FRANKLIN SHADDY. Consumer behavior, judgment and decision making, goals and motivation, fairness, impatience, willingness-to-make tradeoffs

Transcription

1 JUNE 2017 FRANKLIN SHADDY 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL Mobile: +1 (419) EDUCATION, Chicago, IL Ph.D., Marketing, 2018 (expected) Dissertation Committee: Ayelet Fishbach (Chair), Pradeep Chintagunta, Anuj K. Shah, Itamar Simonson Columbia University, New York, NY M.A., Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 2013 Thesis Advisor: Leonard Lee University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI B.B.A., Finance, High Distinction, 2009 RESEARCH INTERESTS Consumer behavior, judgment and decision making, goals and motivation, fairness, impatience, willingness-to-make tradeoffs PUBLICATIONS (See abstracts in Appendix) Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (in press), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Journal of Marketing Research. Fishbach, Ayelet, and Franklin Shaddy (2015), When Choices Substitute for Versus Reinforce Each Other, Current Opinion in Psychology, 10 (August), INVITED REVISIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS UNDER REVIEW (See abstracts in Appendix) Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah, Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, revise and resubmit, Journal of Consumer Research. Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee, Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, revise and resubmit, Journal of Marketing Research. Shaddy, Franklin, Ayelet Fishbach, and Itamar Simonson, Distinctions Without a Difference: How Seemingly Unrelated Choice Effects All Reflect Willingness-to-Make Tradeoffs, revise and resubmit, Journal of Marketing Research. Shaddy, Franklin, Yanping Tu, and Ayelet Fishbach, Same Time Tomorrow? People Prefer Simultaneity for Small (But Not Large) Events, under review, Journal of Consumer Research. Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach, Eyes on the Prize: The Preference to Invest Resources in Goals, under review, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

2 FRANKLIN SHADDY 2 SELECTED WORKS IN PROGRESS Bundles Bundle People, with Ayelet Fishbach. Preference Signal Detection, with Anuj K. Shah. Tradeoffs in Choice, with Ayelet Fishbach and Itamar Simonson. Technology and Fairness in Markets, with Alix Barasch and Amit Bhattacharjee. HONORS AND AWARDS AMA-Sheth Foundation Doctoral Consortium Fellow (2017) Invited Presenter, Yale Whitebox Advisors Conference (2017) Kilts Fellowship, ( ) Dean s Award, Teaching Assistant Excellence, (2014, 2015, 2016) Doctoral Fellowship, ( ) Conference Travel Award, Columbia University (2012) QMSS Summer Research Grant, Columbia University (2012) QMSS Academic Research Fellowship, Columbia University (2011, 2012) Rogel Scholar, University of Michigan, ( ) ORGANIZED SYMPOSIA Shaddy, Franklin, and Itamar Simonson (2016), How and When Consumers Make Tradeoffs, Association for Consumer Research, Berlin (Germany). CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah (2017), Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, Whitebox Advisors Graduate Student Conference, New Haven, CT. Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah (2017), Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, Society for Consumer Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah (2016), Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Boston, MA. Shaddy, Franklin, Ayelet Fishbach, and Itamar Simonson (2016), Distinctions Without a Difference: How Seemingly Unrelated Choice Effects All Reflect Willingness-to-Make Tradeoffs, Association for Consumer Research, Berlin (Germany). Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah (2016), Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, Association for Consumer Research, Berlin (Germany). Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (2016), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Behavioral Decision Research in Management, Toronto (Canada). Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (2015), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Chicago, IL. Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (2015), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Society for Consumer Psychology, Phoenix, AZ.

3 FRANKLIN SHADDY 3 Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee (2014), Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, Kellogg- Booth Student Symposium, Chicago, IL. Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee (2012), Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, Society for Consumer Psychology, San Antonio, TX. Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee (2012), Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, Association for Consumer Research, Vancouver, BC (Canada). CONFERENCE POSTERS Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (2016), Eyes on the Prize: The Preference to Invest Resources in Goals, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Boston, MA. Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (2014), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Long Beach, CA. Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee (2012), Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Minneapolis, MN. TEACHING EXPERIENCE, Chicago, IL Managing in Organizations, Teaching Assistant for Ayelet Fishbach (2015, 2016, 2017) Negotiations, Teaching Assistant for Ayelet Fishbach (2014, 2015, 2016) Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY Leadership Development, Teaching Assistant for Modupe Akinola (2011) PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP) Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Advisory Associate, PricewaterhouseCoopers, New York, NY,

