Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Two types of attractive research: Cute research and beautiful research

2012; Elsevier BV; Volume: 22; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jcps.2012.05.005

1532-7663

C. Whan Park,

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics

When I assumed the Journal of Consumer Psychology's (JCP) editorship about 4 years ago, I thought about the academic journal's mission. JCP's mission—like that of other journals in marketing—is to foster the creation of knowledge and disseminate that knowledge to the academic and general public quickly. How to achieve this goal was one of my toughest tasks during my editorship. In this editorial I want to revisit this issue. In 2009, I proposed that we need to appreciate and promote the so-called “phenomenon-driven research.” I believed back then, and still do, that there are many areas in consumer psychology where we have very little understanding about the phenomenon and therefore are not ready to engage in hypothetico-deductive (or theory-driven) research. What we need is to have a better understanding about the phenomenon itself before we do any formal theory-driven research. To do so, we need to publish articles that only offer preliminary knowledge about the phenomenon. This was the basis on which I instituted the short article category (now called Research Reports) in JCP. Joe Alba (2011) in his ACR Fellow speech at Jacksonville, pleaded for us to stop an unfair discrimination against research approaches that are different from the hypothetico-deductive approach. He argued eloquently that the “how,” “when,” and “why” must be preceded by “what,” and we must first pay more attention to the “what.” In a nutshell, Alba argued that empirical observations in the absence of a formal theory should be encouraged and published in journals. This idea was also seconded by John Lynch who, in his same ACR Fellow's Address at Jacksonville emphasized the need to focus on research questions that originated in substantive (phenomenon-driven) domains (Lynch, 2011). He emphatically pointed out the value of “atheoretical” (substantive) empirical research, drawing our attention to its multiple benefits. Finally, a similar view was echoed by Lehmann, McAlister, and Staelin (2011), who proposed some directions to reestablish a better balance between rigor and relevance. There also appears to be a shared belief that many of our current published research articles are boring and incremental. Although we have made great progress in methodological and analytical rigor, it appears that we still have some serious problems with substantive consumer research. Considering the current problems we have, I believe that we may need a different solution to resolve these problems. Toward this end, I would like to draw your attention to the following two issues: (1) we need to appreciate and accept the existence of different types of new knowledge and (2) we also need to fully understand how different types of knowledge can complement each other, which in turn facilitate the rapid progress of creating new knowledge. It appears that in consumer psychology—as well as in other fields—we have two different types of new knowledge. One is more or less complete knowledge in the sense that the knowledge is theory-based, empirically verified, and contains reliable information about psychological effects and the underlying process behind those effects. Obviously, the goal of any good journal is to publish as many articles as possible that contain such complete, theory-based knowledge. The other type of new knowledge is incomplete knowledge in the sense that it may not be theoretically driven, but instead is largely derived from observations. Such incomplete knowledge may still be missing some elements related to causality and process explanations (see Alba, 2012 for several good examples). Nevertheless, this other type of knowledge contains some unique information about an important phenomenon. Should we discard this type of knowledge simply because it does not fit neatly into the mold to which we typically expect high-quality research to adhere to? Given that our goal is to generate compete knowledge, we can choose to keep doing what we have been doing in marketing over the past decades. That is, we wait until a scholar independently develops an article with more or less complete knowledge before publishing it in the journal, or we can choose to publish the incomplete but interesting findings in the journal so that others can make use of it to further develop complete knowledge. I dare to argue that sharing incomplete knowledge with others is a more efficient way to produce complete knowledge. By allowing other researchers to make use of such information, I dare say that further advancement of knowledge would be attained faster and better than one person doing it alone. There is no compelling reason to insist that a journal publishes only articles with complete knowledge. A scholarly journal should not feel intimidated by publishing articles that are intriguing and pose perhaps as many questions as they answer. Research work by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) on hedonic consumption is a good example. In fact, this was the foundational basis for JCP's short manuscripts (currently called Research Reports). As I had hoped, the short manuscript category has been doing very well in terms of the number of new manuscripts submitted and of their quality. As scholars and consumers of scholarship, we are drawn to research for different reasons. Some papers impress us with their completeness and correctness (complete research). Other papers inspire ideas and healthy scholarly debate (incomplete research). There is often greater comfort in complete research, as it is more familiar, comfortable, and leaves less ambiguity in the editorial review process. However, rewarding complete research at the expense of incomplete research is a grave mistake, particularly for nascent topics in relatively young fields such as consumer behavior. If incomplete research is not nurtured, a field may achieve maturity but may also risk dying off with little hope for its future. Although young ideas may be frustratingly incomplete, they often possess an agility and boundlessness that can have paradigm-shifting effects and offer the prospect of contributing to the larger academy outside of our discipline. One is not superior or inferior, but rather, both are needed. Diversification in our approach toward generating new knowledge is a sign of a healthy academic ecosystem. Complete knowledge is more beautiful than incomplete knowledge. There is no disagreement on this statement. However, while incomplete knowledge may not be beautiful, I see no reason why it should not be considered cute, albeit