University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Disclosure of changes in taste: implications for companies and consumers

(USC Thesis Other)

Disclosure of changes in taste: implications for companies and consumers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
DISCLOSURE OF CHANGES IN TASTE: IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES AND
CONSUMERS

By Elisa Solinas

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

May 2023

Copyright 2023 Elisa Solinas

ii

A Pinuccia

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Joe, for the tremendous support and
encouragement throughout these years. I cannot thank you enough for the time and effort you
dedicated to me, but most importantly, for believing in me and pushing me to become the best
researcher I could be. I consider myself extremely lucky for being your student.
I would also like to express my deep appreciation to my committee members, Eva,
Kristin, Linda, and Norbert, for their invaluable feedback and guidance. Eva, I am grateful for
the countless hours we spent working together and for the indispensable lessons I learned from
our collaboration. Your dedication and passion for research are truly inspiring. Kristin, thank you
for pushing me to strive for excellence, your enthusiasm for research makes you an outstanding
role model. Linda, thank you for keeping your door always open, your feedback has always been
extremely valuable. Norbert, thank you for challenging me to think differently, and introducing
me to new perspectives.
I also want to thank Francesca and Steph, for their immense support while working
together. Fra, working with you has been a fantastic experience, as I gained invaluable insights
while having a good time. Steph, thank you for pushing me to set ambitious goals and teaching
me how to work towards achieving them.
To all my friends in the PhD program, I am grateful for the memories we have shared,
and I look forward to what the future holds for us.
Finally, I would like to thank my dad, Nanni, my aunt, Caterina, and my partner, Marco.
Your unconditional love and support throughout this journey gave me the strength to overcome
any difficulties.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………... ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………...………… iii
List of figures………………………………………………………………..…………... ix
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………... x
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE…………………………………………. 1
1.1. How Consumers Perceive Change…………………………………………... 1
1.2. Overview…………………………………………………………………….. 2
Chapter 2: PRODUCT CHANGES IN QUALITY VERSUS TASTE:
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CONSUMERS?.................................................... 4
2.1. Chapter Introduction…………………………………………………………. 4
2.2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………. 6
2.2.1. Consumers’ Attitudes toward Modified Products…………………. 6
2.2.2. Quality Versus Taste………………………………………………. 8
2.2.3. The Role of Essentialism within Consumer Goods………………. 10
2.3. The Current Investigation…………………………………………………... 12
2.4. Empirical Analysis – Pre-test………………………………………………. 14
2.4.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 14
2.4.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 14
2.4.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 14
2.4.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 15
2.5. Study 1……………………………………………………………………… 15
2.5.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 15

v
2.5.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 15
2.5.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 16
2.5.4. Discussion…………………………………………………………17
2.6. Study 2……………………………………………………………………… 18
2.6.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 18
2.6.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 18
2.6.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 19
2.6.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 20
2.7. Study 3……………………………………………………………………… 21
2.7.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 21
2.7.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 21
2.7.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 22
2.7.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 23
2.8. Study 4a……………...……………………………………………………... 24
2.8.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 24
2.8.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 24
2.8.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 25
2.8.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 26
2.9 Study 4b……………………………………………………………………... 26
2.9.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 26
2.9.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 27
2.9.3. Separate Test of Manipulation……………………………………. 27
2.9.4. Results……………………………………………………………. 28

vi
2.9.5. Discussion………………………………………………………... 29
2.10. Study 5…………………………………………………………………….. 30
2.10.1. Overview………………………………………………………... 30
2.10.2. Method…………………………………………………………... 31
2.10.3. Results…………………………………………………………... 32
2.10.4. Discussion………………………………………………………. 34
2.11. Study 6…………………………………………………………………….. 34
2.11.1. Overview………………………………………………………... 34
2.11.2. Method…………………………………………………………... 35
2.11.3. Results…………………………………………………………... 36
2.11.4. Discussion………………………………………………………. 36
2.12. Chapter Discussion………………………………………………………... 37
Chapter 3: CHANGES IN TASTES AND PERCEIVED EXPERTISE:
A PERSUASION STORY……………………………………………………… 42
3.1. Chapter Introduction………………………………………………………... 42
3.2. Literature Review…………………………………………………………... 45
3.2.1. How Consumers Perceive Change………………………………... 45
3.2.2. Expertise Perceptions…………………………………………….. 47
3.3. The Current Investigation…………………………………………………... 50
3.4. Empirical Analysis – Pre-test………………………………………………. 50
3.4.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 50
3.4.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 51
3.4.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 51

vii
3.4.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 52
3.5. Study 1……………………………………………………………………… 52
3.5.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 52
3.5.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 53
3.5.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 54
3.5.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 55
3.6. Study 2……………………………………………………………………… 56
3.6.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 56
3.6.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 56
3.6.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 57
3.6.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 58
3.7. Study 3……………………………………………………………………… 58
3.7.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 58
3.7.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 59
3.7.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 59
3.7.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 61
3.8. Study 4a…………………………………………………………………….. 62
3.8.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 62
3.8.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 62
3.8.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 63
3.8.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 64
3.9. Study 4b……………………………………………………………………. 64
3.9.1. Overview…………………………………………………………. 64

viii
3.9.2. Method……………………………………………………………. 65
3.9.3. Results……………………………………………………………. 66
3.9.4. Discussion………………………………………………………... 67
3.10. Chapter Discussion………………………………………………………... 68
References………………………………………………………………………………. 72
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………… 80
APPENDIX A—Stimuli S1 Chapter 2………………………………………….. 80
APPENDIX B—Stimuli S2 Chapter 2………………………………………….. 81
APPENDIX C—Stimuli S3 Chapter 2………………………………………….. 82
APPENDIX D—Stimuli S4a Chapter 2………………………………………… 83
APPENDIX E—Stimuli S4b Chapter 2………………………………………… 84
APPENDIX F—Stimuli S5 Chapter 2………………………………………….. 85
APPENDIX G—Stimuli S6 Chapter 2………………………………………….. 86
APPENDIX H—Stimuli S1 Chapter 3………………………………………….. 87
APPENDIX I—Stimuli S2 Chapter 3…………………………………………… 88
APPENDIX J—Stimuli S3 Chapter 3…………………………………………… 89
APPENDIX K—Stimuli S4a Chapter 3………………………………………… 90
APPENDIX L—Stimuli S4b Chapter 3………………………………………… 91
APPENDIX M – “Growth” vs. “Fixed” mindset scale items…………………… 92

