Corporate sponsorship of events contributes significantly to marketing aims, including brand awareness as measured by recall and recognition of sponsor-event pairings. Unfortunately, resultant advantages accrue disproportionately to brands having a natural or congruent fit with the available sponsorship properties. In three cued-recall experiments, the effect of articulation of sponsorship fit on memory for sponsor-event pairings is examined. While congruent sponsors have a natural memory advantage, results demonstrate that memory improvements via articulation are possible for incongruent sponsor-event pairings. These improvements are, however, affected by the presence of competitor brands and the way in which memory is accessed.

Prior research has demonstrated that actions are regretted more than inactions in the short term. We show that, in limited purchase opportunities—situations where the purchase decision cannot be reversed—not purchasing (inaction) is seen as a loss and is associated with greater short-term regret than purchasing, reversing the omission bias. With respect to long-term regret, we use coping and availability mechanisms to suggest that, contrary to prior findings, inaction (nonpurchase) regrets decrease over time. We also argue that action (purchase) regrets should increase over time, but only when long-term utility is low. We support our predictions with a field study and two laboratory experiments.

Recent research has identified a positivity effect in consumers’ evaluations of agents, such as friends and professional critics, who provide word-of-mouth evaluations and recommendations. Specifically, agreement with an agent on previously loved alternatives is perceived as more diagnostic of the agent’s suitability than agreement on previously hated alternatives. This article argues that the positivity effect arises from greater ambiguity about attribute ratings of hated versus loved alternatives. Three studies support this by showing that the effect is moderated by the number of attributes, the number of alternatives, and the revelation of an agent’s attribute ratings, and is mediated by attribute ambiguity.

We contrast memory-based and stimulus-based choices, using dual-process theories such as Kahneman and Frederick’s system 1/system 2 dichotomy. Systems 1 and 2 are conceptualized as distinct modes of thought, the former automatic and affective, the latter controlled and deliberate. Cognitive load impedes system 2, yielding greater reliance on system 1. In memory-based choice, consumers must maintain relevant options in working memory. Thus, memory-based choices are associated with greater cognitive load than stimulus-based choices. Indeed, we find that memory-based choices favor mmediately compelling, affect-rich system 1 options, whereas stimulus-based choices favor affect-poor options whose attractiveness emerges from deliberative system 2 thought.

Dynamic pricing practices by sellers in response to segment and individual-level differences have been made more feasible as internet buyer behavior increases. While benefits from these pricing practices can accrue to sellers and buyers, the potential for (un)fairness perceptions to mitigate these advantages is important. In an effort to investigate these issues, this article reports the results of three studies that examine the effects of seller-, consumer-, time-, and auction-based price differences on perceived price fairness and purchase satisfaction. The findings underscore the potential negative effects associated with price differences from dynamic pricing practices.