There is a dearth of empirically supported theoretical explanation since its introduction; Feinberg's 1986 credit card effect showed greater product valuations and donation intentions by experimental participants when asked to make such estimates in the presence of credit card stimuli. This comment on McCall, Trombetta, and Gipe (2004) notes potential flaws and adjudged over-interpretation of results in their attempt to replicate successfully and derive theoretical explanation for the credit card effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FeinbergR. A. (1986) Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A conditions interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 348–356.
2.
FeinbergR. A. (1990) The social nature of the classical conditions phenomena in people: A comment on Hunt, Florsheim, Chatterjee, and Kernan. Psychological Reports, 67, 331–334.
3.
HuntJ. M.FlorsheimR. A.ChatterjeeA.KernanJ. B. (1990) Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A test and extension of Feinberg's conditioning hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 67, 323–330.
4.
McCallM.TrombettaJ.GipeA. (2004) Credit cues and impression management: A preliminary attempt to explain the credit card effect. Psychological Reports, 95, 331–337.
5.
ShimpT. A.MoodyM. P. (2000) In search of a theoretical explanation for the credit card effect. Journal of Business Research, 48, 17–23.
