Abstract
This research demonstrates how service firms can encourage decisions that enhance consumers’ well-being through informational social influence. Specifically, we propose that social information regarding the beneficial behaviors of others is enhanced under a deliberative mind-set. Given the financial insecurity of consumers, as well as the potential for financial services firms to positively affect consumers’ savings decisions, we test this theorizing in the context of savings. Four studies demonstrate that the open-mindedness associated with the deliberative mind-set increases the effectiveness of providing high savings social information (i.e., information about the high savings rates of others). This effect does not occur for consumers with chronically high susceptibility to interpersonal influence, who are open-minded to social information regardless of mind-set, but is stronger for myopically focused consumers who otherwise may be most likely to discount high savings information. Results suggest that financial services firms may improve consumers’ financial well-being by providing high savings social information and eliciting a deliberative mind-set in financial brochures, educational programs, and interactions with financial advisors. Implications for how service firms can utilize a deliberative mind-set and informational influence to enhance consumer well-being by encouraging beneficial behaviors like saving, exercising, or energy conservation, which conflict with existing desires, are discussed.
Keywords
The current saving behavior of consumers in many developed countries is troublesome. For instance, reports indicated that Americans’ savings rates dipped to negative 1% in 2006 for the first time since the Great Depression (Crutsinger 2007). Although consumers briefly became more cautious and increased savings after the financial crisis, rates were back down to 2.2% in the first quarter of 2013 (The Economist 2010; 2013). With some exceptions (e.g., Germany, France), savings rates are at similar low levels in other developed countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] 2013). Moreover, the U.S. media often reports on the low savings rates of Americans (e.g., CNBC 2013; Forbes 2012; The New York Times 2013). Indeed, a pretest of American adults revealed that based on the savings information they encounter in the media, they believe Americans’ savings are too low. 1 Low savings rates are particularly troubling because the failure to save is a consistent factor contributing to lowered consumer financial health and well-being (e.g., Manning 2000; Schor 1999; Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook 1999). Given the detriments of limited savings, the current research shows how financial services firms may improve consumer financial security by encouraging higher savings and proposes ways service firms may encourage beneficial behaviors that have the potential to improve consumers’ well-being.
Improving consumer well-being through transformative service has been identified as one important priority in service research, and spreading the value obtained from service consumption from consumer to consumer has been identified as an important aspect of transformative service research (Ostrom et al. 2010). One way of spreading value from beneficial service consumption across the community is by harnessing the powerful effects of social influence and using the informational value of the beneficial decisions of others. Although prior research has established the effects of social influence on consumer behavior (Cialdini 2007), the influence of social information (SI) on well-being enhancing decisions that are often guided by consumers’ interaction with service firms and service offerings (e.g., financial savings programs, recommended exercise routines, weight loss programs, and energy consumption) has received little attention. Consumers interact with service providers in many domains in which consumers both are uncertain of what constitutes the most appropriate and effective behavior 2 and may have conflicting desires (e.g., to spend, rather than save). As such, service firms have the opportunity to design informational brochures and programs to help consumers understand what constitutes effective behavior and how to curb their conflicting desires, which, in turn, will help them achieve their long-term goals.
In the case of savings, examined in this research, even though consumers are aware that the overall savings rate in the United States is too low, they remain uncertain as to what is an appropriate and realistic savings amount. As Benartzi and Thaler pointed out, “few spend much time calculating a personal optimal savings rate, given the uncertainties about future rates of return, income flows, retirement plans, health, and so forth” (2007, p. 82). When individuals are uncertain about the most appropriate and effective behavior, social evidence is often their guide (Cialdini 2007). As such, consumers may be conforming to the widely publicized and discussed low savings rates. Moreover, saving is in direct conflict with spending, such that the immediate gratification and social approval from spending (e.g., Dreze and Nunes 2009; Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011) might deter the natural informational influence of high savings SI. Similarly, service firms offering weight loss services to minimize overeating or home energy audits to decrease excessive energy consumption may be challenged to overcome consumers’ conflicting desires for more desirable or more convenient alternatives. We seek to demonstrate how financial services firms can employ high savings SI, defined as information about the high savings rates of others, to increase consumers’ savings decisions.
For informational influence to be effective in domains like savings, which are characterized by uncertainty and conflicting desires, what factors could overcome these potential deterrents and allow service firms to use positive SI to benefit consumers’ decisions? We identify one factor—the deliberative mind-set, which is a cognitive orientation activated when considering the pros and cons of potential goals (Gollwitzer 2011). We argue that without adopting a deliberative mind-set, the impact of SI on consumers’ decisions that impact their well-being (e.g., savings) will be limited, particularly due to consumers’ conflicting desires and widely available SI on less beneficial behaviors. However, we propose that the enhanced open-minded processing of information, which is characteristic of the deliberative mind-set, increases the informational influence of the beneficial behaviors of others. In doing so, we examine whether the open-minded processing of the deliberative mind-set enhances conformity to high savings of dissimilar others, a context in which informational influence has not been previously demonstrated. Finally, we consider whether the deliberative mind-set is particularly effective for increasing beneficial behaviors among consumers who are myopically focused and would otherwise be most likely to discount information on beneficial behaviors offered by service firms, due to their focus on immediate consequences (Strathman et al. 1994).
This research makes four important contributions to the extant literature. First, we contribute to the service literature by identifying the potential of informational influence to help service firms encourage consumers to make decisions that enhance their well-being (Dagger and Sweeney 2006; Guo et al. 2013). Second, our findings contribute to the broader social influence literature (Cialdini 2007) by demonstrating that consumers’ mind-set could enhance informational influence for beneficial behaviors (e.g., saving, weight loss, smoking cessation, and energy conservation) for which consumers might have conflicting desires (e.g., spending, eating indulgences, smoking, and convenience). To our knowledge, this is the first study to experimentally examine the effects of informational influence on consumer decisions, which may be in conflict with consumers’ current desires and can potentially be aided by service firms’ programs and offerings. Third, we build on research regarding the distinct cognitive features of the deliberative mind-set (Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen 2007), showing that the enhanced open-mindedness to information associated with the deliberative mind-set is consequential and enhances informational influence. Finally, this research demonstrates that the open-mindedness of a deliberative mind-set allows for conformity to SI regarding the behavior of dissimilar others, rather than being limited to similar others (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). Such equal conformity regardless of source similarity affords service firms the opportunity to leverage information about the beneficial behaviors of others in differing social classes or across countries, instead of being limited by the less than beneficial behaviors prevalent among peers.
Using personally relevant savings decisions, savings scenarios, and a real monetary decision, we show that the deliberative mind-set increases informational influence incorporated in service firms’ programs and offerings, serving as a tool to increase consumers’ savings. The remainder of the article unfolds as follows. First, we review relevant literature on social influence in services and discuss informational influence and deliberative mind-sets. We then present our theoretical framework and test this framework in four studies. We conclude with a discussion of our findings’ contributions to theory and their implications for financial services firms and public policy makers aiming to encourage consumers to engage in more beneficial behaviors and enhance their well-being.