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: Conceptual Model………………………………………………………... 12
FIGURE 3-1: Conceptual Model………………………………………………………... 49
FIGURE 3-2: Interaction Plot…………………………………………………………… 61

x
Abstract
A central element of any marketing or interpersonal interaction is deciding what to
disclose to others. Marketers spend substantial time editing the final wording for a marketing
message in order to increase the chances of securing consumer approval. Similarly, individuals
carefully consider what information to share with others, friends or strangers, in order to manage
the impressions others form of them. In my dissertation, across two essays, I explore situations in
which both companies and individuals disclose something has changed. Further, I focus on
changes that are related to people’s idiosyncratic preferences (i.e., individual taste), and highlight
how a disclosure of these type of changes generally elicit a negative reaction. In Essay 1, I focus
on the company side. Here, I study how consumers react when a company discloses applying a
taste-based modification (i.e., a modification that does not improve the objective quality of a
product). In Essay 2, I focus on the consumer side. Here, I study how consumers react when
another individual discloses their tastes (i.e., individual preferences) have changed in a given
domain.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE
1.1. How Consumers Perceive Change
Change is one of the most fundamental features of our world. The world we live in
changes continuously, and we as individuals change too, both across generations and within each
of our lifespans. Thus, we should not only be used to change, but welcome it as a natural element
of our life. However, do we really like hearing that something has changed? In my work, I
explore this question.
Within marketing, products evolve over time the same way that species evolve in our
ecosystem (Tellis & Crawford, 1981). Sometimes this leads to changes to already existing
products, and at other times, this leads to radical new product introductions (Goulding, 1983;
Johne & Snelson, 1988). Further, when changes are applied to already existing products, it can
lead to an objectively improved product (what I label quality-based modifications), or to a
product that is simply different – yet not objectively better (what I label taste-based
modifications).
Within our life, we also change as consumers and evolve over time. While growing as
human beings, our preferences change too, and we start liking new options or disliking options
once liked (Livingstone & Heer, 2018). And, while objectively better-quality options (e.g.,
products manufactured with higher-quality ingredients) are usually liked by more people,
whether we ourselves like a specific flavor does not make that flavor objectively better per se. It
is a matter of taste.
Given the prevalence of change within the world, should companies and consumers
communicate such changes to others? Across two separate essays, I argue that, at specific times,
companies and consumers might be better off not disclosing this information. In particular, in

2
this work, I focus on situations in which disclosing a change does not communicate anything
about the quality of an option, but is instead associated with the idea that each individual has
slightly different preferences. In Essay 1, I focus on how consumers react when a company
discloses a taste-based modification (i.e., a change that does not alter the objective quality of the
product). In Essay 2, I investigate how consumers react when another consumer discloses their
tastes have changed in a specific domain.
1.2. Overview
In Essay 1 (Chapter 2), Product Changes in Quality Versus Taste: What Does it Mean for
Consumers? I ask how consumers are likely to react when a company discloses a taste-based
modification (e.g., a new color and/or shape for a breakfast cereal) to one of their existing
products. In a series of field and laboratory studies, I find consumers are predisposed to respond
unfavorably to modifications that do not improve the objective quality of the product. The
negative response is due to consumers’ tendency to perceive taste-based modifications as altering
the essence of the product (how the product was intended to be). Given consumers value product
essence, especially for more creative products, I find consumers are averse to taste-based
modifications more so when applied to products perceived as more creative.
Importantly for marketing, in an incentive-compatible setting, I show that this negative
reaction has implications for product choice. Further, in a field study, I provide guidance
regarding what type of advertising message might over- or under-perform. Ultimately, my
findings provide managers with preliminary guidance regarding whether and when
communicating taste-based product modifications might be more or less perilous, and thus when
to take precautions in order to increase the chances of securing consumer approval.

3
In Essay 2 (Chapter 3), Changes in Tastes and Perceived Expertise: A Persuasion Story, I
ask how consumers are likely to react when other consumers disclose their tastes have changed
in a given domain. Further, I look at the implications for persuasiveness. In a series of laboratory
studies, I find consumers are reluctant to follow recommendations from those who disclose their
tastes have changed. This effect is domain specific, such that when a person discloses a change
in taste in one domain, respondents become reluctant to follow their recommendations in that
domain, but not necessarily in different domains. I argue that this is because consumers do not
form an overall negative impression of someone who discloses their tastes have changed. Rather,
they perceive a change in taste within a specific domain as a signal of a relative lack of expertise
in that domain, and this drives their reluctance to follow that person’s recommendations.
From a managerial point of view, throughout the studies, I highlight how disclosing a
change in tastes can have negative effects on persuasive appeals, whether those happen in a
person-to-person discussion or within a marketing context. This is important not only for online
platforms where people post reviews, but also in all industries in which a person’s or company’s
role is to persuade others (e.g., food critics, movie critics, recommendation agents, sales
personnel, etc.).
Taken together, these two essays highlight the potential negative implications of
disclosing a change that depend on taste to consumers, and provide insights on how to minimize
undesirable consequences.

4
CHAPTER 2: PRODUCT CHANGES IN QUALITY VERSUS TASTE: WHAT DOES IT
MEAN FOR CONSUMERS?
2.1. Chapter Introduction
Companies frequently modify existing products and release new versions to the market.
By definition, consumers should be attracted to a new version of an existing product when it has
undergone what I refer to as a quality-based modification, a change that results in an objective
improvement. In marketing, the term quality is used to describe a vertically differentiated
product space in which “all consumers agree over the most preferred mix of characteristics”
(Tirole, 1988, p. 96). A new water filter that removes 99.9% of contaminants is preferable to a
water filter that removes 99% of contaminants, ceteris paribus, because the modified product is a
higher quality filter (Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). When consumers evaluate the new water
filter, they only need to decide whether the improvement is worth the cost.
In contrast, whether consumers would be attracted to a new version when the product has
undergone what I refer to as a taste-based modification, a change that does not result in an
objective improvement, is less straightforward. For example, would consumers prefer a new
fruit-shaped breakfast cereal to the prior spherical-shaped breakfast cereal? Consumers may or
may not be attracted to a new version of an existing product when a change results in a
subjective improvement. In marketing, the term “taste” is used to describe a horizontally
differentiated product space, where “the optimal choice depends on the particular consumer”
(Tirole, 1988, p. 97). Some consumers may like fruit-shaped breakfast cereal, others spherical-
shaped breakfast cereal. In other words, “taste is a personal judgment” and depends on an
individual’s response (Charters, 2006, p. 247). Under this view, taste has no externally valid,