attractive in a different way. Thus, I suggest categorizing our research into two different types based on the type of knowledge that each one generates. Research that produces incomplete but interesting knowledge should be called cute research, while research that produces complete and useful knowledge should be called beautiful research. They both are attractive in their own ways and thus should co-exist. I must emphasize that the term “cute” should not be interpreted as “being not serious” or “light weight.” Instead, it should be interpreted as “young” and “vibrant.” To illustrate the difference between these two types of research, think about the two incredibly attractive creatures: Hello-Kitty and Barbie. Who dares to say that only one should exist in this world? Just like cute research Hello-Kitty has some missing elements—she does not have eyebrows, nor does she have a mouth. She is an incomplete creature. If we were to judge her by the standards of her breed, she would be a really freaky cat, yet luckily that is not what we judge her on. Instead, we feel compelled to fill in the missing features, and while doing so, we feel closer to Hello Kitty. We want to approach her, we want to pet her, and we want to love her. By the way, cuteness derives from “babyishness” and is usually defined descriptively as a set of infantile or babyish features (Alley, 1981; Hildebrandt and Fitzgerald, 1978, 1979; Morreall, 1991). Two of the key features that define cuteness are a relatively small size and incompleteness (missing elements; Berry and McArthur, 1985). According to the evolutionary psychology perspective, given that mammalian infants, especially human infants, are incapable of taking care of themselves for a long time after birth, cuteness evolved as an adaptive mechanism for infants to elicit nurturing, protective, and caregiving behaviors from adults to increase the chance of infants' survival (Glocker et al., 2009; Lorenz, 1943). I believe it is not a stretch to say that we may show similar reactions toward the so-called cute research. It is short and interesting, and even though it contains some missing pieces of information—or perhaps even because of that—we want to approach it, engage it, interact with it, and help make it complete. Since cute research is incomplete, we want to fill in the missing information, to contribute to its evolution, and in doing so we create our own creature. Thus, Hello-Kitty becomes mine. When one feels this sense of ownership, the target object becomes closer to us. Someday every cute finding will hopefully mature into a beautiful and highly admirable piece of knowledge. Yet until then, we must appreciate it for what it is, nurture it, and encourage it to grow. As I said earlier, the creation of knowledge can advance easily and quickly when researchers develop someone else's interesting but incomplete knowledge to the level of complete knowledge. Moreover, having a larger community of scholars rather than a single individual or lab investigating ideas increases the likelihood of more robust tests of such ideas and greater confidence in the findings. Research with novel and interesting theoretical ideas; and Research with novel and interesting empirical findings. Research with novel and interesting theoretical ideas develops: (1) an alternate explanation for an existing theory, (2) an alternate theory for existing findings, (3) a theory of commonly held beliefs, or (4) a new theory. Some preliminary empirical support (one or two studies) may be required for this category. Research with novel and interesting empirical findings contains findings that: (1) are novel and interesting by themselves, (2) refute commonly held beliefs, (3) refute prior theory, or (4) refute prior explanatory processes. Some preliminary theoretical explanation must be offered for this category. According to the above distinction between two types of cute research, (1) cute research generates more approach motivation and curiosity from researchers, thus serving as a catalyst for the development of beautiful research with complete knowledge. Moreover, (2) cute research also raises questions about the validity of the existing theory that was assumed to be true. Therefore, cute research not only facilitates the production of complete knowledge but also acts a catalyst for the revision of an existing theory. It is not a matter of which one we should choose, but rather, a matter of how to let both proliferate. These days some people reveal with pride that their handbags are counterfeits. They boast about their cleverness in ferreting out and buying the most “authentic” looking counterfeit products. I thought that people were not supposed to be open with others when possessing counterfeit goods. It is interesting to observe this type of behavior, as it begs the question “why?” Why is this phenomenon occurring? Are people becoming more unethical or more open about their unethical behavior? Do people consider counterfeits as legitimate products? What kind of cultural changes are taking place at a global level? These questions are important not only for consumer psychologists, but also for consumer researchers doing work in public policy. If people start to boast of their smartness by revealing their purchase of counterfeit products, what are the implications for the real and genuine brands? When counterfeits are equally good in quality and post-purchase service, visually identical, and yet much lower priced than the authentic products, how can the real brands compete with these producers of counterfeit goods? After all, it will be a really interesting phenomenon if and when we have high-end counterfeit brands, middle-end counterfeit brands, and low-end counterfeit brands. Which brand do you think would enjoy higher demand—a high-end counterfeit brand or a middle-end authentic brand? What about a middle-end counterfeit brand versus a middle-end authentic brand? Unlike the conventional approach to consumer behavior, which assumes that consumption consists of a series of isolated events, we ourselves recognize that consumption experiences are often interdependent and one purchase may lead to another in a domino-like effect resulting in what we refer to as a consumption chain. This consumption chain is best explained by the “Diderot effect” (see McCracken, 1988). The 18th century French philosopher, Denis Diderot says in his essay “Regrets on Parting with My Old Dressing Gown,” that after donning a fancy new dressing gown, it became obvious that the shabby old furnishings of his study did not quite fit with the splendor of his new garment, so he replaced them and soon had replaced the tapestries, chairs, desks, bookshelves, and even the clock. Consumer behavior researchers need to examine this dynamic and the evolving nature of consumption. We need to have a