Theoretical Development and Hypotheses
Social Influence in Service Contexts
The social influence resulting from the interpersonal interaction between service providers and customers has received significant attention in the service literature (e.g., Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). For example, research on the service encounter, defined as the interaction between a customer and a service provider, focuses on the interpersonal element of service firm performance (e.g., Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995; Solomon et al. 1985). Another aspect of social influence in services regards customer-to-customer social interactions (e.g., Libai et al. 2010; Zeithaml and Bitner 1996), which has received relatively less attention (Rosenbaum and Massiah 2007), even though service customers tend to have greater confidence in other customers as sources of information (Garnefeld, Helm, and Eggert 2011; Harrison-Walker 2001; Murray 1991). In particular, more research is needed on understanding how service firms could use informational influence to encourage positive consumption behaviors, like savings, from customer to customer (Ostrom et al. 2010). To be sure, Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius (2008) examined informational influence in hotel services, providing information about linen usage by fellow hotel guests. However, this research has not examined more involved decisions that may have stronger conflicting desires, as is the case for financial savings or other service domains often characterized by complexity and high perceived risk (Murray and Schlacter 1990; Zeithaml 1981).
Informational Influence and Services Decisions That Enhance Consumer Well-Being
Consumers often change their behavior to conform to the behaviors of others (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Cialdini and Trost 1998). As the popular phrase “Keeping Up With the Joneses” indicates, consumers frequently engage in approval-based conformity by spending money to gain status or social approval (Chartrand and Bargh 1999; Dreze and Nunes 2009; Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011), known as normative influence (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Deutsch and Gerard 1955). However, accuracy-based conformity, known as informational influence, which occurs because consumers perceive the behaviors of other people as informative of what is the appropriate response in a given situation, particularly under conditions of ambiguity or uncertainty (Griskevicius et al. 2006; Park and Lessig 1977), has received relatively limited attention (Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). We focus on informational influence, as it may be particularly useful in decisions like savings, where consumers can benefit from making the appropriate decision but have inherent uncertainty about what constitutes effective behavior.
We seek to determine if informational influence can be employed to increase savings if there is high savings SI available. Given that informational influence of high savings SI may be limited due to the immediate gratification from spending (Frederick, Loewenstein, and O’Donoghue 2002; Loewenstein 1996) and normative pressures to conform to visible consumption behaviors for social approval (Bearden and Etzel 1982), we propose that open-mindedness may be needed to increase one’s tendency to incorporate new information, which may run counter to the existing preferences. Therefore, we propose that adopting a deliberative mind-set, which is associated with increased receptivity and open-mindedness to available information (Heckhausen and Gollwitzer 1987), will enhance the informational influence of high savings SI.
Deliberative Mind-Sets
Consumers’ goal-oriented behavior can be divided into specific action phases depending on where the individual is in the process of making a goal pursuit decision (i.e., predecisional and postdecisional phase; Gollwitzer 2011). The mind-set theory of action phases (Gollwitzer 2011; Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989) has shown that the unique tasks associated with the predecisional phase (i.e., to choose among potential goals by deliberating their desirability and feasibility) lead to the activation of a cognitive procedure called deliberative mind-set, which affects how people interpret subsequently encountered information. More than two decades of research (for a recent review, see Gollwitzer 2011) have extensively examined the distinct cognitive features of the deliberative mind-set. Although research concludes that people in a deliberative mind-set do not exhibit different levels of goal commitment, motivation, involvement, depth of processing, or self-efficacy (see Webb and Sheeran 2008), they do tend to exhibit distinct cognitive functioning that facilitates the unique tasks associated with the predecisional phase.
One important cognitive feature of the deliberative mind-set is increased open-mindedness, which is characterized as receptivity to new information and a tendency to weigh new evidence fairly even if it contradicts one’s favored beliefs, plans, or goals (Baron 2000; Peterson and Seligman 2004). The deliberative mind-set, which is naturally activated when consumers deliberate on potential goals in the predecisional phase or can be situationally primed by prompting consumers to consider the pros and cons of a potential goal, results in “receptiveness to a broad range of information that is probed in an impartial manner” (Heckhausen and Gollwitzer 1987, p. 103). Prior research has demonstrated increased open-mindedness in a deliberative, as compared to both neutral and implemental, mind-set. Heckhausen and Gollwitzer (1987) observed that deliberating participants demonstrated a heightened receptivity to new information (i.e., were more capable of storing information and had a broadened working memory span). Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen (2007) further showed that deliberative mind-set individuals remembered information incidental to an ongoing task faster (i.e., exhibited faster recognition memory performance). As such, deliberative mind-set individuals are more open-minded to all information, even if it contrasts with the existing preferences and desires. This should include, based on our theorizing, information regarding the high savings of others, which may conflict with existing desires to spend. Although the literature demonstrates increased open-mindedness exhibited by individuals in a deliberative mind-set, it does not examine whether this open-mindedness influences subsequent decisions. The current research aims to address this gap.
The Moderating Role of Deliberative Mind-Sets on Informational Influence
Drawing from the cognitive features of the deliberative mind-set, we theorize that informational influence will be greater for consumers in a deliberative versus neutral mind-set. One may argue that consumers should generally be open to any available information that might inform their decision making (Bettman 1979) and informational influence should be prevalent regardless of mind-set (Cialdini 2007). However, consumers often choose to discount information that does not support their preexisting preferences (Ahluwalia 2000), such as their desire to spend rather than save (Bearden and Etzel 1982; Frederick, Loewenstein, and O’Donoghue 2002; Loewenstein 1996). Hence, informational influence of high savings information may not be as strong among consumers not in a deliberative mind-set. Yet, as noted earlier, information should receive greater attention and processing when consumers are in a deliberative mind-set, which is characterized by greater open-mindedness to all information for each considered goal, even information that contradicts one’s favored beliefs or plans. We argue that it is the open-mindedness uniquely triggered by the deliberative mind-set that increases the impact of high savings SI. In sum, we predict that:
We test our predictions in four studies. Study 1 asks consumers to make a personally relevant savings decision after reading a financial services brochure that contains subtle mind-set and SI manipulations, conducting a realistic test of Hypothesis 1. Additionally, this study examines the role of open-mindedness via consumers’ self-report of open-minded thinking when making their savings decision. Study 2 provides further evidence that it is the open-mindedness associated with the deliberative mind-set that drives these effects by establishing that SI memory performance mediates the impact of the deliberative mind-set prime on savings allocation for participants exposed to high savings SI. Study 3 examines the moderating role of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989) and provides further evidence for the proposed underlying open-mindedness process by examining the mediating role of SI-based thoughts. Finally, Study 4 replicates our effects of deliberative mind-sets using savings-relevant choices involving real money and providing SI referring to dissimilar others (German consumers). This study also shows that the effects are stronger for myopically focused consumers, who generally fail to consider the long-term implications of their actions and are more likely to focus on immediate spending desires and discount savings information.
Study 1
Study 1 seeks to provide a realistic test of our theorizing by asking consumers to make a personally relevant savings decision after reading a financial services brochure that contains subtle mind-set and SI manipulations, which could be used by financial services firms. We use a diverse group of American consumers with varying socioeconomic characteristics, but all of whom currently have the option to contribute to a 401(k) or related retirement savings account (e.g., 403b, 457b) through their employer. Additionally, consistent with American consumers’ current exposure to low savings SI, we include both a low savings information condition and a control condition that contains no savings information, to provide a baseline against which to compare the deliberative mind-set-induced increase in informational influence of high savings SI. We anticipate that providing low savings information will have similar effects to providing no savings information, since, as discussed earlier, consumers are already exposed to information regarding low savings and they might draw upon it when no savings information is provided. Finally, we test Hypothesis 2 by providing initial evidence of our proposed open-mindedness process.
