BLUE JAY MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY REVIEWS (ROUND 1) Editor Decision Letter

Transcription

1 1 BLUE JAY MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY REVIEWS (ROUND 1) Editor Decision Letter Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Consumer Research. The manuscript has been read by two reviewers (a third let us down and did not provide an assessment), an associate editor, and me. These reviewers did not read the earlier submissions on this topic as this paper represented a new undertaking. The reviewers made arguments on the merits of the paper and the associate editor integrated the arguments, added new thoughts, and developed a recommendation. This letter gives you my decision. This paper has the potential to make a very nice contribution to the literature and I am pleased to invite a revision. The associate editor s report details the central concerns raised by the reviewers and provides a guide to the revision. As you can see, the work ahead will involve enrichment and clarification of the conceptual framework and the addition of one or two studies. While the reviewers are sensitive to the challenges of gathering data on real lies lies that consumers choose to produce as opposed to those they are instructed to produce it is clear that you will need to do so. Study 1 tries to do accomplish this goal but is plague by too many other issues. Reviewer D points you to the psychology literature for some insights into looking at real deception. I would like to highlight one other concern and in the process give you some room to present the contribution more clearly. In some ways this problem is lurking between the lines and may reflect the history of this paper. As noted by reviewer E, the paper seems to oversimplify the nature and consequences of lying and in so doing gives the feeling that you are dug in to your account. The narrative has a slightly defensive feel. Having processed the earlier work, which was ultimately rejected because of concerns about alternative explanations, I can wholly see how you would be inclined to head off such complaints from the outset in this paper. And, as noted by reviewer D, you do a good job in this regard. Still, that approach is coming at a cost, which is the missed opportunity flagged by reviewer E (under the paragraph labelled, Oversimplification ). My advice therefore is positive: This might be an incomplete look at lying but it is an important, worthwhile look. Just situate your piece within the bigger picture and tell the story directly. The contribution should come through more naturally this way. What then are the prospects for the new submission? I think they are at least fair. I am optimistic about your ability to address the conceptual questions. The source of uncertainty is around the realism question, which is as much about internal as external validity. Given the current studies, we cannot get away from the possibility that your current account may only apply to instructed

2 2 lies, not chosen lies. It is going to take some creativity to solve that problem, but if you can, you would have something very compelling in this work. I wish you good luck and I look forward to reading your revision. The next submission would go to the same AE and reviewers so revision notes would be appropriate. You may organize these notes, as the revision itself, around the associate editor s report. You are welcome to provide comments to the specific reviewers if you think these are warranted but they are not required. If anything in the reports or this letter needs clarification, please let me know. AE Report Comments to the Author(s): This research explores the impact of lying on consumers satisfaction with the outcome of a service exchange. Four experiments examine this phenomenon. The findings of these studies show that liars are more satisfied than truth tellers when they experience a successful outcome and less satisfied than truth tellers when an outcome is unsuccessful (polarized satisfaction judgments). The reviewers and I agree that the paper focuses on an interesting research topic. As Reviewer D writes, This paper is off to a good start. It is creative, has a clear positioning, and the findings are non-obvious. It is also very well-written. You conducted a nice set of studies, with different treatments, and measures. Plus your studies two through four are to my knowledge the first studies in our field that are more than scenario based experiments. Reviewer E comments, Overall, the strengths of this manuscript are that it addresses an interesting and under-researched issue and that it presents a thorough review of relevant literature and a logical path of reason from study to study. As both reviewers, indicate we are intrigued by and interested in your research and its findings. The reviewers identify and describe several concerns with the conceptual contribution of the research, the development of and logic underlying the conceptual framework, and the empirical research. As the reviewers suggest, further development of the conceptual framework and additional empirical support for this framework (an additional study or studies) are needed to enhance the conceptual contribution of the research. Contribution and Conceptual Framework The reviewers point to problems with the conceptual framework and raise questions regarding the nature and the extent of the conceptual contribution of the research. I concur that the research topic is interesting; however, I agree with the reviewers that the current framework, and its empirical support, must be enhanced to develop its conceptual contribution. A number of specific conceptual and empirical issues are making it difficult for the reader to appreciate the potential conceptual contribution of the research. The reviewers provide an analysis of these issues. In particular, consistent with the concerns of Reviewer D, Reviewer E writes, The weaknesses are that the overarching hypothesis (polarization due to cognitive load that prevents updating by liars) is too simple to capture the complexity that must exist around consumer