5
universally agreed upon reference points (Hoyer & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012).
1
The focus of this
work is on taste-based product modifications (e.g., a change in shape, color, flavor, design, etc.)
that do not alter the objective quality of the product.
Anecdotally, consumers’ reactions to taste-based modifications can be quite negative.
One notable example was the consumer backlash when Snapchat redesigned its interface in
2017. While Snapchat tried to convince users the update required getting used to, ultimately the
company took heed after more than one million users signed a Change.org petition and changed
the design back. Similar negative reactions ensued when Twinings made its Earl Grey tea more
citrusy in 2011, when General Mills changed the shape of Trix cereal in 2007, and when Heinz
introduced purple, green, and blue ketchup in 2000. Perhaps the most famous consumer backlash
to a product change was when Coca-Cola reformulated the recipe for its flagship product in
1985. All eventually resulted in the new versions being pulled from the market.
In this research, I seek to explain why consumers are predisposed to be averse to taste-
based product modifications, often revealing a preference for the original version. Importantly,
while consumers might react negatively to a change involving something they like, or have
become accustomed to, in this work, I show consumers are predisposed to be averse to taste-
based modifications even when they have never tried the product. I argue that this is because
taste-based modifications tend to be perceived by consumers as fundamentally altering the
“essence” of the original product (i.e., how the product was intended to be). Further, previous
research suggests essence is especially important for artifacts produced by a creative individual
(Kelemen & Carey, 2006), and, consistent with prior work, I find taste-based modifications are
even more aversive when applied to products perceived as more creative. The moderating role of

1
I focus here on the concept of “taste” generally, and not on related concepts such as “good taste,” referring to
highbrow/socially-constructed preferences (Bordieu, 1984), or “taste,” as it refers to flavor per se.

6
creativity helps distinguish classes of goods for which making taste-based modifications may be
more perilous. Ultimately, my theorizing suggests that, without appropriate care, applying taste-
based modifications to products can provoke consumer discontent, which, if left unaddressed,
can result in companies ultimately retiring the modified version from the market.
This research contributes to the existing literature both theoretically and substantively.
First, I extend our understanding of how consumers react to product modifications by delineating
two different types of modification, and show the notion of a taste-based modification tends to be
aversive rather than appealing to most consumers. Second, I provide evidence in support of one
process explanation for consumer discontent; taste-based modifications are frequently seen as
altering the essence of a product. Third, I identify conditions under which consumers are more
versus less likely to respond negatively to these types of modifications; the effect is stronger for
products perceived as more creative. The variation that I observe across categories of products
allows me to highlight which types of companies should be especially cautious when making
taste-based product modifications. Ultimately, my findings provide managers with preliminary
guidance regarding whether and when taste-based product modifications might be perilous, and
thus when to take precautions in order to increase the chances of securing consumer approval.
2.2. Literature Review
2.2.1. Consumers’ Attitudes toward Modified Products
Companies frequently release new products into the marketplace, introducing either a
completely new product or a modified version of an already existing one (Goulding, 1983; Johne
& Snelson, 1988). This research focuses on modified versions of existing products that can be
marketed alongside, or as a replacement for the prior version. Despite the importance of product

7
modifications, prior research on this particular topic is limited (Yalcinkaya et al., 2020), and
much of what has been done can be categorized into one of two principal streams.
The first stream takes a supply-side perspective focusing on whether it is profitable for a
company to release a modified version of an existing product (Ali et al., 1993; Gordon, 2009;
Ofek & Srinivasan, 2002; Padmanabhan et al., 1987). This research highlights the role played by
various factors driving a company’s decision regarding whether or not to release a new version.
Examples of influential factors driving this decision include the existence of a secondary
marketplace (Yin et al., 2010), the overall level of competition (Li & Jin, 2009; Narasimhan &
Turut, 2013; Xiong et al., 2016), and the current level of price dispersion (Cui et al., 2019).
The second major stream of research takes a demand-side perspective, focusing on
whether consumers are more or less likely to buy a new version of a product. So-called “product
upgrade” decisions have been shown to be impacted by factors such as brand loyalty (Miller et
al., 2019), the availability of trade-in options (Zhu et al., 2008), and consumers’ level of
involvement with the product category (Huh & Kim, 2008; Okada, 2006). One takeaway from
this stream of literature is that consumers are predisposed to prefer product “upgrades,” a term
that implies an objective improvement. I set out to test how pronounced the preference for
something “new” is among consumers. Results from a pre-test confirm that, when consumers
have no information about what exactly is being changed in a product, they exhibit a preference
for the modified version, and they assume the modification is related to quality (see section 2.4
for details). Taken to the extreme, this predilection has been shown to cause consumers to view
their current products differently (O’Brien, 2022), and go out of their way to neglect them when
they know upgraded versions are available (Bellezza et al., 2017; Shani et al., 2020).

8
While prior research emphasizes consumers’ predisposition to prefer modified products,
it has yet to make distinctions among products, and has not made a distinction between quality-
based and taste-based modifications. Moreover, this literature typically uses terms such as
“updates” and “upgrades” when referring to new versions of a product, implicitly suggesting
objective superiority, and thus a quality-based modification (Bellezza et al., 2017; Cui et al.,
2019; Li & Jin, 2009; Miller et al., 2019; Padmanabhan et al., 1997; Sela & LeBoeuf, 2017;
Xiong et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2010). Yet, while companies are always looking to improve their
products, at times modifications do not result in objective improvements in quality. Consider,
when General Mills altered the shape of Trix, consumers were not necessarily better off having
fruit-shaped as opposed to spherical breakfast cereal regardless of whatever reasons drove the
company to make the change. In contrast to prior research, I focus squarely on a specific type of
product change, a taste-based modification whereby the result in neither an objective
improvement nor decrement compared to the previous version of the product.
2.2.2. Quality versus Taste
Social comparison theorists (Festinger, 1954) highlighted the relevance of taste for
consumer behavior nearly 70 years ago. Since then, authors working in this area have used
different terminology to represent the extremes of a continuum that goes from objectively to
subjectively valid (Goethals & Nelson, 1973; Spears et al., 2009; Suls et al., 2000). While the
word “taste” has been used in a variety of ways in reference to different constructs in prior
research, I want to make it clear that, in this research, “taste” refers to the notion that one option
is not objectively superior to another, and therefore how consumers respond depends on their
idiosyncratic preferences.