Design and Procedure
A total of 225 adult participants from an online panel completed the study for a small payment. 3 The study has a 3 (social information: high savings, control—no information, low savings) × 2 (mind-set: deliberative vs. neutral) between-subject design. All participants currently had a taxable income with an employer who is offering a tax-deferred retirement savings plans such as a 401k, 403b, or 457b. At the beginning of the survey, participants indicated the annual amount they were currently saving (M = US$2,271, SD = US$2,530; participants who did not know that information were given the opportunity to look up their current savings). Next, all participants were asked to review a brochure from a financial services firm we designed for the purposes of this study, with each participant randomly assigned to view one of the six brochures, depending on the condition (see Appendix). Following the brochure, participants indicated how much of their pretax income they would save in the coming year and responded to the measures of open-mindedness, control variables, manipulation checks, and demographic characteristics.
Measures and Manipulations
Mind-set manipulation
Consistent with prior research, participants were randomly assigned to either the deliberative or neutral mind-set prime (Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen 2007). To increase the realism of the task, as well as the practical implications for services firms, we created a realistic savings-relevant deliberative mind-set prime that financial services firms can actually use and embedded it in the financial brochure (see Appendix; Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989; Nenkov, Inman, and Hulland 2008). Specifically, the brochure included a section titled “Deliberating on the Pros and Cons of Saving” that emphasized the importance of thinking about the personal consequences of contributing money to a retirement plan and asked participants to take a moment to think about the pros and cons of contributing. After viewing the brochure, participants were asked to list four positive consequences of saving money and four negative consequences of not saving money and to estimate the likelihood of each consequence occurring. Participants in the neutral mind-set condition did not see the mind-set prime section of the brochure or list any consequences of savings. To check the effectiveness of the mind-set manipulation we conducted a pretest (N = 72; 3 items assessing the distinct cognitive features of the deliberative mind-set: cognitive tuning toward information relevant to making goal decisions, unbiased inferences, and open-mindedness; Gollwitzer 2011; α = .82; see Appendix for items). Results revealed that participants in the deliberative versus neutral mind-set condition scored significantly higher on these items (M deliberative = 5.90; M neutral = 5.36), t(70) = 2.09, p < .05, suggesting that the mind-set manipulation works as intended.
SI
Participants in the high (low) savings SI condition saw a section in the brochure titled “Recent Study on Savings,” which provided information about a recent study on retirement savings rates that revealed that the average American consumer contributes US$14,000 (US$2,000) annually toward their retirement plan. The control condition also described a recent study on retirement savings rates but did not contain a statistic regarding the savings behavior of the average American consumer (see Appendix).
Savings
After viewing the brochure information, participants were asked to consider how much of their pretax income, between US$0 and US$17,500, they planned to save this coming year. The upper limit represents the 2013 annual elective deferral (contribution) limit set by the federal government for employees who participate in 401(k)-type of retirement plans.
Open-mindedness
To assess the extent to which participants were open-minded when determining their savings for the coming year, we used 2 items from Stanovich and West’s 10-item Flexible Thinking Scale (1997). We selected these 2 items because they specifically pertain to open-mindedness as they regard willingness to consider evidence contradictory to beliefs and willingness to consider alternative opinions and explanations, “When making the savings decision, I took into consideration evidence that went against my beliefs,” and “I considered new possibilities when making the savings decision” (r = .43, p < .01; 7-point Likert-type scale; 1 = not at all to 7 = very much so).
Control variables
We considered several control variables. In addition to prior savings, 4 reported earlier, we assessed the time spent on the savings decision as an objective indicator of cognitive effort, uncertainty about the right amount of one’s income to save, financial knowledge, and the credibility of the provided SI. See Appendix for complete items.
Results
Manipulation Check
We assessed the manipulation of SI in the main study. To confirm that the US$14,000 (US$2,000) saving amount in the high (low) savings SI condition was perceived to be higher (lower) than participants’ perceptions about the average savings of American consumers, at the end of the study participants in the high and low savings SI condition were asked to indicate how the amount that the brochure stated the average American consumer saves (US$14,000 or US$2,000) compared to what they thought the average American consumer actually saves (1 = much lower, 4 = same, and 7= much higher). Results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with SI (high savings vs. low savings), mind-set (deliberative vs. neutral), and their interaction as independent variables revealed only a main effect of SI, F(3, 141) = 69.00, p < .001. Specifically, participants in the high savings SI perceived the reported savings amount to be higher than those in the low savings SI condition (M = 5.64 vs. 3.47), t(143) = 8.48, p < .05. More importantly, participants in the high SI condition perceived the reported savings amount to be significantly higher than the scale midpoint of 4, t(77)= 8.77, p < .01; participants in the low SI condition perceived the reported savings amount to be significantly lower than the scale midpoint of 4, t(66) = 2.99, p < .01. Thus, participants perceived the high (low) savings amount to be higher (lower) than their perceptions of the average American consumers’ savings, as intended.
We also asked participants how believable they found the information in the retirement savings brochure (1 = not believable and 7 = believable). Although we note that low SI (US$2,000) was more believable to participants than high SI, US$14,000; M low = 5.56 vs. M high = 4.91, t(143) = 2.99, p < .01, importantly, both the high SI and low SI savings amounts were believable to participants as low SI and high SI means were higher than the scale midpoint of 4, M low = 5.56, t(77) = 12.42, p < .0001; M high = 4.91, t(66) = 4.92, p < .0001. Thus, the SI manipulations worked as intended.
Savings
Hypothesis 1 proposes that the deliberative mind-set will enhance informational influence of high savings SI relative to a neutral mind-set. To test this hypothesis, we ran an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on participants’ savings with SI (high saving, control, and low savings), mind-set (deliberative vs. neutral), and their interaction as independent variables, F(7, 217) = 14.17, p < .0001. We controlled for the amount that participants reported they are saving prior to the study as well as for their financial knowledge. 5 Both prior savings, F(1, 217) = 51.77, p < .001, and financial knowledge were significant, F(1, 217) = 9.61, p < .01. SI was significant, F(2, 217) = 6.97, p < .01, but mind-set was not significant, F(1, 217) = 1.32, not statistically significant (NS). Importantly, as predicted, we found a significant two-way interaction between SI and mind-set prime, F(2, 217) = 3.76, p < .05. SI did not have a significant impact on savings in the neutral mind-set condition, M high SI= US$7,649; M no SI = US$7,750; t(217) = .09, NS; M lowSI = US$5,946, t(217) = 1.61, p = .11; t low vs. no SI(217) = 1.80, p = .07. In contrast, for those primed with a deliberative mind-set, the high savings SI led to significantly higher savings as compared to the control SI condition, M high SI = US$10,686; M no SI = US$6,423; t(217) = 3.66, p < .01, as well as compared to the low SI condition, M low SI = US$6,484, t(217) = 3.43, p < .01. There was no difference between the low SI and control SI condition, t(217) = .05, NS. These results support Hypothesis 1 and are illustrated in Table 1.