broad, comprehensive and systematic understanding of the interdependence of consumption, including why and how consumption chains arise and if there are discernible patterns in which the consumption chain evolves as a result. We have not examined perhaps one of the most fundamental research questions in marketing: what is the role of a brand logo? For example, we have been assuming that a brand logo is primarily for identification. But the brand logo appears to play a far more significant role in consumers' decision making and choice decisions since it represents what a brand stands for and reflects the outcomes of its marketing activities. It may perhaps be one of the most visible and powerful means by which consumers rely on in making their choice decisions. But how much do we know about a logo's effects? Such effects may also differ depending on whether a brand uses its name or a separate visual symbol as its logo. Think about IBM, Sony, GS, and Microsoft. They all use their names as logos. In contrast, think about Apple, Aunt Gemima, Michelin, etc., which use a separate, distinctively unique visual symbol as their logo. Exactly what are the differences in their relative effects and why? Consumers buy and consume products and services for many different reasons. One reason is to make their selves feel happy. But the question is whether or not they are necessarily happier with the accumulation of goods. Past research shows that this is not necessarily the case. Observing that some consumers feel strongly attached to some of their products because of the time they spent with the products, we may speculate that consumers should, in fact, stop incessantly buying new goods as a way to reach greater happiness. Specifically, if consumers appreciate more of what they already have and develop meaningful relationships with their products, they may feel happier with their lives. If this is true, then the next question is, how can we make consumers appreciate more of what they already own so that they feel a greater sense of loss when trying to replace their products with new ones? Our preoccupation with individual level decision-making leaves many important questions unaddressed about family decision-making. There appears to be a more complicated interaction process taking place among family members at the cognitive, affective, and conative levels. For example, the emotions that one experiences by himself/herself and those that he/she experiences together with his/her family members differ from each other not only in intensity but also in content. Thus, the family's strong emotional connection to a brand with its distinctive color and contents may not be accounted for by simply adding up each individual family member's emotional connection. Moreover, it may not simply be possible to account for the impact of the entire family's emotional connection to a brand based on one individual family member's relationship with a brand. I think that our field has devoted too much attention to testing theories developed in other disciplines and confirming their applications to consumer behavior. I am not saying that it is inappropriate or wrong. I simply want to say that we should also invest our efforts in investigating and reporting the consumption domain-specific phenomena that allow us to bring new knowledge to the broader academy. This provides an opportunity for our scholarly community to develop more elegant theories in consumer behavior in order to account for the market phenomena. We may need to follow scientific procedures that incrementally and iteratively chip away at the mysteries of the world. The less we worry about looking for general laws in social science and the more we worry about solving actual problems, the more progress we are likely to make. In physics, it was only after Copernicus and Brahe and a host of others had conducted centuries' worth of painstaking observations that astronomers like Kepler sought out mathematical regularities that could account for the data they had inherited. And only then was a singular genius like Newton in a position to reduce these regularities to bona fide laws. By contrast, social science theorists propose whole systems of thought at the outset and only then worry about what it was that they needed to measure. (Watts, 2011). Perhaps, consumer behavior is not yet ready for its Newton or Einstein breakthrough because it has not yet done its homework of painstakingly observing consumer behavior. We all know that not only are our behaviors determined by our conscious thoughts, but also by subconscious and non-conscious thoughts. We do not even understand many of our own behavior. Before attempting to read consumers' minds and establish a theory of a certain consumption behavior, we need to develop a clear understanding of what these strange creatures called “consumers” DO in the first place. Academic researchers should not be too self-assured or self-aggrandizing to search for general laws in consumer behavior at the present stage. We cannot try to walk before we have mastered the art of crawling. So instead of looking for laws, we may need ore observations of our own behaviors and more questions about them. Retailers and real estate brokers emphasize three words: location, location, location. In golf we emphasize three words: practice, practice, practice. I dare to say that in consumer research, the most important three things are observations, observations, and observations. Why? Because it is the observations that most effectively deliver interesting questions and findings which will result in cute research. As Rozin (2009) persuasively argued, there are simply many phenomena in this world including the areas of consumption that is not yet ready for the sophisticated experimental falsification and the formal hypothesis testing traditionally employed in behavioral research. Before such rigorous experiments and hypotheses testing can be conducted, these phenomena need to be fully examined and understood in their own right. In other words, path-breaking and novel ideas need to be first unearthed, shared with others, explored empirically, and refined conceptually before moving to the next step of the rigorous scientific testing. In summary, research that offers only incomplete knowledge (cute research) is a powerful facilitator and catalyst for the theory-driven research that produces complete knowledge. It is like a parent who does the un-envious groundwork for his/her child's success and glory. We should fully recognize and openly appreciate the parents contribution. In addition, observations of our own consumption behaviors are the highly valued method to stimulate cute research. Cute research through observations of our own consumption behaviors can shed a much brighter light on why we do what we do and how we do it.