When Bigger Is Better (and When It Is Not): Implicit Bias in Numeric Judgments

Ellie J. Kyung, Manoj Thomas and Aradhna Krishna

Journal of Consumer Research, 2017, vol. 44, issue 1, 62-79

Abstract: Numeric ratings for products can be presented using a bigger-is-better format (1 = bad, 5 = good) or a smaller-is-better format with reversed rating poles (1 = good, 5 = bad). Seven experiments document how implicit memory for the bigger-is-better format—where larger numbers typically connote something is better—can systematically bias consumers’ judgments without their awareness. This rating polarity effect is the result of proactive interference from culturally determined numerical associations in implicit memory and results in consumer judgments that are less sensitive to differences in numeric ratings. This is an implicit bias that manifests even when people are mindful and focused on the task and across a range of judgment types (auction bids, visual perception, purchase intent, willingness to pay). Implicating the role of reliance on implicit memory in this interference effect, the rating polarity effect is moderated by (1) cultural norms that define the implicit numerical association, (2) construal mindsets that encourage reliance on implicit memory, and (3) individual propensity to rely on implicit memory. This research identifies a new form of proactive interference for numerical associations, demonstrates how reliance on implicit memory can interfere with explicit memory, and shows how to attenuate such interference.

Keywords: implicit memory; interference; numerical cognition; rating format; mindset; cross-cultural marketing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucw079 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:44:y:2017:i:1:p:62-79.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Consumer Research is currently edited by Bernd Schmitt, June Cotte, Markus Giesler, Andrew Stephen and Stacy Wood

More articles in Journal of Consumer Research from Journal of Consumer Research Inc.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().