Summary of Results.
Note. SI = social information; CSII = Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence–Informational; CFC-I = Consideration of Future Consequences–Immediate. Different superscripts indicate means are significantly different at p < .05.
Mediated moderation of open-mindedness
To test Hypothesis 2 regarding the mediating role of open-mindedness in the deliberative mind-set, we examined mediated moderation of open-minded thinking using bootstrapping (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007). In the neutral mind-set, SI did not have a significant impact on open-mindedness (M high SI = 3.64; M no SI = 3.69; M low SI = 3.58, ps > .50) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the conditional indirect effect of SI on savings through open-mindedness contained zero (neutral mind-set: −243.77 to 253.60), not supporting mediation. In contrast, for those primed with a deliberative mind-set, the high savings SI led to significantly greater open-mindedness as compared to the control SI condition (M high SI = 4.74; M no SI = 3.53), t(219) = 3.63, p < .01, as well as compared to the low SI condition (M low SI = 3.80), t(219) = 2.67, p < .01. Consistent with this difference, the 95% CI for the conditional indirect effect of SI on savings through open-mindedness did not contain zero (deliberative mind-set: −1,153.37 to −16.94). Thus, in support of Hypothesis 2, we conclude that open-minded thinking mediated the effect of SI under a deliberative mind-set but not under a neutral mind-set.
Discussion
Study 1 provides evidence that high savings SI can lead to increased savings in a realistic savings decision of actual employees who have the opportunity to contribute to a tax-deferred retirement savings plan. Importantly, the effect only occurred for high (and not low) savings SI considered in a deliberative mind-set, supporting Hypothesis 1. These results suggest that the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set may significantly increase informational influence that would otherwise be limited when consumers have desires to behave otherwise (i.e., to spend rather than save). That is, consumers faced with low savings SI, which is consistent with their current desires to spend and presents fewer conflicts, are less influenced by the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set. Indeed, self-reported open-minded thinking mediated the effect of SI on savings under a deliberative mind-set, supporting Hypothesis 2.
Notably, for participants in the neutral mind-set condition providing low savings information resulted in marginally lower savings as compared to providing no savings information. These results suggest that unless consumers are in a deliberative mind-set, they may be susceptible to informational influence from the low savings SI prevalent in the media. Because saving less money is “easy” and does not conflict with spending desires, the open-mindedness of a deliberative mind-set is not needed for informational influence to occur. We conclude that the deliberative mind-set is effective when consumers need to be open-minded to the SI (i.e., high savings SI, which conflicts with spending desires). Since the current research is concerned with methods for increasing, rather than decreasing, consumer savings, we focus on the effects of high savings SI in subsequent studies.
Study 2
Study 2 seeks to replicate the results of Study 1 with two key differences. First, to enhance internal validity, in the studies that follow we employ the traditional mind-set priming manipulations that have been extensively used in the literature for more than two decades (e.g., Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989). Second, we utilize a different operationalization of open-mindedness to provide additional support for Hypothesis 2. Greater open-mindedness is linked to higher processing speed of available information (i.e., faster recognition memory performance; Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen 2007), so that the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set should be evidenced through faster response times when recalling SI to which consumers were exposed. Following this past research, we study both memory speed and recall accuracy of SI to provide an additional test of the role of open-mindedness. Consistent with Study 1, this study presents the high savings SI via a financial brochure on 401(k) contributions and tests this realistic presentation on a diverse group of American consumers with varying socioeconomic characteristics.
Design and Procedure
American consumers from an online panel 6 (N = 318) received a small payment for participation in an online experiment on decision making. The study has a 2 (SI: high savings vs. control—no information) × 2 (mind-set: deliberative vs. neutral) between-subject design. Participants were informed they would be participating in two short studies—one containing a decision-making exercise and one containing a financial decision scenario. First respondents completed the mind-set prime. Then, participants were directed to a second unrelated study where they were asked to make a decision about participating in a 401(k) plan. They were presented with a financial brochure, which contained general facts about 401(k) plans as well as SI regarding consumers’ retirement contributions. After reading this information, participants were asked to imagine they had the opportunity to participate in a 401(k) plan being offered by their employer and indicated how much money they would like to contribute to the plan. Finally, we collected open-mindedness measures based on memory performance, and demographic information (age, gender, income, education, accumulated retirement savings to date, socioeconomic status, employment status, current 401(k) participation), as well as financial knowledge, to use as control variables.
Measures and Manipulations
Mind-set manipulation
Participants were randomly assigned to either the deliberative or neutral mind-set prime. We employed standard mind-set prime manipulations (e.g., Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989). The deliberative mind-set prime asked participants to choose an unresolved personal problem of present concern, list the positive and negative consequences of pursuing or not pursuing this problem, and assess the likelihood that each of these consequences will occur (for a detailed description of the manipulation, see, e.g., Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989). The neutral mind-set prime entailed describing one’s typical daily morning and afternoon activities (e.g., Garg, Inman, and Mittal 2005). A pretest (N = 58; manipulation check items from Study 1; α = .79) confirmed that, as expected, participants in the deliberative (vs. neutral) mind-set condition scored higher on the mind-set manipulation check (M = 5.62 vs. M = 4.88), t(56) = 3.04, p < .01.
SI
Participants were presented with a financial brochure that contained general information about 401(k) plans (e.g., defined contribution retirement plans offered by a company to its employees; maximum amount you are allowed to contribute is US$16,500, which represents the 2011 annual elective deferral (contribution) limit set by the federal government; money you put into a 401(k) is not taxed by the federal government until you take it out at retirement and would be matched by your employer at 100%). Participants then read the following information, based on their condition: A recent study by the Employee Benefits Institute examined retirement saving rates for consumers in the USA. The report revealed that retirement savings of Americans have gone up recently and are now quite high. Specifically, the average American consumer now contributes US$14,000 annually towards their retirement plan. (In the no SI condition, the prior two sentences were replaced with the following: The report revealed that, compared to recommendations about the amount of savings one needs for retirement and other large expenses during one’s life, some respondents’ savings were on track, while others were not).
Retirement savings allocation
Savings were measured by asking participants to indicate how much money between US$0 and US$16,500 they would like to contribute to their 401(k) plan.
Open-mindedness
To provide a different assessment of open-mindedness as the mechanism underlying the effect of the deliberative mind-set, we follow Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen (2007), who used memory performance as an indicator of open-mindedness. We measured SI memory performance in two ways—via recall accuracy and recall response latencies. We asked participants to think back to the information they read earlier, about how much the average American consumer contributes to their retirement plan and indicate that amount. The online survey was set up to measure recall response latencies. To measure recall accuracy, we calculated whether participants indicated the right amount of US$14,000 (1) or not (0).
Results
Retirement Savings Allocations
To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted an ANOVA on participants’ retirement saving allocations, which included the main effects of SI (high savings vs. control) and mind-set (deliberative vs. neutral) as well as the two-way interaction between these two factors, F(3, 314) = 2.61, p = .05. 7 The main effect for the SI was significant F(1, 314) = 3.83, p < .05, but the mind-set effect was not F(1, 314) = .95, NS. Importantly, a significant two-way interaction between the SI and mind-set conditions emerged F(1, 314) = 4.48, p < .05. Further examination revealed that the high savings SI did not have a significant impact on retirement saving allocations in the neutral mind-set condition (M high SI = US$8,560; M no SI = US$8,667), t(316) = −.12, NS. In contrast, when a deliberative mind-set was primed, providing high savings SI lead to significantly higher retirement saving allocations as compared to the no SI condition (M high SI = US$10,760; M no SI = US$7,860), t(316) = 2.63, p < .01. These results fully support Hypothesis 1 and are illustrated in Table 1.