3 3 practices of deception and the studies themselves are not as compelling as their sheer number would suggest. After reading the paper, I find myself intrigued by the idea, but frustrated and not convinced by the data. Addressing the points described by the reviewers, particularly those highlighted in this report, should help the reader to better appreciate the research. A major and significant concern on the part of both reviewers is the nature of the empirical evidence you present. As Reviewer D suggests, That said, I do have some concern about the realism of the studies reported, that is, to what degree the experiments you did really tap how lying affects outcome satisfaction in real life. In Experiment 1, participants are offered a reward as an incentive to lie in the weak competitor condition, but that experiment is still a scenario based study in which participants are asked to negotiate a package deal for a cell phone with a service provider who they are told is actually another student. They aren t really negotiating an actual package deal for themselves. Studies 2 through 4 are studies in which the participant is virtually instructed to lie. In other words the lying isn t really coming from inside the person. There is so much to like about your research and I am not sure what the best way is to take it forward. Reviewer E has much the same concern and writes, But, one thing that is troubling here is that most of the studies use a manipulation where people are told to lie or not So, in many ways, these studies would be better if they observed lies made by free will. See Reviewer E, point #2, choosing to lie or being told to lie. An additional study or studies should be conducted to address these reviewer concerns. The reviewers express several additional concerns that impact the conceptual contribution of the research. These concerns should be addressed. In particular, as Reviewer E highlights, the conceptual framework seems to oversimplify consumer lying and the processing that underlies it. Reviewer E writes, This overall framing seems to rub the wrong way and be a missed opportunity to say how the cognitive aspects of lying fit in with the affective. See Reviewer E, point #1, Oversimplification. In addition, be sure to address Reviewer E s concerns regarding the lack of updating due to cognitive overload expressed in point #4. Studies, Procedures, and Results The reviewers have focused on identifying paths that may help to uncover the conceptual contribution of the research. As described above, one such path identified by the reviewers requires conducting an additional study or studies. The reviewers have a few additional suggestions regarding further data analysis and refinement or further explanation of the study description and procedures. Thoughts Data: As Reviewer D suggests in paragraphs 3 and 4, additional analysis of the thoughts data across the studies may help the reader to better understand respondents processing in the lying conditions. Be sure to carefully examine the thoughts data for any insights into processing in these conditions. In addition, be sure to consider Reviewer D s concern regarding the purpose of the studies. Reviewer D writes, I suggest you at least analyze the thoughts in Study 4 for what participants thought was the real purpose of the experiment and whether the thoughts elicited suggest anything regarding the alternative explanations I raise. I would also encourage you in future research to have more explicit

4 4 measures to address them, at least explicit measures tapping what participants think the purpose of the experiment is. Alternative Explanations/Arousal: See Reviewer E s concerns in point #3 regarding the impact of arousal. Be sure to address this concern with empirical data. Alternative Explanations/Guilt: See Reviewer D s potential alternative explanation and suggestion in paragraph 5 regarding the measurement of guilt in future studies. Give careful attention to these concerns in designing additional research and in augmenting reporting for the current studies. Gifts: Include the information regarding gifts requested by Reviewer D. See paragraph 6 of D s review. As each of the reviewers point out, the stimuli and measures for each study must be described in more detail. In particular, each of Reviewer E s concerns regarding this issue should be addressed and clarified. See Reviewer E, point #5. Other Points Be sure to address each of the additional points offered at the end of D s review. Best of luck with your research. Reviewer D Comments to the Authors: This paper is off to a good start. It is creative, has a clear positioning, and the findings are nonobvious. It is also very well- written. You conducted a nice set of studies, with different treatments, and measures. Plus your studies two through four are to my knowledge the first studies in our field that are more than scenario based experiments. The Argo et al., and Sengupta et al. papers you reference, the forthcoming paper by Argo, White and Dahl in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, all contain only scenario based experiments. That said, I do have some concern about the realism of the studies reported, that is, to what degree the experiments you did really tap how lying affects outcome satisfaction in real life. In Experiment 1, participants are offered a reward as an incentive to lie in the weak competitor condition, but that experiment is still a scenario based study in which participants are asked to negotiate a package deal for a cell phone with a service provider who they are told is actually another student. They aren t really negotiating an actual package deal for themselves. Studies 2 through 4 are studies in which the participant is virtually instructed to lie. In other words the lying isn t really coming from inside the person. There is so much to like about your research and I am not sure what the best way is to take it forward. Perhaps adding a study that is more realistic is something you might consider. You might want to look at previous research in psychology for some ideas as to how to do this. There are a number of diary studies on lying in psychology, e.g., the diary studies conducted by DePaulo and Kashy.

