Automation is transforming many consumption domains, including everyday activities such as cooking or driving, as well as recreational activities like fishing or cycling. Yet little research in marketing examines consumer preferences for automated products. Automation often provides obvious consumption benefits, but six studies spanning a variety of product categories show that automation may not be desirable when identity motives are important drivers of consumption. Using both correlational and experimental designs, these studies demonstrate that people who strongly identify with a particular social category resist automated features that hinder the attribution of identity-relevant consumption outcomes to themselves. The findings have substantial theoretical implications for research on identity and technology, as well as managerial implications for targeting, product innovation, and communication.
AutorDavid H. (2015), “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (3), 3–30.
2.
BelkRussell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (9), 139–68.
3.
BemDaryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, BerkowitzLeonard, ed. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.
4.
BergerJonahHeathChip (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121–34.
5.
BlaunerRobert (1964), Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BodnerRonitPrelecDrazen (2003), “Self-Signaling and Diagnostic Utility in Everyday Decision Making,” in The Psychology of Economic Decisions, Vol. 1, BrocasIsabelleCarrilloJuan, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–26.
7.
BravermanHarry (1998), Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
8.
BrynjolfssonErikMcAfeeAndrew (2014), The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company.
9.
ChandlerJesse J.PaolacciGabriele (2017), “Lie for a Dime: When Most Prescreening Responses Are Honest but Most Study Participants Are Impostors,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8 (5), 500–508.
10.
ChengPatricia W.NovickLaura R. (1990), “A Probabilistic Contrast Model of Causal Induction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (4), 545–67.
11.
CutrightKeisha M.SamperAdriana (2014), “Doing It the Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-Effort Products and Services,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 730–45.
12.
DeshpandéRohitHoyerWayne D.DonthuNaveen (1986), “The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: A Study of the Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 214–20.
13.
DeshpandéRohitStaymanDouglas M. (1994), “A Tale of Two Cities: Distinctiveness Theory and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1), 57–64.
14.
EriksonKai (1986), “On Work and Alienation,” American Sociological Review, 51 (1), 1–8.
15.
EtkinJordan (2016), “The Hidden Cost of Personal Quantification,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 967–84.
16.
Faraji-RadA.MelumadS.JoharG. V. (2017), “Consumer Desire for Control as a Barrier to New Product Adoption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (3), 347–54
17.
FordMartin (2015). The Rise of the Robots, Technology and the Threat of Mass Unemployment. New York: Basic Books.
HayesAndrew F. (2012), PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. Available at:http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
20.
GuiotDenisRouxDominique (2010), “A Second-Hand Shoppers’ Motivation Scale: Antecedents, Consequences, and Implications for Retailers,” Journal of Retailing, 86 (4), 355–71.
21.
KhanUzmaDharRavi (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 259–66.
22.
LoewensteinGeorge (1999), “Because It Is There: The Challenge of Mountaineering…for Utility Theory,” Kyklos, 52 (3), 315–43.
23.
MarxKarl (1844), The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. London: Penguin Books.
24.
MenonTanyaMorrisMorris W.ChiuChi-YueHongYing-Yi (1999), “Culture and the Construal of Agency: Attribution to Individual Versus Group Dispositions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 701–17.
25.
MezulisAmy H.AbramsonLyn Y.HydeJanet S.HankinBenjamin L. (2004), “Is There a Universal Positivity Bias in Attributions? A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual, Developmental, and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias,” Psychological Bulletin, 130 (5), 711–47.
26.
MickDavid G.FournierSusan (1998), “Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (9), 123–43.
27.
MokyrJoelVickersChrisZiebarthNicolas L. (2015), “The History of Technological Anxiety and the Future of Economic Growth: Is this Time Different?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (3), 31–50.
28.
OysermanDaphna (2009a), “Identity-Based Motivation and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 276–9.
29.
OysermanDaphna (2009b), “Identity-Based Motivation: Implications for Action-Readiness, Procedural-Readiness, and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 250–60.
30.
ParasuramanRajaRileyVictor (1997), “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse,” Human Factors, 39 (2), 230–53.
31.
PeerEyalSamatSonamBrandimarteLauraAcquistiAlessandro (2016), “Beyond the Turk: An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Platforms for Crowdsourcing Online Behavioral Research,” Available athttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?%20abstract_id=2594183.].
32.
PuntoniStefanoSweldensStevenTavassoliNader T. (2011), “Gender Identity Salience and Perceived Vulnerability to Breast Cancer,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 413–24.
33.
ReedAmericusForehandMarkPuntoniStefano and WarlopLuk (2012), “Identity-Based Consumer Behavior,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 310–21.
34.
RifkinJeremy (1996), The End of Work. New York: Putnam.
35.
RiisJasonSimmonsJoseph P.GoodwinGeoffrey P. (2008), “Preferences for Enhancement Pharmaceuticals: The Reluctance to Enhance Fundamental Traits” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 495–508.
36.
StetsJan E.BurkePeter J.. (2000), “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 (3), 224–37.
Van OsselaerStijnRamanathanSureshCampbellMargaretCohenJoelDaleJeannetteHerrPaulJaniszewskiChrisKruglanskiArieLeeAngelaReadStephenEdward RussoJ.TavassoliNader (2005), “Choice Based on Goals,” Marketing Letters, 16 (3), 335–46.
39.
WeissLiadJoharGita V.. (2013), “Egocentric Categorization and Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own (and Their Opposite in What You Don’t),” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185–201.
40.
WilcoxKeithStephenAndrew T. (2013), “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 90–103.
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.
