Consumer marketing Questions
Article 2 – Dueling with desire: a synthesis of past research on
want/should conflict (Bitterly et al., 2014).
1. What is interesting about this paper?
It explores the internal battle between short-term pleasure (want) and
long-term benefit (should) that drives much of consumer decision-making.
The paper integrates findings across many studies to show when and why
people choose “wants” over “shoulds”, and how marketers can influence
this balance.
2. What is the main research question?
When do consumers choose want options (immediate gratification) versus
should options (delayed rewards) and what situational or psychological
factors shift this balance?
3. What is the theory / rationale?
Consumers face a self-control conflict between two systems:
1. Want (System 1): impulsive, emotional, focused on pleasure
now.
2. Should (System 2): rational, deliberate, focused on long-term
goals.
Factors like time, emotion, temptation and context shift
dominance between the two.
When the “want” system is active (e.g., under time pressure,
stress or high emotion), impulsive choices dominate.
When people stop and think more carefully – or know someone
will check their choice – they’re more likely to pick the ‘should’
option.
4. What are the main findings?
Temporal distance:
- Near future “want” options dominate (e.g., indulgence (guilty
pleasure)).
- Distant future “should” options dominate (e.g., self-
improvement).
Cognitive load or emotion increases “want” choices.
Framing and accountability can activate “should” behavior (e.g.,
moral reminders, goal tracking).
The paper identifies consistent moderators such as time,
emotion, self-regulation and framing.
5. Managerial implication?
Marketers can frame messages depending on timing and context:
For immediate consumption, emphasize pleasure (want framing).
For future-oriented purchases, emphasize benefits and
improvement (should framing).
Example: a gym ad for new members could highlight “Feel great today!”
(want) vs. “Invest in your future health” (should depending on the context
(now vs. later).
, Key takeaway: consumer choices swing between want and should:
context, timing and emotion decide which side wins.
Article 3 – Thin slice impressions: how advertising evaluation
depends on exposure duration (Elsen et al., 2016).
For the Elsen et al. (2016) paper, please prepare the questions below
before coming to class. You should be able to clearly present and explain
to your classmates the research question(s), the underlying theoretical
account (reasoning/rationale) and the main findings:
1. What is interesting about this paper?
What is interesting about this paper is that even milliseconds of exposure
can shape ad evaluations. Consumers form instant, intuitive impressions
of ads, and what matters most is not objective accuracy but the subjective
feeling of knowing the ad’s identity.
2. What is (are) the main research question(s)?
How does exposure duration influence ad and brand evaluation across
different ad identification types (upfront, mystery, false front)?
3. What is the theory? In other words, be able to explain the underlying
reasons and rationale for why the authors expect to find specific
effects.
The theory is that consumers form quick “thin-slice impressions” of ads.
These impressions are guided by a feeling of knowing, a sense of
familiarity and fluency, rather than objective accuracy. Exposure duration
shapes this feeling differently across ad types: upfront ads create
immediate recognition, mystery ads create delayed understanding (Aha!
Effect) and false-front ads create initial confusion followed by
disconfirmation.
4. What are the main findings of Studies 1, 2 and 3?
Study 1: Short exposure upfront > false front > mystery.
Longer exposure upfront stable, mystery improves, false front
declines.
Study 2: Feeling of knowing mediates ad evaluation: people like ads
they feel they understand, not those they actually understand.
Study 3: Ad type x exposure duration interaction confirmed. Upfront
best under short exposure; mystery improves over time; false front
declines.
5. How would you use the results and takeaways from this paper in the
industry? In other words, what is one managerial implication (e.g., a
Article 2 – Dueling with desire: a synthesis of past research on
want/should conflict (Bitterly et al., 2014).
1. What is interesting about this paper?
It explores the internal battle between short-term pleasure (want) and
long-term benefit (should) that drives much of consumer decision-making.
The paper integrates findings across many studies to show when and why
people choose “wants” over “shoulds”, and how marketers can influence
this balance.
2. What is the main research question?
When do consumers choose want options (immediate gratification) versus
should options (delayed rewards) and what situational or psychological
factors shift this balance?
3. What is the theory / rationale?
Consumers face a self-control conflict between two systems:
1. Want (System 1): impulsive, emotional, focused on pleasure
now.
2. Should (System 2): rational, deliberate, focused on long-term
goals.
Factors like time, emotion, temptation and context shift
dominance between the two.
When the “want” system is active (e.g., under time pressure,
stress or high emotion), impulsive choices dominate.
When people stop and think more carefully – or know someone
will check their choice – they’re more likely to pick the ‘should’
option.
4. What are the main findings?
Temporal distance:
- Near future “want” options dominate (e.g., indulgence (guilty
pleasure)).
- Distant future “should” options dominate (e.g., self-
improvement).
Cognitive load or emotion increases “want” choices.
Framing and accountability can activate “should” behavior (e.g.,
moral reminders, goal tracking).
The paper identifies consistent moderators such as time,
emotion, self-regulation and framing.
5. Managerial implication?
Marketers can frame messages depending on timing and context:
For immediate consumption, emphasize pleasure (want framing).
For future-oriented purchases, emphasize benefits and
improvement (should framing).
Example: a gym ad for new members could highlight “Feel great today!”
(want) vs. “Invest in your future health” (should depending on the context
(now vs. later).
, Key takeaway: consumer choices swing between want and should:
context, timing and emotion decide which side wins.
Article 3 – Thin slice impressions: how advertising evaluation
depends on exposure duration (Elsen et al., 2016).
For the Elsen et al. (2016) paper, please prepare the questions below
before coming to class. You should be able to clearly present and explain
to your classmates the research question(s), the underlying theoretical
account (reasoning/rationale) and the main findings:
1. What is interesting about this paper?
What is interesting about this paper is that even milliseconds of exposure
can shape ad evaluations. Consumers form instant, intuitive impressions
of ads, and what matters most is not objective accuracy but the subjective
feeling of knowing the ad’s identity.
2. What is (are) the main research question(s)?
How does exposure duration influence ad and brand evaluation across
different ad identification types (upfront, mystery, false front)?
3. What is the theory? In other words, be able to explain the underlying
reasons and rationale for why the authors expect to find specific
effects.
The theory is that consumers form quick “thin-slice impressions” of ads.
These impressions are guided by a feeling of knowing, a sense of
familiarity and fluency, rather than objective accuracy. Exposure duration
shapes this feeling differently across ad types: upfront ads create
immediate recognition, mystery ads create delayed understanding (Aha!
Effect) and false-front ads create initial confusion followed by
disconfirmation.
4. What are the main findings of Studies 1, 2 and 3?
Study 1: Short exposure upfront > false front > mystery.
Longer exposure upfront stable, mystery improves, false front
declines.
Study 2: Feeling of knowing mediates ad evaluation: people like ads
they feel they understand, not those they actually understand.
Study 3: Ad type x exposure duration interaction confirmed. Upfront
best under short exposure; mystery improves over time; false front
declines.
5. How would you use the results and takeaways from this paper in the
industry? In other words, what is one managerial implication (e.g., a
