Person: John, Leslie
Loading...
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
John
First Name
Leslie
Name
John, Leslie
19 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 19
Publication The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing(SAGE Publications, 2018-06-18) Donnelly, Grant E.; Zatz, Laura Y.; Svirsky, Dan; John, LeslieGovernments have proposed text warning labels to decrease consumption of sugary drinks – a contributor to chronic diseases like diabetes. However, they may be less effective than more evocative, graphic warning labels. We field-tested the effectiveness of graphic warning labels (vs. text warning labels, calorie labels, and no labels), provided insight into psychological mechanisms driving effectiveness, and assessed consumer sentiment. Study 1 indicated that graphic warning labels reduced the share of sugary drinks purchased in a cafeteria, from 21.4% at baseline to 18.2%—an effect driven by substitution of water for sugary drinks. Study 2 showed that graphic warning labels work by heightening negative affect and prompting consideration of health consequences. Study 3 indicated that public support for graphic warning labels can be increased by conveying effectiveness information. These findings could spur more effective labeling policies that: facilitate healthier choices, do not decrease overall beverage purchases, and are publicly accepted.Publication The Bulletproof Glass Effect: Unintended Consequences of Privacy Notices(SAGE Publications, 2022-02-18) Brough, Aaron R.; Norton, David A.; Sciarappa, Shannon L.; John, LeslieDrawing from a content analysis of publicly traded companies’ privacy notices, a survey of managers, a field study, and five online experiments, this research investigates how consumers respond to privacy notices. A privacy notice, by placing legally enforceable limits on a firm's data practices, communicating safeguards, and signaling transparency, might be expected to promote confidence that personal data will not be misused. Indeed, most managers expected a privacy notice to make customers feel more secure (Study 1). Yet, consistent with the analogy that bulletproof glass can increase feelings of vulnerability despite the protection offered, formal privacy notices undermined consumer trust and decreased purchase interest even when they emphasized objective protection (Studies 2, 3, and 5) or omitted any mention of potentially concerning data practices (Study 6). These unintended consequences did not occur, however, when consumers had an a priori reason to be distrustful (Study 4) or when benevolence cues were added to privacy notices (Studies 5 and 6). Finally, Study 7 showed that both the presence and conspicuous absence of privacy information are sufficient to trigger decreased purchase intent. Together, these results provide actionable guidance to managers on how to effectively convey privacy information (without hurting purchase interest).Publication Why Am I Seeing This Ad? The Effect of Ad Transparency on Ad Effectiveness(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2019-02-07) Kim, Tami; Barasz, Katherine; John, LeslieGiven the increasingly specific ways marketers can target ads, many consumers and regulators are demanding ad transparency: disclosure of how consumers’ personal information was used to generate ads. We investigate how and why ad transparency impacts ad effectiveness. Drawing on literature about offline norms of information-sharing, we posit that ad transparency backfires when it exposes marketing practices that violate norms about “information flows”—consumers’ beliefs about how their information ought to move between parties. Study 1 inductively shows that consumers deem information flows acceptable (or not) based on whether their personal information was: 1) obtained within versus outside of the website on which the ad appears and 2) stated by the consumer versus inferred by the firm (the latter of each pair being less acceptable). Studies 2 and 3 show that revealing unacceptable information flows reduces ad effectiveness, which is driven by increasing consumers’ relative concern for their privacy over desire for the personalization that such targeting affords. Study 4 shows the moderating role of platform trust: when consumers trust a platform, revealing acceptable information flows increases ad effectiveness. Studies 5a and 5b, conducted in the field with a loyalty program website (i.e., a trusted platform), demonstrate this benefit of transparency.Publication The Self-presentational Consequences of Upholding One’s Stance in Spite of the Evidence(Elsevier BV, 2019-09) John, Leslie; Jeong, Martha; Gino, Francesca; Huang, LauraFive studies explore the self-presentational consequences of refusing to “back down” – that is, upholding a stance despite evidence of its inaccuracy. Using data from an entrepreneurial pitch competition, Study 1 shows that entrepreneurs tend not to back down even though investors are more impressed by entrepreneurs who do. Next, in two sets of experiments, we unpack the psychology underlying why actors refuse to publicly back down and investigate observers’ impressions of those actors. Specifically, we show that observers view people who refuse to back down as confident but unintelligent, and these perceptions drive consequential decisions about such refusers, such as whether to invest in their ideas (Studies 1 & 2) or whether to hire them (Study 3). Although actors can intuit these effects (Study 4), this understanding is not reflected in their behavior because they are concerned with saving face (Study 5).Publication Lifting the Veil: The Benefits of Cost Transparency(2014-11-07) Mohan, Bhavya; Buell, Ryan; John, LeslieA firm’s costs are typically tightly-guarded secrets. However, across a field study and six laboratory experiments we identify when and why firms benefit from revealing unit cost information to consumers. A natural field experiment conducted with an online retailer suggests that cost transparency boosts sales. Six subsequent controlled lab experiments replicate this basic effect (Studies 2-6) and provide evidence for why it occurs: just as interpersonal disclosure of intimate information increases attraction, cost transparency by a firm increases brand attraction, in turn boosting consumer purchase interest. This relationship persists even after controlling for perceptions of price fairness and product quality (Study 3). Study 4 suggests that the beneficial effect of cost transparency holds