Open-mindedness
To further test Hypothesis 2, we examine participants’ SI memory performance to determine whether SI recall accuracy and response latency differ across mind-set conditions and whether they mediate the effect of the deliberative mind-set on retirement savings allocations. Since there was no SI information in the control SI condition (and therefore no possibility of recalling it), we focus exclusively on participants in the high saving SI condition (n = 161). We conducted a log transformation on the recall response latency variable and ran an ANOVA on the log transformed variable with mind-set condition as the independent variable. Results revealed a marginally significant main effect of mind-set condition F(3, 157) = 3.43, p < .06. Specifically, participants in the deliberative mind-set condition recalled the SI significantly faster than those in the neutral mind-set condition (8.30 seconds vs. 10.43 8 seconds, respectively, t(159) = 2.07, p < .05). However, bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes 2004) did not support mediation for response latency, since zero was included in the CI (95% CI [−.07, .78]).
We then ran an ANOVA on accurate recall of the SI, with mind-set as the independent variable. Results revealed a significant main effect of mind-set condition F(3, 157) = 4.97, p < .05. As expected, a greater percentage of participants in the deliberative mind-set recalled the correct SI as compared to those in the neutral mind-set (79% vs. 62%, respectively), t(159) = 2.23, p < .05. Bootstrapping results revealed that recall accuracy mediates the effect of deliberative mind-set on savings allocation (95% CI [.04, 1.15]). These results support Hypothesis 2 and provide additional insight into the process through which deliberative mind-sets enhance informational influence on savings. 9
Discussion
These results provide additional evidence that, due to its open-mindedness, the deliberative mind-set increases the effects of informational influence on consumers’ savings allocations. Hypothesis 2 is supported by consumers in the deliberative mind-set exhibiting faster recall and greater accuracy of high savings SI. Next, we provide further process evidence by examining whether the effect of the deliberative mind-set enhancing high savings informational influence is attenuated for consumers who are naturally open to SI.
Study 3
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, we provide further evidence for our proposed underlying open-mindedness process. Prior research has linked open-mindedness to enhanced capacity to process available information (i.e., broader working memory span; Heckhausen and Gollwitzer 1987), which suggests that deliberative mind-set participants should have a greater number of SI-based thoughts regarding the provided SI. Following this past research, we study spontaneous thought streams to provide an additional test of the role of open-mindedness.
Second, we examine the moderating role of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, which allows us to test our proposed process through moderation rather than measured mediation alone (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong 2005). If priming a deliberative mind-set increases the impact of informational influence on savings due to greater open-mindedness to SI, then the extent to which consumers naturally differ in their open-mindedness to such interpersonal information should influence the impact of the deliberative mind-set on their reaction to high savings SI. To examine this, we employ Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel’s (1989) Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence (hereafter, CSII) scale, which has been found to impact robust consumer phenomena including investment transactions (Hoffman and Broekhuizen 2009). We focus specifically on the second dimension of the CSII scale, which captures susceptibility to informational influence. We theorize that the informational dimension of CSII scale will moderate the impact of the deliberative mind-set on the effect of informational influence. Specifically, we propose that the effect of the deliberative mind-set on informational influence will be attenuated for individuals who are highly susceptible to interpersonal informational influence (higher informational CSII), since these individuals are likely to be open-minded to SI regardless of their mind-set. In contrast, the deliberative mind-set should enhance open-mindedness to SI for consumers who would otherwise not be susceptible to this type of information (lower informational CSII). Thus,
Design and Procedure
A total of 190 undergraduate students (42% female) participated in a 2 (SI: high savings vs. control—no information) × 2 (mind-set: deliberative vs. neutral) between-subject design study, with informational CSII measured as a continuous individual difference variable. Upon arrival at the behavioral laboratory, participants were informed they would be participating in a variety of short studies. First, respondents read a scenario about an internship and were asked to make initial savings allocations, that is, to allocate a portion of their internship income to savings. Respondents then completed the mind-set prime. Next, participants received information regarding the average college student savings in the high saving SI condition (no information in the control SI condition) and were asked to make final savings allocations and indicate any thoughts they had regarding their savings allocation. This design allows us to examine the effect of high saving SI after an initial savings decision has already been made. Finally, participants completed the CSII scale and control and demographic measures.
Measures and Manipulations
Initial savings allocation
First, participants imagined they had a summer internship with a salary of US$2,000 per month after taxes. They were told to assume they would not get additional money from their parents and had decided to make a monthly budget. After budgeting for rent and utilities, car and insurance payments, cell phone bills, and groceries, they were told they would have US$550 remaining each month to use for other things such as savings, clothing, and entertainment. Then, participants indicated how much of the remaining US$550 they would save. The average initial savings allocation was US$213.24 (SD = US$93.05), which is included as a control variable.
Mind-set manipulation
Next, participants completed either the deliberative or neutral mind-set prime. Deliberative mind-set prime was the same as Study 2, except that the prime was relevant to the decision task (savings) and asked participants to consider the positive and negative outcomes of saving money (Nenkov, Inman, and Hulland 2008). The neutral mind-set prime was identical to Study 2. A pretest (N = 49; manipulation check items from prior studies: α = .83) confirmed that, as expected, participants in the deliberative (vs. neutral) mind-set condition scored higher on the mind-set manipulation check, M = 5.53 vs. M = 4.87, t(47) = 1.98, p = .05.
SI
After completing the mind-set prime, participants in the high saving SI condition read a newspaper article. The article described the spending and saving behavior of 1,000 college interns with salaries similar to their summer internship salary. The article stated that the average amount college students saved was US$450 per month. 10 Participants in the control SI condition proceeded directly to the final savings allocation task.
Final savings allocation
After reading the newspaper article, participants reevaluated their budget and allocated a portion of their remaining US$550 to savings, which was our dependent variable.
Open-mindedness
Immediately after reporting their final savings allocation, we collected thought protocols where participants explained their final savings allocation. Two student workers, unaware of the hypotheses, coded participants’ thoughts as either mentioning the SI (1) or not mentioning the SI (0). Correlation between raters was r = .85. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Examples of SI-based thoughts are, “It makes me feel bad that I intended to spend more than average college interns” and “If everyone else is saving a lot more (US$450), then they won’t have as much money to go out either, so I might as well save more too.”
