Implications for marketers and consumers--论文代写范文精选

  操纵在现有关系亲密,或操纵在暂时形成亲密关系,表明它不是任何特定类型的亲密操纵结果。人们更关心亲近与疏远他人。的确,过去的研究已经表明增加亲密可以导致人们更好地对待别人。下面的essay代写范文继续讲述。

Abstract
  Consumers frequently make joint consumption decisions for themselves and others. Whereas past research has studied choice for others (Baskin et al. 2014; Choi et al. 2006; Laran 2010) and choice for the self with knowledge of what others chose (Ariely and Levav 2000; Berger and Heath 2007; Salganik, Dodds, and Watts 2006), research on what considerations are involved when consumers make decisions for both the self and the other together is scant. In this research, we document the friendly taking effect—interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting consumption package when it also offers greater total benefit to the selfother collective; that is, people are more likely to take from a close other than from a distant other. We further show this tendency is rooted in a friendly intention of trying to maximize the total benefits for the self-other collective (the joint pie). Across studies, we used widely different operational definitions of closeness. Whether we used measured closeness in naturally occurring relationships (studies 3, 4A, 4B, 6, and 7), manipulated closeness in existing relationships (studies 1, 4C, and 5), or manipulated closeness in temporarily formed relationships in the lab (study 2), we observed the friendly taking effect, suggesting it is not the result of any specific type of closeness manipulation.


  When Closeness Decreases versus Increases 
  Taking We show the conditions under which people take more from close others, which may appear to contradict the well-researched and intuitively plausible notion that interpersonal closeness should decrease taking because people care more about close versus distant others (Batson et al. 1997; Cross, Bacon, and Morris 2000). Indeed, past research has shown increased closeness can lead people to TU ET AL. 15 treat others better, which seems to imply increased giving and decreased taking (Clark 1983; Rusbult et al. 2004). For instance, people behave more prosaically toward closer others, offering more support (Brunstein, Dangelmayer, and Schultheiss 1996) and making more personal sacrifices (Agnew and Etcheverry 2006; Impett, Gable, and Peplau 2005; Powell and Van Vugt 2003). 

  Most related to the current research, some research suggests people sometimes take less from close others when deciding how to allocate resources (Aron et al. 1991). On the surface, these findings appear to be at odds with our reported experiments. Our research does not deny that closeness increases the concern for others—it merely suggests that another concern guides how people share, which is also influenced by closeness. In line with past literature, we argue that two major considerations (beyond one’s own self-interest) influence people’s decisions about how to allocate to others: concern for the other’s benefit and concern for the total benefit to the self-other collective (Kelley and Thibaut 1978; Lurie 1987). Both of these concerns—for the other and for the self-other collective—intensify with increased closeness. Concern for the other should decrease people’s willingness to take from others in some contexts; concern for the total benefit predicts increased taking from others in some contexts. 

  The confluence of these two concerns influences people’s final decisions. For example, for situations in which the total benefit is fixed—such as in a dictator game (Camerer and Thaler 1995)—a concern for the total benefit is irrelevant, and concern for the other’s benefit should play the major role. As a result, people should take less from close others (Liebrand 1984). However, for situations in which the total benefit is not fixed and taking increases the total benefit, concern for the total benefit should prompt increased taking from close others. Thus our research pits concern for the other-benefit and concern for the total benefit against one another and, in this context, the concern for the total benefit overrides consideration of the other-benefit, leading to the increased taking behavior. 

  In fact, in study 3, we systematically manipulated whether taking increases versus decreases the total benefit, and found increased taking from close others only in the former condition. Just as selfishness can sometimes override concern for close others when these two values conflict, a concern for the total benefit can also override people’s concern for a close other in some contexts. In neither case do we deny the existence of a concern for the other, and instead we recognize close relationships routinely involve compromises between doing what is good for the self, the other, and for the total benefit (Hui et al. 2014), as well as making tradeoffs between pursuing equality (Messick and Schnell 1992) and relative advantage (Loewenstein, Thompson, and Bazerman 1989; Shaw, DeScioli, and Olson 2012). Future work should investigate how these sometimes contradictory factors interact to influence people’s decisions about how to share with others.

  We also note the spectrum of closeness is wide, ranging from closest friend to casual acquaintance, stranger, and even enemy. In this work, we focused only on two points on this spectrum—close friend (close condition) and casual acquaintance (distant condition)—and found people are more likely to take from the former than from the latter. However, people are also very likely to take more from a stranger and an enemy than from a casual acquaintance, although the underlying motive might be very different. Concern for increasing self-benefit (selfish taking) might be the main driver of taking from a stranger, and concern for decreasing other-benefit (malicious taking or social comparison) might be the main driver of taking from an enemy. Neither of these concerns is focused on maximizing total benefits, but both are interesting. Further research should explore the divergent motivations underlying the same overt taking behavior.

  Implications and Conclusion 
  This research has several implications for marketers and consumers. Marketers often use bundles to increase sales; for example, marketers use referral programs in which the referring consumer gets a reward in return for the referral, and they create gift packages whereby the gift giver gets something too. A general suggestion based on our research is that marketers should consider the depth of the relationship between the target consumers of these bundles. The closer these consumers (e.g., the referring individual and the person they referred, the gift buyer and gift giver) are, the more sensitive the choosers would be to the total benefits in the package and the less sensitive they would be to the specific distribution between them and the other (i.e., who gets what). （essay代写)

  For example, in marketing communication, marketers should highlight total benefit (e.g., by rewarding the giver and thereby creating a win-win allocation) when targeting consumers choosing for a close other (e.g., romantic partner, family member) than for a distant other (e.g., a business partner). Beyond consumption packages, based on our results, although consumers generally spend more on gifts for close others (i.e., more giving to close others), they might also be more influenced by discounts, sales, and other saving opportunities when purchasing a specific gift for a close other as opposed to a distant other. The reason is that when the recipient is closer, the consumer is more likely to consider the total benefits—the value for the recipient minus the cost for the giver. Thus whereas people may generally spend more money on gifts to closer others, they might be more responsive to discounts when buying a gift for a close other because the giver benefits too (e.g., prefers a $150 item that currently has a $50 discount to a $100 item). To conclude, relationships often involve give and take, and expecting people to give more to and take less from close others than from distant others is intuitive. The friendly taking effect suggests people do not always take less from closer others; when taking is beneficial to the self-other collective, people are more likely to take from closer others.（essay代写)

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
  更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)