when firms spend more on “less desirable” costs relative to “more desirable” costs. Studies 5-6 show that the effect of cost transparency weakens when high profit margins are made salient. Finally, Study 7 shows that the beneficial effect reverses (i.e. cost transparency backfires) when it is revealed that a firm’s profit margins are high relative to those of its competitors.Publication Pseudo-set framing(American Psychological Association (APA), 2017-10) Barasz, Kate; John, Leslie; Keenan, Elizabeth; Norton, MichaelPseudo-set framing—arbitrarily grouping items or tasks together as part of an apparent “set”—motivates people to reach perceived completion points. Pseudo-set framing changes gambling choices (Study 1), effort (Studies 2 and 3), giving behavior (Field Data and Study 4), and purchase decisions (Study 5). These effects persist in the absence of any reward, when a cost must be incurred, and after participants are explicitly informed of the arbitrariness of the set. Drawing on Gestalt psychology, we develop a conceptual account that predicts what will—and will not—act as a pseudo-set and defines the psychological process through which these pseudo-sets affect behavior, concluding that over and above typical reference points, pseudo-set framing alters perceptions of (in)completeness, making intermediate progress seem less complete. In turn, these feelings of incompleteness motivate people to persist until the pseudo-set has been fulfilled.Publication Temporary sharing prompts unrestrained disclosures that leave lasting negative impressions(National Academy of Sciences, 2017) Hofstetter, Reto; Rüppell, Roland; John, LeslieWith the advent of social media, the impressions people make on others are based increasingly on their digital disclosures. However, digital disclosures can come back to haunt, making it challenging for people to manage the impressions they make. In field and online experiments in which participants take, share, and evaluate self-photographs (“selfies”), we show that, paradoxically, these challenges can be exacerbated by temporary-sharing media—technologies that prevent content from being stored permanently. Relative to permanent sharing, temporary sharing affects both whether and what people reveal. Specifically, temporary sharing increases compliance with the request to take a selfie (study 1) and induces greater disclosure risks (i.e., people exhibit greater disinhibition in their selfies, studies 1 and 2). This increased disclosure is driven by reduced privacy concerns (study 2). However, observers’ impressions of sharers are insensitive to permanence (i.e., whether the selfie was shared temporarily versus permanently) and are instead driven by the disinhibition exhibited in the selfie (studies 4–7). As a result, induced by the promise of temporary sharing, sharers of uninhibited selfies come across as having worse judgment than those who share relatively discreet selfies (studies 1, 2, and 4–7)—an attributional pattern that is unanticipated by sharers (study 3), that persists days after the selfie has disappeared (study 5), is robust to personal experience with temporary sharing (studies 6A and 6B), and holds even among friends (studies 7A and 7B). Temporary sharing may bring back forgetting, but not without introducing new (self-presentational) challenges.Publication What Is Privacy Worth?(University of Chicago Press, 2013) Acquisti, Alessandro; John, Leslie; Loewenstein, GeorgeUnderstanding the value that individuals assign to the protection of their personal data is of great importance for business, law, and public policy. We use a field experiment informed by behavioral economics and decision research to investigate individual privacy valuations and find evidence of endowment and order effects. Individuals assigned markedly different values to the privacy of their data depending on (1) whether they were asked to consider how much money they would accept to disclose otherwise private information or how much they would pay to protect otherwise public information and (2) the order in which they considered different offers for their data. The gap between such values is large compared with that observed in comparable studies of consumer goods. The results highlight the sensitivity of privacy valuations to contextual, nonnormative factors.Publication The Role of (Dis)similarity in (Mis)predicting Others’ Preferences(American Marketing Association (AMA), 2016) Barasz, Kate; Kim, Tami; John, LeslieConsumers readily indicate liking options that appear dissimilar—for example, enjoying both rustic lake vacations and chic city vacations or liking both scholarly documentary films and action-packed thrillers. However, when predicting other consumers’ tastes for the same items, people believe that a preference for one precludes enjoyment of the dissimilar other. Five studies show that people sensibly expect others to like similar products but erroneously expect others to dislike dissimilar ones (Studies 1 and 2). While people readily select dissimilar items for themselves (particularly if the dissimilar item is of higher quality than a similar one), they fail to predict this choice for others (Studies 3 and 4)—even when monetary rewards are at stake (Study 3). The tendency to infer dislike from dissimilarity is driven by a belief that others have a narrow and homogeneous range of preferences (Study 5).Publication Does "Liking" Lead to Loving? The Impact of Joining a Brand's Social Network on Marketing Outcomes(2017) John, Leslie; Emrich, Oliver; Gupta, Sunil; Norton, MichaelDoes “liking” a brand on Facebook cause a person to view it more favorably? Or is “liking” simply a symptom of being fond of a brand? We disentangle these possibilities and find evidence for the latter: brand attitudes and purchasing are predicted by consumers’ preexisting fondness for brands and are the same regardless of when and whether consumers “like” brands. In addition, we explore possible second-order effects, examining whether “liking” brands might cause consumers’ friends to view that brand more favorably. When consumers see that a friend has “liked” a brand, they are less likely to buy the brand relative to a more meaningful social endorsement: learning that a friend likes a brand, in the offline sense. Taken together, five experiments and two meta-analyses (N > 14,000) suggest that turning “liking” into improved brand attitudes and increased purchasing by either consumers or their friends may require more than just the click of a button.