CSII
We measured Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel’s (1989) CSII scale. The 4 items for the informational dimension were averaged to create a score (α = .72). Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Results
Final Savings Allocation
To test Hypothesis 3, we conducted an ANCOVA on savings allocations with SI (high savings vs. control), mind-set (deliberative vs. neutral), CSII, and all two-way and the three-way interaction as independent variables and initial savings allocation as a covariate. The effects of SI, F(1, 181) = 12.62, p < .01, and initial savings allocation were significant F(1, 181) = 250.95, p < .01. There were also significant two-way interactions between SI and deliberative mind-set, F(1, 181) = 4.83, p < .05, and SI and CSII, F(1, 181) = 8.49, p < .05. Importantly, the three-way interaction was also significant F(1, 181) = 4.31, p < .05. To examine the pattern of the interaction, we examined the two-way interaction at high and low levels of CSII (± 1 SD; Aiken and West 1991). When CSII was low, the two-way interaction of SI and mind-set was significant, F(1, 181) = 8.91, p < .01. Specifically, when participants were in a deliberative mind-set, the effect of SI was significant, F(1, 181) = 12.96, p < .01. In contrast, when participants were in a neutral mind-set, high savings SI did not influence savings, F(1, 181) = .99, NS. When CSII was high, the two-way interaction of SI and mind-set was not significant, F(1, 181) = 0.01, NS, such that SI increased savings regardless of mind-set. These results fully support Hypothesis 3 and are illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Study 3: Moderating role of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Informational Influence.
Mediated moderation of open-mindedness
To test Hypothesis 2, we examine participants’ thought protocols regarding the SI. Since there was no SI in the control condition (and therefore no possibility of thinking about it), we focus exclusively on participants in the high saving SI condition. We examined mediated moderation of SI-based thoughts using bootstrapping (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007). When CSII was low (−1 SD) or average, the 95% CI for the conditional indirect effect of deliberative mind-set on savings allocation did not contain zero (low CSII: 1.65–37.94; average CSII: 1.14–27.09). In contrast, when CSII was high (+1 SD), the 95% CI for the conditional indirect effect of deliberative mind-set on savings allocation contained zero (high CSII: −2.94 to 23.98). Thus, in support of mediated moderation, we conclude that SI-based thoughts mediated the effect of mind-set when CSII was low or average, but not when CSII was high, since these participants naturally considered the SI.
Discussion
This study extends our findings to internship income savings rather than retirement savings, replicating our effects for savings decisions that are relatively short-term, such as saving a percentage of one’s paycheck for unexpected expenses. Furthermore, the role of deliberative mind-set on conformity to high saving SI is greater for those with low CSII, who do not naturally tend to incorporate information from others in their decisions. Additional support for Hypothesis 2 is evidenced by low CSII consumers in a deliberative mind-set listing more thoughts regarding the high saving SI, which mediated the effect of mind-set, increasing savings allocations. Thus, it is the increased open-minded consideration of SI, and not just increased attention to this information, that is increasing savings.
Study 4
Study 4 demonstrates that the effect of a deliberative mind-set on the impact of high savings SI extends to consumers’ savings-relevant choices involving real money, using a different measure of savings—temporal discounting, the intertemporal trade-off between a later larger reward and a sooner smaller reward. Many service decisions involve a choice between sequences of events occurring at different points in time (Hansen and Danaher 1999; Verhoef, Antonides, and de Hoog 2004). For example, when joining a gym, consumers must decide whether to make small monthly membership payments (US$30), amounting to a higher annual cost at the end of the year (US$360) or pay one larger lump-sum immediately for a lower total cost (US$300). More importantly, when deciding when to start drawing on social security retirement benefits, a worker can choose to retire earlier (as early as age 62) and receive up to 30% smaller benefits or retire later (e.g., at age 70) and receive much larger benefits. As such, it is important to understand consumers’ decisions in service contexts that offer the choice between incurring an immediate cost for immediate benefits or foregoing an immediate benefit in order to receive a larger reward in the future (i.e., temporal discounting).
In addition, this study shows that the uncovered effects of deliberative mind-sets occur even for SI regarding dissimilar others. Although prior research has demonstrated that social influence is stronger for information regarding similar rather than dissimilar others (e.g., Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008; Moschis 1976), if this is the case, the effects demonstrated in our previous studies may have limited practical implications. However, we argue that the open-mindedness that is characteristic of the deliberative mind-set will enhance the influence of SI even when the information regards dissimilar others. When in a deliberative mind-set, consumers should be open to any information that might potentially inform their decision making and be careful not to discount information prematurely as it may ultimately be useful in making good decisions (Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen 2007). As such, deliberative mind-sets should be associated with enhanced receptivity to all sources of information, even if they are not directly relevant to the decision maker, as is the case for SI about dissimilar others. Identifying the deliberative mind-set as a factor enhancing the impact of SI about dissimilar others not only contributes to the social influence literature but also has important implications for financial services firms and policy makers seeking to employ this method to increase consumers’ savings or promote other beneficial service behaviors by providing information regarding consumers from other countries or different demographic backgrounds.
Importantly, this study also establishes that the uncovered positive effects of deliberative mind-sets on the impact of high savings SI are stronger for myopically focused (vs. farsighted) individuals. Consumers with a myopic focus tend to focus on the immediate implications of their behavior (e.g., enjoyment from spending money) rather than long-term consequences (e.g., accumulating savings; Strathman et al. 1994). We assess the extent to which consumers differ in their tendency to focus on the immediate rather than future consequences of their behavior by employing the Consideration of Future Consequences–Immediate (hereafter, CFC-I; Joireman et al. 2008; Strathman et al. 1994) scale. Recent research has revealed that consumers with a greater immediate consequences focus (i.e., CFC-I) exhibit lower levels of self-control and tend to engage in more temporal discounting (i.e., tend to prefer smaller, immediate rewards relative to larger, delayed rewards; Joireman et al. 2008). Indeed, remaining myopically focused on the present is one of the most common reasons why consumers fail in self-control and find themselves acting counter to their future goals (Baumeister 2002). Since myopic consumers are focused on the immediate implications of their behavior, they should be most likely to discount high savings information. Thus, we theorize that these consumers will be more strongly influenced by high savings SI in a deliberative mind-set because they will only be open to considering the benefits of saving for the future when they experience the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set. In contrast, farsighted consumers, who tend to have higher self-control (Joireman et al. 2008), may naturally save regardless of SI and mind-set. Thus:
Design and Procedure
A total of 92 American undergraduate students (44% female) completed the study for course credit. The study is a 2 (SI: high savings vs. control—no information) × 2 (mind-set: deliberative vs. neutral) between-subject design with CFC-I measured as a continuous individual difference variable. Upon arrival at the behavioral laboratory, participants were informed they would participate in a variety of short studies. Respondents then completed the mind-set prime. Following the mind-set manipulation, participants were informed they would have a chance to win a gift card for their research participation. For the gift card lottery, participants were given a choice between a small gift card (US$50) that they would receive immediately versus a larger, delayed gift card (US$75), which they can receive at the end of the semester. This served as the dependent variable. Participants received SI regarding what German college students preferred. 11 After reading this information, participants indicated their gift card choice. Next, participants completed the CFC scale (Strathman et al. 1994) and were debriefed. One participant was randomly selected to receive their gift card choice.
Measures and Manipulations
Mind-set manipulation
The deliberative and neutral mind-set manipulations were the same as those used in Study 2.
SI. Participants in the high savings information condition were given the following information: “In a recent study conducted by a coresearcher in Germany, 90% of the German college students preferred to wait until the end of the semester to receive a larger amount gift card.” Participants in the control saving information condition did not receive any information regarding gift card choice.