4 FRANKLIN SHADDY 4 REFERENCES Ayelet Fishbach (Dissertation Chair) Jeffrey Breakenridge Keller Professor of Behavioral Science and Marketing +1 (773) ayelet.fishbach@chicagobooth.edu Anuj K. Shah Associate Professor of Behavioral Science +1 (773) anuj.shah@chicagobooth.edu Pradeep Chintagunta Joseph T. and Bernice S. Lewis Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing +1 (773) pradeep.chintagunta@chicagobooth.edu Itamar Simonson Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing Stanford University Stanford Graduate School of Business +1 (650) itamars@stanford.edu Leonard Lee Associate Professor and Dean s Chair National University of Singapore NUS Business School +1 (65) leonard.lee@nus.edu.sg

5 FRANKLIN SHADDY 5 APPENDIX I: DISSERTATION OVERVIEW Greater Than the Sum of the Parts: How Bundling Creates Value Dissertation Chair: Ayelet Fishbach Dissertation Committee: Pradeep Chintagunta, Anuj K. Shah, and Itamar Simonson In my dissertation, I explore the psychology of bundling. Bundling is defined as the sale of two or more separate products (i.e., goods or services) in a single package, for a single price typically at a discount (relative to the same items offered separately). To that end, the limited existing work examining the psychology of bundling has largely focused on how consumers are sensitive to the pricing of the various components of bundles. But this literature overlooks how bundling itself might provide utility to consumers beyond just discounts. My dissertation fills this void by suggesting that when products and services are combined and offered as a bundle, consumers view and, importantly, value the resulting entity as a unique whole that is perceived as greater than the sum of the parts. Critically, this distinct appeal of bundles yields a number of meaningful implications for consumer decision making. In Essay 1, I explain how bundling affects valuation. In particular, I demonstrate a novel asymmetric effect: Consumers demand more compensation for and experience greater dissatisfaction from the loss of items from bundles, compared to the loss of the same items in isolation. Yet they offer lower willingness-to-pay (WTP) for and experience less satisfaction from items added to bundles, compared to the same items purchased separately. I argue that this asymmetry in valuation (i.e., paying less, yet demanding more) persists because bundling leads consumers to perceive multiple items as a single, inseparable gestalt unit, which they find appealing. In Essay 2, I examine whether people similarly prefer combining events. Specifically, I explore the preference for simultaneity whether consumers prefer events that happen to the self and to close others to occur simultaneously (or not). I argue that events that happen to the self and to close others are better and fundamentally distinct when they occur simultaneously, compared to when they occur at different times. However, this preference for combining events depends on their emotional impact: Some events are simply too emotionally overwhelming for the self-other collective to benefit from simultaneity. Finally, in Essay 3, I propose that bundles can potentially connect people. To that end, I offer initial evidence suggesting that when consumers purchase or consume bundles together, they feel closer to each other. APPENDIX II: SELECTED ABSTRACTS Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach (in press), Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation, Journal of Marketing Research. How does bundling affect valuation? This research proposes the asymmetry hypothesis in the valuation of bundles: Consumers demand more compensation for the loss of items from bundles, compared to the loss of the same items in isolation, yet offer lower willingness-to-pay for items added to bundles, compared to the same items purchased separately. This asymmetry persists because bundling causes consumers to perceive multiple items as a single, inseparable gestalt unit. Thus, consumers resist altering the whole of the bundle by removing or adding items. Six studies demonstrate this asymmetry across judgments of monetary value (Studies 1 and 2) and (dis)satisfaction (Study 3). Moreover, bundle composition the ability of different items to create the impression of a whole moderates the effect of bundling on valuation (Study 4), and the need to replace missing items (i.e., restoring the whole ) mediates the effect of bundling on compensation demanded for losses (Study 5). Finally, we explore a boundary condition: The effect is attenuated for items that complete a set (Study 6).