9
Recent research has begun to study the distinction between more objective versus more
subjective evaluations in the realm of consumer choice. Within marketing, this distinction is
frequently described using the terms quality and taste (Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). Quality is
used to describe a vertically differentiated product space, where, in general, “alternatives can be
rank-ordered based on product features reflecting objective quality” (Ibrahim & Häubl, 2020).
Taste, instead, is used to describe a horizontally differentiated product space, where “the optimal
choice depends on the particular consumer” (Tirole, 1988, p. 97), or, where alternatives cannot
be rank-ordered in terms of objective quality (Ibrahim & Häubl, 2020). In short, different
scholars have applied a broad set of terms to distinguish between differences that are quality-
based (e.g., ordinal, vertical, graduated, ranked, and alignable), and differences that are taste-
based (e.g., nominal, horizontal, unranked, and non-alignable) (Liu et al., 2020).
Whether consumers perceive product differences as determined by quality or taste has
been shown to elicit different reactions including differences in willingness to pay (Spiller &
Belogolova, 2017). It is important to reiterate that quality and taste anchor the ends of a product
differentiation continuum and should not be considered as binary classification. Further, Spiller
and Belogolova (2017) have shown how different consumers can perceive the very same product
category as differentiated by either “matters of taste” or “matters of quality.” In contrast to their
work, I focus on how a specific type of product modification, a change recognized as a matter of
taste, is perceived by most consumers. In line with prior work, I expect consumers to have a
predisposition to react positively to modified products when the company applies a quality-based
modification (e.g., a product modification that results in an objective improvement). However, I
hypothesize that consumers will be predisposed to react negatively to a change when the
company applies a taste-based modification.

10
2.2.3. The Role of Essentialism within Consumer Goods
The term essentialism refers to the folk belief that things have a set of characteristics that
make them what they are (Gelman et al., 2013). Work on essentialism developed initially to
describe how people mentally represent the essence (akin to nature) of natural kinds, such as
animals (Gelman & Markman, 1986). Over time, different authors have described how even
inanimate objects can be seen as possessing an essence of their own (for a review, see Kelemen
& Carey, 2006). Within the domain of products, researchers have observed consumers give
greater weight to essential (vs. superficial) properties when making judgments (Medin & Ortony,
1989; Rips, 1989). The idea that people or objects that come into contact may influence each
other through the transfer of some of their essence (i.e., contagion effects) helped popularize the
notion of essence in marketing (Argo et al., 2006; Argo et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011; Morales &
Fitzsimons, 2007; Nemeroff & Rozin, 1994; Newman et al., 2011; Newman & Dhar, 2014;
Rozin et al., 1986; Smith et al., 2016).
I contend that consumers respond more negatively to taste-basted modifications because
this type of change is seen as altering the essence of the product. The intuition is as follows.
When a company applies a quality-based modification, consumers view the new product as a
better version of the same product. In other words, at its core (aka its essence), the product is the
same, but some aspect has been improved. In contrast, when a company applies a taste-based
modification, consumers do not see an ordered, almost linear improvement (the product shifting
up on some dimension), but rather a transformational, non-linear change (the product is
mutated). This explains why a taste-based modification is more likely to be seen as altering the
essence of the product.

11
Work on product essentialism suggests that, while any object can possess an essence of
its own, consumers care more about the essence when a creative individual produces the object
(Kelemen & Carey, 2006). Other research has highlighted how the creator’s intended function
when creating a product influences, among other things, our understanding of the product’s
category (Bloom, 1996) and assigned function (Chaigneau et al., 2008, Chaigneau et al., 2016).
Thus, it stands to reason that perceptions regarding creative intentions play a major role in how
an object is evaluated, and the perception of essence is given more weight when evaluating
products that are perceived as more creative. Therefore, I hypothesize that taste-based
modifications are perceived more negatively when applied to products considered more creative.
It should be clear that there exists a continuum on which products are perceived as more
or less creative. The creative industries have been defined as “those industries which have their
origin in individual creativity, skill and talent” (DCMS, 1998, p. 5; Gouvea & Vora, 2018;
Howkins, 2001). The UN further classifies the creative industries into four main categories:
heritage (e.g., crafts, festivals), arts (e.g., painting, sculpture), media (e.g., books, films), and
functional creation (e.g., fashion, interior) (UNCTAD, 2010). It follows that outcomes of such
creative industries are perceived as highly creative. Others have argued how creative products
should not only include the outcomes of the creative industries made by more or less creative
individuals, but also all products made by creative individuals – even outside the traditional
creative industries (NESTA, 2009). Accordingly, while the arts and media are likely to be seen
as more creative, I believe the same product can also be positioned as more or less creative in the
eyes of consumers.
Thus, on the one hand, consumers inherently perceive some products as more or less
creative, while on the other hand, companies can emphasize the creativity of their products –

12
either intentionally or unintentionally – in many ways. One way to emphasize creativity, which I
explore in this work, is by promoting a connection with a creative individual (e.g., using
eponymous brands, such as [Leo] Fender guitars, Dyson vacuum cleaners, Stella McCartney
fashion goods, Doc Märtens footwear, etc.). While my work suggests companies emphasizing
creativity could face a significant backlash when promoting a taste-based modification, this does
not imply companies should never emphasize the creativity of their product, or modify their
products. Rather, I recommend that those doing so should be cautious when applying and
communicating taste-based modifications. Ultimately, my theorizing suggests that, without
appropriate care, applying taste-based modifications to products perceived as more creative is
even more likely to result in initial consumer discontent, which, if left unaddressed, could
pressure companies to withdraw a new version of a product from the market.
In summary, I propose that, when a taste-based modification is applied, consumers are
prone to shy away from the new version of the product, exhibiting a preference for the
unmodified version due to a perceived change in the product’s essence. Further, I propose that
consumers' aversion to a change in essence is especially evident for products perceived as more
creative (see Figure 2-1).
FIGURE 2-1: Conceptual Model