5 5 I was glad to see that you had a cognitive response measure in your last study. While the results for it do not support an alternative perspective, I think that the thoughts elicited should be analyzed for more than number and valence of thoughts. I wonder what was going on inside the heads of participants, especially in the lying conditions in Studies two and three. (I am not exactly sure what the exact task was in Study 4 by the way. Perhaps it was the same one as in Studies two and three). In Study 3 for example, participants were instructed to lie to the service provider. Not just that but the feedback they were given was inconsistent with what they were initially told, namely they received negative feedback when they were led to believe that they would get a refund and positive feedback where they were led to believe that they would not get a refund. They must have wondered what was going on in the study. In Study 2, there was the out of stock back in stock business at the end of the experiment, which might have led participants in that experiment to wonder about what was going on. There are a couple of issues that I would encourage you to think about in this regard. One is that perhaps cognitive load might have been high in the lying conditions not just because of the lying involved, but because of the complexity of the task these participants had to participate in just to get some course credit. Second, perhaps participants in the lying conditions felt that they did what they were instructed to do in this task to win the reward (gift), but they didn t get it, so they were surprised and upset by that. In other words, they followed instructions but didn t get the reward they were led to believe they would get. I suggest you at least analyze the thoughts in Study 4 for what participants thought was the real purpose of the experiment and whether the thoughts elicited suggest anything regarding the alternative explanations I raise. I would also encourage you in future research to have more explicit measures to address them, at least explicit measures tapping what participants think the purpose of the experiment is. A big strength of this research is the number of tests done of alternative explanations. I just want to make one point about your test of the arousal alternative explanation, a point which is related to my concern about realism. Perhaps participants didn t feel that aroused in the lying condition because they felt they were just following instructions to lie rather than actually telling a lie in any real sense. In the lying condition in Study 4 the mean score for liars was 25.7 on the arousal index, perhaps not high enough to get effects for arousal. So maybe calibration is an issue. In future research, you might measure feelings of guilt, although I suspect that a scale that taps tension would pick up any feelings of guilt. I think it is important to mention what the gifts were that participants were offered and received in Studies two through four. Please report what they were. Of course, the more meaningful the gifts, the better. I assume it was a food product since you asked participants about the prices for items in a grocery store vs. convenience store in the narrowing down task, but I could be wrong. Additional points: - Please report the mean arousal scores in Study 3 and the mean surprise scores in Study 2 for the various experimental conditions. Unless I missed them, they weren t reported. - I really liked your measure of surprise.

6 6 - In Study 3, the only significant effect you had on the prior outcome manipulation check was the main effect for expectations. It surprised me that even in the no refund condition, the mean number of participants who still expected to receive a refund was above the mid-point of the scale (M= 56.06). - While you have a lot to information to present in this paper, it is too long. Try to cut it down. In conclusion, as I said there is a lot to like about this research so I hope I didn t come off too harsh in my comments. I am just trying to make it as good as it can be. Reviewer E Comments to the Authors: Overall, the strengths of this manuscript are that it addresses an interesting and under-researched issue and that it presents a thorough review of relevant literature and a logical path of reason from study to study. The weaknesses are that the overarching hypothesis (polarization due to cognitive load that prevents updating by liars) is too simple to capture the complexity that must exist around consumer practices of deception and the studies themselves are not as compelling as their sheer number would suggest. After reading the paper, I find myself intrigued by the idea, but frustrated and not convinced by the data. How might this be addressed? Below I outline some points that I think should be considered: 1. Oversimplification. How and when consumers tell lies to firms, and the outcomes that ensue, is a complex system. Some lies may fall into the lies may be judged as moral ( white lies told to spare giving another negative information), some as trivial ( everyday lies that are not really seen as lies if they are small enough; Mazar, Amir, & Ariely 2008), some as wrong, but justified ( consumer revenge; consumers who get back at what they perceive is the unfair behavior of an over-powerful firm), and some as wrong, but fun ( duping delight ) and some as wrong and repented (a self-control failure; giving in to the temptation to tell lies told to gain a deeply desired outcome). In some of these cases, the lie may be cognitively demanding (as the paper states), but other instances may make the lie less demanding (e.g., small enough to be seen as practically true or not having to exert self-control to resist the temptation to lie). Thus, I don t think that the authors premise that lies might have certain effects because they are cognitively demanding is wrong, but the focus on disproving all the alternative explanations seems misguided. Surely, many aspects of lying will influence how people feel after lying and either gaining or not gaining their desired end. This overall framing seems to rub the wrong way and be a missed opportunity to say how the cognitive aspects of lying fit in with the affective. It seems that one intriguing aspect that spans both the cognitive and affective processes is the extent to which a lie is seen as a cost expended to gain an end. If people feel a cost to lie (it exerts some kind of aversive feeling or people only have so many lies to use before they can t claim to be an honest person), then the polarization effect may be a reflection of how people respond to costly (or high risk) endeavors.