Temporal discounting
We used temporal discounting as a measure of savings. An intertemporal trade-off between a later larger reward and a sooner smaller reward is a particularly appropriate context in which to capture consumers’ actual savings preferences since such trade-offs have been widely applied as a model of self-control conflict between nearsighted (e.g., spending) and farsighted (e.g., saving) goals (Bartels and Urminsky 2011; Frederick, Loewenstein, and O’Donoghue 2002). Specifically, participants were asked to choose either a US$50 gift card next week or a US$75 gift card at the end of the semester if they won the lottery. Gift card choice served as the dependent variable, with choice of the larger delayed gift card indicating greater preference for savings. Participants were informed that their choice would not influence whether they won, as the winning survey number would be drawn without looking at the respondents’ choices. As such, the choice is incentive compatible and should reflect real preferences for delaying gratification to obtain a larger financial reward later, consistent with the nature of saving money.
CFC-I
We measured the 7 items in the CFC-I scale on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic to 7 = extremely characteristic; Joireman et al. 2008) and averaged them to create a score (α = .84).
Results
Gift Card Choice
To test Hypothesis 4, we conducted a logistic regression on gift card choice, with mind-set (deliberative vs. neutral), SI (high vs. control—no information), CFC-I (measured as a continuous variable), and the two-way and three-way interactions between them as independent variables. The results show a significant effect of CFC-I on gift card choice, b = −.61, Wald χ2(1) = 4.03, p < .05, such that as CFC-I increased individuals were less likely to choose the larger delayed gift card. We find the two-way interaction of mind-set and SI is marginally significant, b = −2.01, Wald χ2(1) = 3.03, p < .08. More importantly, the three-way interaction is significant, b = .62, Wald χ2(1) = 4.19, p < .05 (see Figure 2). Further analysis examined the pattern of the three-way interaction. We assessed the two-way interaction of mind-set and SI at high and low levels of CFC-I (± 1 SD). When CFC-I was low (i.e., among farsighted consumers), the two-way interaction was not significant, b = −.38, Wald χ2(1) = .92, NS. This finding suggests that farsighted consumers do not need a deliberative mind-set and high savings SI to engage in high savings since they naturally consider future consequences and are more likely to save. In contrast, when CFC-I was high (i.e., among myopic consumers), the two-way interaction was significant, b = .74, Wald χ2(1) = 4.82, p < .05. Specifically, when participants were in a neutral mind-set, there was no effect of SI on gift card choice, b = −.82, Wald χ2(1) = 1.93, NS. In contrast, when participants were in a deliberative mind-set, high savings information increased the likelihood of choosing the larger, delayed gift card, b = 1.01, Wald χ2(1) = 3.66, p < .05. This pattern of results, illustrated in Figure 2, is consistent with Hypothesis 4, which asserts that the effects of the deliberative mind-set on the informational influence of high savings SI is stronger for myopically focused consumers who are otherwise likely to discount savings information due to their focus on immediate consequences.
Study 4: Moderating role of Immediate Consequences Focus (CFC-I).
Discussion
This study extends the effect of the deliberative mind-set on enhancing the impact of high savings SI to information regarding dissimilar others. Moreover, the results are found for actual savings behavior examined through temporal discounting (an operationalization of savings preferences that entails an intertemporal trade-off between a later larger reward and a sooner smaller reward, a conflict that lies at the heart of savings and many other well-being-enhancing decisions). Thus, the uncovered effects of deliberative mind-sets on the impact of high savings SI are consequential as they impact consumers’ savings choices that entail real money. In addition, this study shows that this effect is stronger for consumers who have a chronic tendency to consider the immediate rather than delayed consequences of their decisions. This finding is significant as it suggests that the deliberative mind-set has the potential to help myopically focused consumers who otherwise may find it more difficult to save money.
General Discussion
Online environments and new media provide many opportunities for service customers to observe and learn about the behaviors of others (Libai et al. 2010), a trend that calls for a better understanding of the role of social, and specifically, informational influence in the service domain. Merging extant literature in social influence and action phase mind-sets, the current research theorizes that the open-mindedness associated with the deliberative mind-set can increase the impact of informational influence on service decisions that enhance consumer well-being. In four studies, we provide consistent and robust support for this framework in the context of consumer savings, including both short- and long-term savings decisions, when presenting the SI in various ways (e.g., a financial brochure, a newspaper article), when using both hypothetical savings and real choices, and different deliberative mind-set priming procedures (general and issue-specific situational primes), as well as when providing SI regarding both similar and dissimilar others. Current findings show that the deliberative mind-set attenuated the need for source similarity for informational influence, since the influence of SI was enhanced under the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set regardless of whether the high savings information pertained to dissimilar or similar others. Moreover, the underlying process of increased open-mindedness in a deliberative mind-set is supported using several different measures drawn from past literature—self-report of open-minded thinking, recognition memory speed and accuracy, and spontaneous thought streams. Furthermore, the effect of the deliberative mind-set on informational influence is (1) attenuated for individuals who are highly susceptible to informational social influence, since these individuals are open to SI regardless of their mind-set and (2) stronger for myopic (vs. farsighted) consumers who are the most likely to discount savings information.
Theoretical Contributions
Taken together, these findings make several important theoretical contributions. Although research has long recognized the significant effects of SI (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Cialdini and Trost 1998), informational influence has received relatively limited attention (Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). This research contributes to the service literature by identifying the potential of informational influence to help service firms encourage beneficial decisions (i.e., savings) for which informational influence might not otherwise occur because of conflicting desires (i.e., spend vs. save).
Additionally, the current research contributes to the mind-set theory of action phases (Gollwitzer 2011) by extending the literature on the deliberative mind-set beyond the analysis of its cognitive features to examine its effects on informational influence, a variable that has not been related to deliberation before. In doing so, we contribute to an emerging stream of research studying the effects of action phase mind-sets on behavior (Chandran and Morwitz 2005; Cheema and Patrick 2008; Dhar, Huber, and Khan 2007). Although we compare the effects of the deliberative mind-set to a neutral mind-set, we verified that the demonstrated effect was robust when comparing deliberative and implemental mind-sets, 12 which is consistent with prior research, indicating that open-mindedness is uniquely characteristic of the deliberative mind-set (vs. both neutral and implemental mind-set; Fujita, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen 2007).
The current research also enhances our understanding of a well-established moderator of social influence, namely source similarity. Past research has extensively shown that social influence is greater for the behavior of similar versus dissimilar others (e.g., Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Moschis 1976). We demonstrate that the deliberative mind-set allows for enhanced influence of SI regardless of source similarity. This finding is particularly important, given that prevalent negative trends in developed countries (e.g., overspending, overeating, and excessive energy consumption) might be reinforced by the behavior of similar others. Moreover, the role of the deliberative mind-set in attenuating source similarity effects may be particularly important in service contexts. Research has found that consumers respond more positively to similar service agents (Aksoy, Bloom, Lurie, and Cooil 2006; Boshoff 2012), but the open-mindedness associated with the deliberative mind-set could overcome differences when similarity between the service agent and customer is not feasible. This possibility is an important area for future service research to explore.