2.3. The Current Investigation

13
Across seven studies, I find evidence in support of my hypotheses and proposed process
explanation. In Study 1, I test the real-world implications of my theorizing in an advertising
context, showing how emphasizing the unmodified (vs. modified) nature of a product increases
consumer click-through rate for Facebook ads.
In Study 2, I use participants’ recollections of product modifications to show that there
are systematic differences between those modifications participants like and dislike, such that
taste-based modifications are usually disliked, while quality-based modifications are usually
liked. In Study 3, I show the same product change elicits a more negative reaction from
consumers when it is described as a taste-based modification than when it is described as a
quality-based modification. In studies 4a and 4b, I focus exclusively on taste-based
modifications, and examine the role of perceived creativity. In study 4a, by comparing products
that naturally vary in terms of perceived creativity, I show how consumers prefer the unmodified
product (vs. modified) more for more creative products. In study 4b, I extend the effect from
hypothetical scenarios to an incentive-compatible context, while showing how companies using
eponymous brands boost perceived creativity, making taste-based modifications especially
precarious. Study 5 provides evidence in support of my proposed essentialism explanation
through mediation. The study also highlights how taste-based modifications are perceived to
alter the essence of the product, and how altering a product’s essence is aversive for products
perceived as more creative. In Study 6, I find support for the proposed process through
moderation. More precisely, I manipulate whether the taste-based modification was intended
from the product’s inception. The results suggest consumers are averse to unintended taste-based
modifications, which, by not being premeditated, more meaningfully alter the essence of the
product.

14
2.4. Empirical Analysis – Pre-test
2.4.1. Overview
The goal of this study was to test the extent to which consumers prefer something “new”
(i.e., a modified version of a product). Further, I sought to understand whether consumers, when
not provided additional information, assume a change is driven by quality rather than taste
motives. A priori, I predicted that in the absence of additional information, consumers, on
average, assume that if a company is applying a change, it is doing so to objectively improve the
product. Consequently, consumers are prone to prefer the modified version of the product.
2.4.2. Method
The sample includes 289 participants recruited on a student subject pool (43% male, MAge
= 20.16). Sample size was determined by how many participants attended a given session in the
lab. Participants were asked to imagine a company applied a modification to one of their
products and released a new version. Participants were not provided any information about the
sector within which the company operated, the type of product, or the type of modification being
applied. However, they were informed that both the modified and unmodified version of the
product were available on the market, and were asked to choose the one they believe they would
prefer. After making their choice, they were asked to indicate whether they imagined the
modification applied had more to do with quality or with taste on a 7-point scale ranging from -3
= “Quality” to 3 = “Taste.” I provided participants with a definition of both quality and taste.
2.4.3. Results
Of the 289 participants, 73% picked the modified version of the product. Further, when
compared to the mid-point of the scale, participants imagined the modification to be significantly
more related to quality than to taste (M = -.57 vs. 0, SD = 1.91, t(288) = 5.072, p < .001).

15
2.4.4. Discussion
When consumers have no information about what has changed with a product, they
assume that the modification is related to quality and exhibit a preference for the modified
version. These results are in line with prior work suggesting that, when a quality-based
modification has been applied, consumers are attracted to the modified version of the product.
Critically, the preference for newly modified products works against my predictions regarding
taste-based modifications, as I expect consumers to exhibit an aversion to this kind of
modification.
2.5. Study 1
2.5.1. Overview
In an effort to understand whether, and to what extent consumers are prone to react
unfavorably to taste-based modifications, I ran a field study in collaboration with a local
restaurant. Given companies frequently communicate on their packaging or in marketing
materials that they are using a new recipe or formula, I set out to test the potential consequences
of such a strategy. A change in recipe (i.e., flavor) is, according to my definition, usually
perceived as a taste-based modification. Thus, according to my theorizing, communicating this
change is likely to spur a negative reaction initially among consumers. In this study, I test
whether this effect occurs in a real-would marketing context using a Facebook advertisement
with a real-world dependent variable, click-through rates for a company’s online ads.
2.5.2. Method
Facebook Ad Manager has an A/B split test feature, which enables marketers to compare
the effectiveness of different advertisements. I collaborated with a local restaurant to run a
Facebook ad campaign using the Facebook Ad Manager platform. Two versions of an

16
advertisement for one of their dessert items were developed. In one condition, the ad stated how
the recipe for that specific dessert has always been the same. In the other condition, the ad stated
how that specific dessert was now being prepared with a new recipe. Both advertisements were
run on Facebook, targeting a population within a 50 miles radius of the restaurant and who had
exhibited prior interest in the topics “Food” and “Restaurant.” Note the location is a major
metropolitan area within the United States, and therefore it is unlikely that a significant
proportion of those users targeted had any direct experience with the restaurant. The ad was
placed only in the newsfeed of Facebook. I established a total budget of $400 ($200 for each ad
in the set), and let both advertisements run for eight days.
I used the advertisement reach (i.e., unique people who viewed either one of the ads) as
the sample. I created a dummy variable for the manipulated condition, with a value of “1” if the
recipe was always the same, and a value of “0” if the recipe was modified. I used the click-
through rate on the advertisement (i.e., interest in the restaurant) as the focal dependent variable.
Stimuli for this and all subsequent studies of this chapter are available in the Appendixes
A-G.
2.5.3. Results
Click-through rate. The ad had a total reach of 19,415 Facebook users (9,940 for the
same recipe condition and 9,475 for the new recipe condition). I observe that 4.64% (N = 461) of
Facebook users clicked on the ad promoting the unmodified recipe, whereas only 4.05% (N =
384) of Facebook users clicked on the ad promoting the modified recipe. Logistic regression
reveals a significant effect of the manipulation; Facebook users displayed 15% higher odds of
clicking on the ad that advertised the recipe for the dessert that was always the same compared to
the ad that advertised the recipe had been modified (OR = 1.15, p = .046).

