (2), 171–80. Keller, Larry (1991),“Psychic Claim Rejected Jury: Paranormal Loss Not

Proved,”SunSentinel, February 9, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1991 -02-09/news/9101070741_1_penny-pellito-jury-anesthesia.

(9)

Kelly, Bryan M., Martin S. Lyons, Stephen E. Patton, and Daniel Savage (2016),“Superstitious Gesture Enhanced Gameplay System,”U.S. Pat-ent 9,415,307, issued August 16.

Kramer, Thomas, and Lauren Block (2007),“Conscious and Nonconscious Components of Superstitious Beliefs in Judgment and Decision Mak-ing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 783–93.

———(2011),“Nonconscious Effects of Peculiar Beliefs on Consumer Psychology and Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (1), 101– 11.

MacIntyre, Alasdair C. (1996),A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century, New York: Touchstone.

Magon, Vaibhav (2017),“The Viability of Astrology as a Business Idea,” En-trepreneur, March 6, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290133. Mick, David Glen (2006),“Meaning and Mattering through

Transforma-tive Consumer Research,”Vol. 33, inAdvances in Consumer Research, ed. Connie Pechmann and Linda Price, Provo, UT: Association for Con-sumer Research, 1–4.

Mick, David Glen, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann, and Julie L. Ozanne, eds. (2012a),“Origins, Qualities, and Envisionments of Trans-formative Consumer Research,”inTransformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being, New York: Routledge, 3–24.

———(2012b),Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collec-tive Well-Being, New York: Routledge.

Mick, David Glen, and Barry Schwartz (2012),“Can Consumers Be Wise? Aristotle Speaks to the 21st Century,”inTransformative Consumer Re-search for Personal and Collective Well-Being, ed. David Glen Mick, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann, and Julie L. Ozanne, New York: Rout-ledge, 663–80.

Moore, David M. (2000),“One in Four Americans Superstitious,”Gallup, October 13, http://news.gallup.com/poll/2440/One-Four-Americans -Superstitious.aspx.

Mowen, John C., and Brad Carlson (2003),“Exploring the Antecedents and Consumer Behavior Consequences of the Trait of Superstition,” Psy-chology and Marketing, 20 (12), 1045–65.

Peng, Yu-Shu, Hsin-Hua Hsiung, and Ke-Hung Chen (2012),“The Level of Concern about Feng Shui in House Purchasing: The Impacts of Self-Efﬁcacy, Superstition, and the Big Five Personality Traits,”Psychology and Marketing, 29 (7), 519–30.

Pindyck, Robert S., and Daniel L. Rubinfeld (2005),Microeconomics, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pinker, Steven (2018),Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Hu-manism, and Progress, New York: Penguin.

Pol, Enric (2007),“Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology, Vol. II: From Architectural Psychology to the Challenge of Sustain-ability,”Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8 (1), 1–28. Rathi, Akshat (2017),“The Journey of a‘Doctor’Who Joined the Cult of

Al-ternative Medicine and Then Broke Out of It,”Quartz, September 30,

https://qz.com/1088056/a-naturopaths-ﬁght-against-her-alma-mater -shows-how-to-break-out-of-echo-chambers/.

Risen, Jane L. (2016),“Believing What We Do Not Believe: Acquiescence to Superstitious Beliefs and Other Powerful Intuitions,”Psychological Re-view, 123 (2), 182–207.

Risen, Jane, and Thomas Gilovich (2009),“Causes and Consequences for the Belief in Tempting Fate,”inAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Con-sumer Research, 31–35.

Shaw, David M. (2010),“Homeopathy Is Where the Harm Is: Five Unethi-cal Effects of Funding Unscientiﬁc‘Remedies,’”Journal of Medical Ethics, 36 (3), 130–31.

Simmons, Lee C., and Robert M. Schindler (2003),“Cultural Superstitions and the Price Endings Used in Chinese Advertising,”Journal of Interna-tional Marketing, 11 (2), 101–11.

Smith, Adam (1776/1827),An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Tandon, Rahul (2014),“Astrologers Look to the Stars to Help Indian Businesses,”

BBC News, March 10, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25971921. US Food and Drug Administration (2017),“Press Announcements: FDA

Proposes New, Risk-Based Enforcement Priorities to Protect Consumers from Potentially Harmful, Unproven Homeopathic Drugs,”US Food and Drug Administration, December 18, https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents /Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm589243.htm.

———(2018a),“Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic: Draft Guidance for Staff and Industry, Availability, Extension of Comment Period,”

Of-ﬁce of the Federal Register, March 15.

———(2018b),“FDA’s Evolving Regulatory Powers, Part I: The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement,”US Food and Drug Adminis-tration, February 1.

US Securities and Exchange Commission (2010),“Sean David Morton, Vajra Productions, LLC, 27 Investments, LLC, and Magic Eight Ball Distribut-ing, Inc., Defendants, and Melissa Morton and Prophecy Research Insti-tute, Relief Defendants,”Litigation Release No. 21433, https://www.sec .gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21433.htm.

Vyse, Stuart (2014),Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition, New York: Oxford University Press.

———(2018a),Going Broke: Why Americans (Still) Can’t Hold on to Their Money, New York: Oxford University Press.

———(2018b),“The Environment and Consumer Behavior,”in Environ-mental Psychology and Human Well-Being: Effects of Physical and Natural Settings, ed. Ann Sloan Devlin, New York: Academic Press.

Wang, Yong Jian, Monica D. Hernandez, Michael S. Minor, and Jie Wei (2012),“Superstitious Beliefs in Consumer Evaluation of Brand Logos,”

European Journal of Marketing, 46 (5), 712–32.

Zhang, Yan, Jane L. Risen, and Christine Hosey (2014),“Reversing One’s Fortune by Pushing Away Bad Luck,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143 (3), 1171–84.