6 FRANKLIN SHADDY 6 Fishbach, Ayelet, and Franklin Shaddy (2015), When Choices Substitute for Versus Reinforce Each Other, Current Opinion in Psychology, 10 (August), When do actions substitute for each other? For example, when does physical exercise substitute for healthy eating? We argue that when actions convey to consumers that they have made progress toward a goal, those actions substitute for other, similar actions, and consumers behave inconsistently. In contrast, when actions convey to consumers that they are committed to a goal, those actions reinforce other, similar actions, and consumers behave consistently. We review variables that define the signals communicated by actions and thus, the likelihood of substitution. This framework explains substitution both in self-regulation (i.e. balancing) and across several phenomena in decision-making, including licensing, variety-seeking, the compromise effect, and scope insensitivity. Additionally, this framework can help marketers and policymakers improve consumer decision-making. Shaddy, Franklin, and Anuj K. Shah, Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly, revise and resubmit, Journal of Consumer Research. Goods and services are often allocated to those who spend the most resources. Often, this means that things are allocated to people who spend the most money. But people can use a variety of other resources to acquire things (e.g., time, effort, social capital). Which resources seem like the fairest basis for allocation? In this research, we show that people believe resources systematically differ according to how well they signal preferences (e.g., money spent seems like a worse signal of want or need than time or effort spent) and that allocation policies seem fairer if they are based on resources that clearly signal preferences. We explore several factors that influence these perceptions, and we demonstrate how these intuitions shape support for public policies and business practices. Shaddy, Franklin, and Leonard Lee, Exposure to Price Promotions Causes Impatience, revise and resubmit, Journal of Marketing Research. In this research, we argue that exposure to price promotions causes impatience. Specifically, we propose that exposure to price promotions heightens consumers desire for rewards, and reward seeking, in turn, yields impatience. Five experiments demonstrate this effect of exposure to price promotions on impatience, which is characterized by greater willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid waiting (Experiments 1 and 5), reduced actual wait-times (Experiments 2 and 4), and increased propensity to break a rule in order to save time (Experiment 3). Moreover, consistent with our account, the effect of exposure to price promotions on impatience is more pronounced for people with greater reward sensitivity (Experiments 3 and 4) and attenuated when people are already engaged in reward seeking (Experiment 5). Thus, while much of the literature on price promotions has focused on the numerous monetary and nonmonetary benefits they provide to consumers, we explore and provide evidence for an important and potentially negative downstream consequence: impatience. Shaddy, Franklin, Ayelet Fishbach, and Itamar Simonson, Distinctions Without a Difference: How Seemingly Unrelated Choice Effects All Reflect Willingness-to-Make Tradeoffs, revise and resubmit, Journal of Marketing Research. A number of seemingly distinct decision phenomena the compromise effect, balancing, and variety seeking all fundamentally depend on willingness-to-make tradeoffs (e.g., between price and quality, between health and indulgence, or among competing tastes). Yet prior research treats these choice effects as independent. We argue that they reflect a common mechanism and, to that end, we demonstrate how these phenomena can be systematically moderated by the same set of variables. Specifically, we find that identity framing the presentation of attributes as reflecting personal values suppresses the compromise effect, balancing, and variety seeking. Furthermore, quantitative framing the presentation of precise attribute levels increases these same choice effects. We discuss how

7 FRANKLIN SHADDY 7 willingness-to-make tradeoffs may not only serve as a common theoretical denominator, linking these specific decision phenomena, but also predict when other tradeoff-based choice effects will arise. Shaddy, Franklin, Yanping Tu, and Ayelet Fishbach, Same Time Tomorrow? People Prefer Simultaneity for Small (But Not Large) Events, under review, Journal of Consumer Research. Across five studies, we explore the preference for simultaneity whether consumers prefer events that happen to the self and to close others to occur simultaneously (or not). We find that people generally prefer simultaneity for both positive and negative events (e.g., two students prefer to receive both good grades and bad grades on the same day), but that this preference depends on the emotional impact of events. In particular, some events are too emotionally overwhelming for the self-other collective to benefit from simultaneity. Consequently, the preference for simultaneity systematically decreases as the magnitude of events increases, and the extent to which people anticipate exhausting their emotional resources mediates this effect. Further, because losses loom larger than gains, the preference for simultaneity decreases faster for negative events than for equivalent positive events, as the magnitude of events increases. Finally, we discuss how the preference for simultaneity can be harnessed to increase the value of various marketing offerings. Shaddy, Franklin, and Ayelet Fishbach, Eyes on the Prize: The Preference to Invest Resources in Goals, under review, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Pursuing goals often requires directly investing resources in goals as well as indirectly investing resources in means to achieve goals. In this research, we investigate how goal systems the configuration of goal-means relationships affect preferences for resource allocation. Across six studies we establish that people are more willing to invest resources in goals than in means, and we explore implications for decision making that follow from this preference. Specifically, people both invest more resources in an item framed as a goal (vs. an item framed as a means; Study 1) and invest more in only a goal (vs. a means that is paired with a goal; Study 2). People further prefer to invest sooner in goals and postpone investing in means (Study 3), choose to reduce costs associated with means (vs. goals; Study 4), and are happier when costs associated with means (vs. goals) are eliminated (Study 5). These studies demonstrate that the aversion to investing resources in means can result in non-normative decision making in the course of goal pursuit.