17
2.5.4. Discussion
The results of this study provide initial evidence consistent with my theorizing. Indeed,
consumers were more attracted by the advertisement promoting an unmodified product than by
the one promoting a taste-based modification. Further, this study provides external validity by
testing my prediction within a real-world advertising context. Importantly, these results illustrate
the precariousness of promoting taste-based changes and the potential negative ramifications; in
this case, less interest in a product or firm (the restaurant). Worth noting is that, in this study, the
difference between conditions could be the result of favoritism toward consistency in the recipe,
or aversion to a change in the recipe. However, either of these possibilities is in line with my
proposed effect; consumers tend to be averse to taste-based modifications relative to consistency
and therefore frequently are attracted to the unmodified product.
While the results provide initial support for my theorizing, there are many factors I could
not control given the nature of the study. As a next step, I replicate these findings in a controlled
laboratory setting. Further, in study 1, I picked a prototypical taste-based modification (i.e., a
change in flavor). However, it is possible that the same change can be perceived differently by
different consumers, especially when more details about the change are provided. For some
consumers a sweeter drink could be seen as an objective improvement (i.e., quality-based
modification), while for others, it could be seen simply as a taste change (i.e., taste-based
modification). To control for individual-level preferences, across studies I generally do not
provide details regarding the change (e.g., I disclose a change in the recipe without specifying
what exactly is being added or taken away). However, as a stronger test for my theorizing, in
study 2, I ask each participant whether they perceived a specific change as related more to

18
quality or taste, and use their idiosyncratic response to test my prediction that taste-based
modifications often elicit a negative reaction.
2.6. Study 2
2.6.1. Overview
Previous work in marketing has highlighted how consumers are predisposed to react
favorably to product modifications (Bellezza et al., 2017; Shani et al., 2020). While not making it
explicit, prior research has focused on what I refer to as quality-based modifications. The aim of
this study is to draw a distinction between how consumers respond to taste-based modifications
in contrast to quality-based modifications. More precisely, I sought to understand whether
consumers react differently to what they perceive as taste-based versus quality-based
modifications in a systematic way. In line with what has been established by prior work – a
priori, I predicted consumers would react favorably to products that undergo what are perceived
as quality-based modifications. However, when the change is perceived as more related to taste, I
predicted consumers would tend to react unfavorably to the modified product.
2.6.2. Method
The sample included 391 participants recruited in a student subject pool (49% male, MAge
= 20.01). Sample was set at 200 participants per condition and was ultimately determined by
how many participants attended a single lab session. The study employed a single factor
between-subject design with two conditions (Modification attitude: Liked vs. Disliked). Rather
than presenting consumers with a specific modified product, in this study I asked participants to
recall and describe a product modification that they either liked or disliked. Critically, this
allowed me to gather a variety of product modifications that spanned product categories. After
describing the product modification they liked or disliked, participants were presented with my

19
definitions of quality- and taste-based modifications and reported whether they believed the
modification they described had more to do with quality or taste on a 7-point scale ranging from
-3 = “Quality” to 3 = “Taste.”
2.6.3. Results
Taste vs. quality evaluation. Participants asked to recall a product modification they
liked, evaluated it to be significantly more related to quality than taste (M = -.22, SD = 2.19). In
contrast, participants asked to recall a product modification they disliked, evaluated it to be
significantly more related to taste than quality (M = .33, SD = 2.06, F(1, 389) = 6.58, p = .011, η
2

= .02). Thus, in line with my prediction, it seems that, on average, product modifications
consumers like tend to be associated with quality while product modifications consumers dislike
tend to be associated with taste. Within this sample, four people did not explicitly mention a
product modification as requested. Excluding these people does not change the results (F(1, 385)
= 6.50, p = .011, η
2
= .02).
Additional analyses. Given one might argue taste-based modifications are more (less)
common among hedonic (utilitarian) products, I sought to verify that the effect was not driven by
consumers mentioning hedonic (utilitarian) products more frequently when asked about a
modification they disliked (liked). Accordingly, I provided 195 independent coders (a separate
pool of students recruited within the same school – 55% male, MAge = 19.88) definitions of
hedonic and utilitarian products, and asked each one to rate a random subset of 12 of the 162
products mentioned in participants’ open-ended responses on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Primarily
utilitarian” to 7 = “Primarily hedonic.” I observe no difference on this dimension between
conditions. Product modifications participants disliked did not score any differently on the

20
hedonic/utilitarian measure (M = 4.35, SD = .89) when compared to product modifications
participants liked (M = 4.23, SD = .91, F(1, 385) = 1.599, p = .207, η
2
< .01).
2.6.4. Discussion
The results of Study 2 suggest that, across different domains and product categories,
product modifications consumers like tend to be associated with quality, and product
modifications consumers dislike tend to be associated with taste. Thus, it seems that there are
systematic differences between product modifications consumers like or dislike. In this study, I
uncover one such systematic difference, whether the modification is perceived more or less to
quality-based or taste-based, and I rule out another important difference, whether the product is
hedonic or utilitarian.
Worth mentioning is that, while there are some types of changes that are, on average,
perceived as more related to taste than quality (e.g., a change in flavor); when it comes to
specific modifications, different consumers may hold somewhat different views. A powerful
element of this study is that product modifications were linked to individual perceptions in terms
of the change, with each respondent indicating whether they themselves perceived the change as
being more related to taste or quality.
In the following study, I again examine how consumers react to taste- and quality-based
modifications, however, taking a different approach. Rather than asking each consumer to recall
a product modification and evaluate it, I provide all participants with the same modification, yet
frame it as related more so to either quality or taste. Companies have a number of tools through
which they can frame a given modification as related more with quality or taste. Here, I apply
one such tool, providing a reason for the change.