Implications for Service Providers
The current research also offers practical implications for financial services firms providing retirement plans such as 401(k) or IRA and more generally for service firms in other domains mentioned earlier where beneficial decisions that can be guided by service firms’ programs and offerings have the potential to improve consumer well-being but conflict with consumer desires. For example, when new employees sign up for a 401(k) retirement plan, they are likely both hesitant to increase savings due to spending desires and uncertain of what constitutes an appropriate allocation. This uncertainty increases the opportunity for informational influence. According to our results, if financial services firm or human resource materials informed consumers or employees of the average savings rate for a select group of individuals with a higher savings rate (e.g., consumers with higher income or from other countries or employees of higher rank or longer job tenure), service customers would likely increase their savings in these retirement programs. Since our results are robust to situations where individuals have already established an initial savings decision (participants already had a 401(k) plan in Study 1 and made initial savings allocations in Study 3), firms could also leverage customer data to identify and contact individuals who are already enrolled but have below-average savings rates. Providing these individuals with high savings SI may spur them to increase their contributions.
Although we focused on savings and information from financial services firms, these results should hold for other service contexts, particularly when consumers have preexisting preferences and desires that are in conflict with the prevalent SI (e.g., exercise, health care, weight loss, debt management, and energy consumption). For example, health insurance companies and health care providers in the United States have started to implement numerous programs aimed at encouraging healthier lifestyles (e.g., Blue Cross Blue Shield, Wellness Profiles and Wellness Rewards, and Harvard Pilgrim Heath Care). Such programs should be beneficial for consumers, based on improved health and well-being, and for the companies, based on a reduction in health care costs. However, even with such program offerings, consumers may still have conflicting desires of unhealthy eating and little time for exercise and uncertainty regarding just what and how much of the recommended behaviors are necessary. Programs offered by these service organizations could utilize SI from groups of ideal health and, with the elicitation of a deliberative mind-set, consumers may be more open to the information these service firms provide and be more likely to adapt their behavior in a beneficial way.
Establishing that the deliberative mind-set, which is naturally activated when consumers are making a decision and deliberating between potential goals, has the potential to enhance the informational influence of SI regarding others’ beneficial decisions is particularly valuable as it provides managers and public policy makers with the opportunity to influence consumers who are in the process of making a decision, such as contributing to a 401(k) retirement plan or participating in a weight loss program. Beyond that, however, to ensure the effect of beneficial SI, a deliberative mind-set could be activated prior to the presentation of any SI via an external intervention that asks consumers to deliberate on the pros and cons of a decision. Such mind-set prime could be embedded in informational brochures as we did in Studies 1 and 3 or could occur during one-on-one discussions with financial, health care, or other service advisors. Moreover, with the increased use of interactive web services by service companies, the mind-set prime and SI could be incorporated into interactive online customer materials, smartphone applications, and social networking sites. Deliberative mind-sets might also be primed by incorporating a list of pros and cons into customer information rather than requiring individuals to generate this list themselves. By employing these methods for activating a deliberative mind-set, service companies can be champions of beneficial behaviors, like saving, benefitting individual consumers as well as service companies and the economy as a whole.
Implications for Public Policy Makers
Both government and independent agencies are concerned with the low savings rates and have attempted to educate consumers to change these trends. Yet, many such attempts at educating consumers have largely been futile ( The Wall Street Journal 2010). We propose that an alternative strategy may be to remedy the current widespread availability of low savings SI with high savings information. Public consumer agencies could leverage the upward trend in saving rates prompted by the financial crisis ( The Economist 2010) in attempts to incorporate high savings SI into campaigns. For example, a campaign tagline of “Who’s Saving More? The Average American is Saving More Than You Know” could motivate consumers to increase their savings. Coupling such SI campaigns with a deliberative mind-set prime (e.g., “Before you decide, think about where you want to be in 10 years”) is likely to further enhance consumer savings.
Since our results revealed that the deliberative mind-set promotes conformity to high savings information regarding dissimilar others, another possibility is to leverage information about the beneficial service behaviors in other cultures and nationalities. For example, financial services firms could provide high savings information about consumers in countries, which are historically characterized with higher savings rates than the United States (e.g., Germany or France; OECD 2013), a practice that is not common at present (American consumers [N = 46; see Note 1] reported rarely encountering information about how much consumers in other countries are saving, M = 2.28; 1= never and 7 = everyday). Also, to encourage healthier lifestyles, health care providers could provide information about consumers in some of the world’s healthiest countries, like Singapore or Australia (Bloomberg.com 2012).
Implications for consumers. The financial crisis has increased the focus of both researchers and practitioners on improving consumer financial health and well-being (Hansen 2012). By providing ways for service firms to employ informational influence to encourage beneficial service decisions, this research offers important implications for improving not only consumers’ financial well-being (e.g., Guo et al. 2013) but also their overall quality of life in terms of happiness and life satisfaction (e.g., Dagger and Sweeney 2006). As discussed earlier, current trends of low savings, overextensions of credit, and overall failure to adequately plan for one’s financial future have severe negative outcomes like bankruptcies, foreclosures, and a widespread inability to ensure secure and timely retirement. The financial stress associated with a lack of savings may also have substantial negative effects on consumers’ psychological state, given the established relationship between financial events and depression (Kendler and Karkowski-Shuman 1997). Moreover, current trends of overeating and unhealthy food choices ( The New York Times 2013) have dangerous consequences for consumers’ psychological, physical, emotional, and social food–related well-being (Block et al. 2011). Devising ways to promote higher savings or healthier lifestyles by informing consumers of the higher savings or healthier choices of others, both similar and dissimilar consumers, could serve as an important tool to reverse some of these negative outcomes.
Some service domains like financial or health care services, which require consumers to have the expertise and knowledge to make rather complex decisions, can put some consumers at a disadvantage (Anderson 2010). The effects uncovered in the current research have the potential to be especially useful for myopically focused consumers who are more likely to focus on immediate desires and discount beneficial savings or health information without the open-mindedness associated with a deliberative mind-set.
Future Research
Due to our focus on beneficial service decisions and to gain insight into an actionable positive savings intervention, we focused mainly on high savings SI in the current research since decreasing savings by offering low savings SI would not be beneficial for consumers. However, we had a low savings information condition in Study 1, which revealed that the effect of this low savings SI is independent of mind-set. We believe this null effect of mind-set for low savings information is consistent with our theorizing. We argue that for behaviors that are attractive in the present, but less beneficial in the long run (e.g., spending money, eating dessert, foregoing exercising or preventative health care visits, consuming energy, smoking, or procrastinating), the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set will not significantly increase informational influence. In other words, since low savings SI is not in conflict with current spending desires, consumers’ behaviors are not altered by the open-mindedness of the deliberative mind-set. Future research should further explore the extent to which conflicting desires need to be present for the effect of a deliberative mind-set to occur.
In conclusion, we demonstrate that the deliberative mind-set enhances informational influence, thereby increasing beneficial decisions that are often guided by consumers’ interaction with service firms and service offerings (i.e., savings). Although consumers tend to easily adjust their behavior based on normative influence (i.e., “Keeping Up with the Joneses”), financial services providers and public policy officials need to consider the impact of informational influence on consumers’ financial decisions, leading to “Saving Like the Joneses.”
Footnotes
Appendix
Authors’ Note
The authors contributed equally to the manuscript. The second author gratefully acknowledges financial support provided by Boston College. The authors thank Karen Stilley for helpful input during early stages of this research and Kay Lemon for feedback on the earlier versions of this manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
