Track 1: Spending Money
Eesha Sharma (San Diego State University)

1C. Currency Formats

Friday, March 4
2:00pm – 3:30pm EST
Discussant: Vicki Morwitz (Columbia University)
MC: Shelle Santana (Bentley University)
Calendar Invite: Add to calendar
Student Coordinator: Rin Yoon (Cornell University) (yy878@cornell.edu)

Competitive Papers

Refund Psychology
Authors: Tianjiao Yu (Washington University in St. Louis), Cynthia Cryder (Washington University in St. Louis), Robyn LeBoeuf (Washington University in St. Louis)
Presenting Author: Tianjiao Yu (Washington University in St. Louis)
Does a consumer’s willingness to spend money depend on whether that money has a spending history? In this research, we examine whether consumers treat refunds, which have a spending history, differently from other types of money. We find that consumers are more likely to spend money refunded from a previous purchase than they are to spend other, non-refunded money. This pattern arises because refunded money is earmarked as “spending money” at the time of the initial purchase and retains that earmark even after it is refunded. Therefore, when refunds arrive, they feel free from obligations and easy to spend.
Connectedness to Payment Methods and Its Effect on Product Experience, Earning, and Investing
Authors: Christopher Bechler (University of Notre Dame), Szu-chi Huang (Stanford University)
Presenting Author: Christopher Bechler (University of Notre Dame)
The number and variety of payment methods available to consumers is rapidly increasing. Consumers are receiving compensation via new payment methods (e.g., crypto) and can use many different payment methods (e.g., cash, card, Venmo, Apple Pay, crypto) to pay for goods and invest. Ten studies explore the differential attachment that consumers have to their payment methods and how this feeling of connection affects consumers’ experience with their purchases (e.g., attachment to the purchased good, selling price, and intention to use), how hard they work to earn payment, and how they invest.
Are Conservatives Less Likely Than Liberals to Accept Welfare? The Psychology of Welfare Politics
Authors: Shreyans Goenka (Virginia Tech), Manoj Thomas (Cornell University)
Presenting Author: Shreyans Goenka (Virginia Tech)
We find that political differences in welfare enrollment depends on the work requirement policy. A natural field experiment shows that when the supplemental nutritional program (SNAP) had a work requirement, liberals and conservatives were equally likely to enroll in this program. However, when the work requirement was waived, conservatives were less likely to enroll in this program. Follow-up experiments replicate this result and demonstrate the underlying mechanism: conservatives' adherence to the binding moral values makes them hesitant to accept welfare. Importantly, policymakers can deploy marketing messages to mitigate this effect and boost conservatives' enrollment in such welfare programs.
Evaluating Evidence for the Cashless Premium: A Meta-Analytic Review
Authors: Thomas Swanton (The University of Sydney), Terryn Lee (Temple University), Seungyeon Kim (The University of Sydney), Sharon Collard (University of Bristol), Ellen Garbarino (The University of Sydney), Sally Gainsbury (The University of Sydney), Joydeep Srivastava (Temple University)
Presenting Author: Thomas Swanton (The University of Sydney)
Considerable evidence demonstrates a cashless premium wherein consumers are likely to spend more when using cashless payment methods compared to making payments in cash. However, some recent studies have failed to replicate this effect. The current work uses a meta-analytic approach to resolve this debate and examines potential moderators of the relationship between payment method and spending behavior. Meta-analyses of 43 years of payment methods research examining 516 observations from 97 studies in 63 papers support the cashless premium and reveal differential effects of moderators. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for marketing and public policy.

Flash Talks

The Effect of Loan Application Formats on Consumer Loan Decisions
Authors: Alicia Johnson (University of Arkansas), Daniel Villanova (University of Arkansas), Ronn Smith (University of Wyoming)
Presenting Author: Alicia Johnson (University of Arkansas)
Do different loan application formats affect consumer loan requests? Four studies show that when consumers are asked to provide a desired monthly payment versus loan amount, they request different principal amounts. This is because the formats prompt consumers to recruit format consistent information during the loan application process that biases request amounts. For a given term and interest rate, the monthly payment (vs. loan amount) format results in higher principal requests. This effect is pronounced for lower cost acquisitions but reverses for higher cost acquisitions because monthly payments are restricted by consumers’ budget slack, which averages $500/$600 per month.
Why Cashback is Cash Forward: The Role of Smart Shopping
Authors: Lina Xu (New Mexico State University), Mihai Niculescu (New Mexico State University)
Presenting Author: Lina Xu (New Mexico State University)
What is the psychological process behind cashback shopping? Across a survey and an experiment, this research demonstrates that cashback (vs. regular) shopping increases consumers’ perception of time/effort savings, enlarging their perceptions of monetary savings and altering subsequent purchase decisions. The findings also reveal an extreme point of the search theory—cashback shopping removes time and money constraints and thus represents a more advanced shopping mode. E-tailers should consider incorporating cashback programs into their promotion mix and emphasizing the role of time-saving rather than money-saving in their marketing communications.

Posters

Match, rebate or no-subsidy: How tax subsidies promote charitable giving
Authors: Ursa Bernardic (University of Geneva, GSEM), Giuseppe Ugazio (University of Geneva, GFRI)
Presenting Author: Ursa Bernardic (University of Geneva, GSEM)
Donations by individuals play a vital part in supporting charitable organizations. To promote charitable giving, a common practice in several countries is to implement different subsidy schemes. We conduct two preregistered experiments (in Switzerland: n=86, and on Prolific UK sample: n=165) implementing collaborative public good game settings in which we investigate whether and how rebate, matching, or no subsidy schemes cause the reductions (crowding-out) or increases (crowding-in) of total, and net donations of earned money. We fnd that matching subsidy scheme results in more donations than rebate and no subsidy scheme, and that the rebate subsidy does not result in more donations than no subsidy, but does increase the cost of donors. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of effort and wealth on donations, and investigate individual motivations of donors.
Return to schedule