21
In Study 2, I manipulated whether participants evaluated a product modification they
liked or disliked. In subsequent studies, I generally refrain from giving details on what exactly
has been changed (e.g., I talk about a change in design for a sweater without mentioning
specifics, or which specific color or pattern has been altered). In doing so, I control for the fact
that there is natural variation in whether consumers like a specific change (e.g., the color green
or a pois pattern). While this is intended to test how, on average, consumers react to taste-based
modifications, it also is not far removed from the real-world where companies are ambiguous
about what’s new (e.g., communicate the presence of a new recipe in their marketing messages
without explaining exactly which ingredients have changed and how so).
2.7. Study 3
2.7.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to test whether the observed effect (i.e., an aversion toward taste-
based modifications) is driven by a perception that taste-based modifications alter the essence of
the product, or how the product was supposed to be. Importantly, in this study, I hold the product
category and modification the same, yet frame the change as more related to quality or taste by
providing different motives for why the company applied the modification.
2.7.2. Method
The sample includes 390 participants recruited in a student subject pool (46% male, MAge
= 19.84). Sample was set at 200 participants per condition and was ultimately determined by
how many participants attended a single lab session. The study employed a single factor
between-subject design with two conditions (Modification type: Quality-based vs. Taste-based).
Participants read about a tomato sauce that, after being commercialized, was modified by the
company and a new version introduced into the market. In both conditions, participants read that

22
the modification entailed a change to the type of tomato used for the sauce. Critically, the actual
change to the product was identical across conditions. In the quality-based modification
condition, participants read the company wanted to change the shelf life of the sauce. In the
taste-based modification condition, participants read the company wanted to change the flavor of
the sauce. Thus, the change was the same (i.e., the use of a new type of tomato), but was driven
by different motives.
After reading the scenario, participants indicated which version of the tomato sauce they
would be more likely to choose on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = “Version with original
tomato” to 3 = “Version with new tomato.” Given my theorizing, in this study, I measured
essence perceptions. Participants indicated the extent to which the product contained the sauce’s
essence on three separate items: (1) the extent to which the final product reflected the essence of
the sauce; (2) the extent to which the final product was in line with the spirit of the sauce; and (3)
the extent to which the final product was how the sauce was supposed to be. These items were
adapted from previous work on essentialism within a marketing context (Newman & Dhar,
2014). All items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot.” I
averaged the three items to create an index of overall perceived essence (α = .89). As a
manipulation check, participants reported whether they believed the modification applied had
more to do with quality or taste on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = “Quality” to 3 = “Taste.”
2.7.3. Results
Manipulation check. As predicted, participants perceived the change in the new version
of the tomato sauce to be comparatively more focused on taste in the taste-based modification
condition (M = 1.00, SD = 1.72), and more focused on quality in the quality-based modification
condition (M = -1.26, SD = 1.74, F(1,388) = 166.85, p < .001, η
2
= .30).

23
Product preference. Participants exhibited a greater preference for the unmodified
version (i.e., reticence toward the new version) in the taste-based modification condition (M = -
.50, SD = 1.64) compared to in the quality-based modification condition (M = .52, SD = 2.14,
F(1,388) = 27.99, p < .001, η
2
= .07).
Essence perception. Participants perceived the product to contain more of its essence in
the quality-based modification condition (M = 4.83, SD = 1.36) compared to the taste-based
modification condition (M = 4.27, SD = 1.08, F(1,388) = 20.39, p < .001, η
2
= .05).
2.7.4. Discussion
Taken together, the results of Study 3 suggest consumers react differently to a modified
product based on whether it is described as a quality-based or taste-based change. Importantly,
consumers preferred the unmodified version of the product when the company applied a taste-
based modification, but not when they applied a quality-based modification. It is worth
highlighting that, in this study, participants were unlikely to have had prior experience with the
brand of tomato sauce as it was not marketed in the U.S. Thus, while in the real-world examples
provided earlier misgivings toward a taste-based modification could be explained by consumers’
aversion to something they already liked or had become accustomed to, the same does not apply
in this study. Further, in this study, I provide preliminary evidence that one reason why
consumers react negatively toward taste-based modifications is related to inferences about the
perceived essence of the product. In subsequent studies (Studies 5 & 6), I accrue further evidence
in support of the proposed process taking both a mediation and a moderation approach.
This study also rules out an important alternative explanation, namely that consumers’
preference for the unmodified version of the product is driven by a preference for the first
product to market (Kardes & Kalyanaram, 1992). Indeed, if consumers are always attracted to

24
the first product to come on the market, then I should have observed no difference in attitude
between the taste-based and quality-based conditions; respondents would have preferred the
unmodified version in each.
Having established a differential response to taste-based versus quality-based
modifications, in what follows, I focus exclusively on the former, and I identify conditions under
which consumers react more (vs. less) negatively to such changes.
2.8. Study 4a
2.8.1. Overview
In previous studies, I established the basic effect such that when taste-based
modifications are applied to a product, consumers exhibit a tendency to prefer the unmodified
version of the product. However, as mentioned earlier, I do not expect this effect to occur equally
across all product categories. One factor I anticipate plays a role is the extent to which something
is perceived as creative. More specifically, I expect consumers to be more resistant to taste-based
modifications when applied to products they deem as more creative. In this study, I vary the
extent to which the product is perceived as creative, and measure consumers’ preference for the
unmodified as opposed to the modified version of the product.
2.8.2. Method
The sample includes 195 participants recruited in a student subject pool (55% male, MAge
= 19.88). Sample was set at 100 participants per condition and was ultimately determined by
how many participants attended a single lab session. The study employed a single factor
between-subject design with two conditions (Creativity: High vs. Low) and three product
replicates. I created three product pairs that were similar in many respects, yet differed in terms
of perceived creativity. The three more creative products included a novel, a painting

25
(decoration), and a mid-century mirror. The matching, less creative products included a
biography (book), wallpaper (decoration), and a vanity mirror. Participants were presented with
the three more (vs. less) creative products and read about each of them on a separate page in
random order. For each product, they were told that the company applied a taste-based
modification, and was now commercializing both the unmodified and modified version of the
product. Importantly, across pairs of products I kept the modification and the text of the stimuli
the same.
Participants indicated which version they would be more likely to buy on a 7-point scale
from -3 = “The unmodified one” to 3 = “The modified one.” After expressing their preference,
participants indicated how creative they perceived each of the products to be, on a 7-point scale
from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot.”
2.8.3. Results
Manipulation Check. To test whether the manipulation was successful, I ran a repeated-
measures ANOVA with manipulated creativity as the independent variable, each product
replicate as a repeated factor, and participants’ perceived creativity as the dependent variable.
Results reveal a significant effect of creativity (F(1,193) = 13.29, p < .001, η
2
= .06), such that,
on average, the products I anticipated would be seen as more creative were perceived as more
creative (M = 4.89, SD = 1.71) compared to the alternatives (M = 4.32, SD = 1.51).
Product preference. Importantly, when looking at consumers’ preference between the
modified and unmodified version of the product, I observe the predicted effect. A repeated-
measure ANOVA with manipulated creativity as the independent variable, product replicate as a
repeated factor, and participants’ product preference as the dependent variable reveals a
significant effect of creativity (F(1,193) = 6.32, p = .013, η
2
= .03). Participants preferred the