7 7 2. Choosing to lie or being told to lie. One challenge of this kind of research is that it is necessarily messy. It is hard to set up a situation where a decent percentage of participants will lie and where it can be observed. Throw in the need to provide some sort of believable task and a real incentive and I can sympathize with the authors on experimental development. But, one thing that is troubling here is that most of the studies use a manipulation where people are told to lie or not. Study 1 uses a free-ish choice to lie, but the manipulation of the competitors offers is a confound that creates problems in that study and so I tend to discount Study 1 (and wouldn t include it at all). If we look at the above point and consider, just as one point, the arousal that comes from lying, it seems reasonable that making people lie creates different arousal than when they choose to do it on their own. But what is the direction of that influence? Telling a participant to lie takes away the moral responsibility (less arousal), but also creates a situation where some of the participants in that condition might feel especially upset (those would not lie if given the chance) and some participants might feel much better (those who would be tempted to lie and now can do so with impunity). Deceit is impacted by the likelihood of being caught and, by being told to lie, this risk-factor is taken away. So, in many ways, these studies would be better if they observed lies made by free will. 3. Arousal. I have a hard time believing that arousal would not show similar effects to the observed polarization of satisfaction with outcome. If lying creates arousal (is it only choosing to lie?), then the post-outcome resolution of that increased arousal is likely to be perceived as relief on a positive outcome and disappointment on a negative outcome. Some participants, using an HDIF heuristic, may even use the stronger emotions to infer stronger desires for the sought-after outcome. The studies that address arousal do so in a less-thancompelling way. Arousal is self-reported after the exchange in one study (if possible, consider a biologic measure like galvanic skin response or, if not, measure the self-report during the exchange rather than after) and, in another, the use of open-ended cognitive responses is used. 4. Lack of updating due to cognitive overload. I don t doubt that the cognitive demands of lies can impact the consumer, but three things trouble me. First, and most importantly, if liars aren t updating priors, why would they be more surprised at a positive outcome? A positive outcome is more likely to be the prior for liars. Deception is more likely when a positive outcome is predicted (impacting those who choose to lie). For those who are told to lie, it must seem more likely that they will achieve a positive outcome since they are using an unfair advantage. Thus, the updating account should explain why disappointment is more of a surprise, but not why success is. Second, why focus just on the how satisfied and happy consumers feel with the outcome? This is a DV with a strong affective component. If a cognitive detriment is being highlighted, why not show more cognitive effects perhaps one s memory for the details of the deals being offered by the firm or perhaps a tendency to choose options (if the firm offers multiple choices) using heuristic versus systematic processing of choice attributes? Third, the open-ended cognitive response data collected in Study 4 seems to me to be counter to the cognitive busyness hypothesis. The data show that there are no differences in number of task-related thoughts reported. But, if liars were working harder, shouldn t we see a difference in cognitive thoughts?

8 8 5. Wondering about the number. Finally, one thing that was challenging for a reader was the lack of study details in terms of measures used and, most importantly, data reported. While there were many instances, the ones that seem most important are: a) since a large % of subjects were excluded from analysis in Study 1, what was the attrition rate in each condition, b) what were the means for each condition for outcome satisfaction and outcome surprise for Study 2, c) what were the means for all six conditions for all reported DVs in Study 3, d) what was the cell size for each condition in Study 3, e) what was included in the regression addressing duping delight in Study 4, f) is outcome satisfaction always measured by the combination of the satisfaction and happiness measures? Mazar, Nina, Amir, On and Ariely, Dan, The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self- Concept Maintenance (2008). Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp , 2008.