26
unmodified version of the product for more creative products (M = -.59, SD = 1.94) more so than
for less creative products (M = -.17, SD = 1.86).
2.8.4. Discussion
This study documents conditions under which the proposed effect is more versus less
likely to occur. I observe consumers react negatively to a taste-based product modification
especially when applied to more creative products, in line with my prediction. The goal of the
next study is to extend my proposed effect from a hypothetical scenario to one involving a
consequential choice, while taking a different approach toward manipulating the perceived
creativity of a product.
2.9 Study 4b
2.9.1. Overview
The main goal of this study is to test my proposed effect in an incentive-compatible
setting. Further, I highlight how even minor changes can result in consumers perceiving a
product as more creative, and, thus, react more negatively to product modifications. While in the
previous study I used different products to test the role of perceived creativity, here I hold the
product constant and manipulate perceived creativity by either associating the product with a
creative individual, or not. More precisely, I either used an eponymous brand or not. Prior work
suggests that information about the creator of a product can affect how a product is evaluated
(e.g., Smith et al., 2016; Valsesia et al., 2016). Thus, I predict that eponymous brands can
emphasize a connection with a creative individual, and alter perceived creativity of a given
product, thereby having consequences for how consumers react to taste-based modifications.
Showing the impact of this type of difference in branding is important in that it highlights the
real-world implications of my research agenda.

27
2.9.2. Method
The sample includes 285 participants (35% male, MAge = 24.42). A booth was set up on
the campus of a major US university and passersby were asked to complete a short survey on an
iPad in exchange for a small gift (a single-wrapped chocolate). I ran the study for three days
from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. in order to get as close to my target sample of 300 people as possible.
The survey asked about participants’ use of public transportation (vs. their own car) along with
some demographic questions, and served as a cover for the actual study. What I was interested in
was their choice of chocolate as their gift for completing the study.
The study consisted of a single factor, perceived creativity. I manipulated the perceived
creativity of the product between-subject by associating the brand of chocolate either with a
creative individual (i.e., eponymous brand) or not. I informed participants that the brand
(“Delice”) was either the name of the chocolatier who created the recipe (i.e., high creativity), or
simply a brand name (i.e., low creativity). As part of the study, I displayed two bowls, each with
single-wrapped “Delice” chocolates that looked the same, with the only difference being the
color of the label. Participants were informed that one chocolate was prepared according to the
original recipe, while the other was prepared following a new recipe. All participants were
presented with the same two options. The DV in this study was the choice between the
unmodified and modified product; participants were asked to pick the chocolate they would like
to receive as their gift for completing the survey.
2.9.3. Separate Test of Manipulation
A separate study confirmed the manipulation for the perceived creativity was effective. A
sample of 101 participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (46% male, Mage =
40.21) indicated how creative they perceived the chocolate to be on a 7-point scale from 1 =

28
“Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”. Further, this study helped rule out potential alternative
explanations. More specifically, I wanted to insure the manipulation (eponymous branding or
not) did not impact the perceived magnitude of difference between the modified and unmodified
product. I also wanted to insure it did not impact the extent to which the change was perceived as
related to taste (vs. quality). Thus, participants also indicated the perceived magnitude of the
change in the chocolate recipe on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Minor change” to 7 = “Major
change”, and also indicated whether they believed the modification applied had to do more with
quality or taste on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = “Quality” to 3 = “Taste”.
The results reveal the manipulation influences perceived creativity as expected.
Participants perceived the product as more creative when the brand for the chocolates was
eponymous (M = 5.36, SD = 1.21) than when it was not (M = 4.75, SD = 1.29; F(1,99) = 6.09, p
= .015, η
2
= .06).
Importantly, there was no significant difference in whether the change was perceived as
more quality- or taste-related (F(1,99) = 2.67, p = .105, η
2
= .03). This suggests the extent to
which the change was perceived as related to taste or quality did not vary significantly based on
whether the brand was eponymous (M = 1.22, SD = 1.28) or not (M = .76, SD = 1.51), and was
perceived as related more to taste (than quality) in both conditions. Further, there was no
significant difference in the perceived magnitude of the change (F(1,99) = 1.39, p = .242, η
2
=
.01). The perceived size of the change did not differ significantly based on whether brand was
eponymous (M = 4.06, SD = 1.45) or not (M = 4.39, SD = 1.39).
2.9.4. Results

29
Product preference. As predicted, in the field study more participants (75%) picked the
unmodified version of the chocolate when the brand was eponymous (i.e., when the product was
more creative) than when Delice was simply a brand name (59%, X
2
(1) = 7.44 p = .016).
2.9.5. Discussion
Again, I observe that when the product is perceived as more creative, consumers are more
likely to favor the unchanged version of a product that has experienced a taste-based
modification. Additionally, the results of this study demonstrate the effect in a case in which the
consumer’s choice is consequential; each participant received their chosen product at the end of
the study.
As stated earlier, perceptions of creativity tend to be greater for what are considered
creative industry products (film, novels, etc.), yet companies can emphasize creativity for almost
any product using different strategies. In this study, I have shown how emphasizing (vs.
ignoring) the connection of the product with a creative individual boosts the perceived creativity
of the product itself, and, in turn, influences consumers’ reactions to a taste-based modification.
This study employs a common marketing strategy – using an eponymous brand – as illustrative
of how the perceived creativity of a product can be made more salient. This allows me to
delineate which brands should be especially cautious in communicating taste-based product
modifications – those that emphasize the creativity inherent in their products. Together, studies
4a and 4b show that, the more creative a product is perceived to be, the more consumers are
likely to steer away from a taste-based modification.
This study also helps rule out potential alternative explanations. The fact the product
category is the same across conditions suggests any explanation at the category level (e.g.,

30
dispersion of preferences, expensiveness of product, whether the product is material or
experiential, etc.) cannot explain the observed pattern of results.
Together, this first set of studies also rules out another important alternative explanation,
namely that consumers react negatively to taste-based modifications simply because they are
averse to change, as the literature on the status-quo bias might suggest (Samuelson &
Zeckhauser, 1988). First, across studies, consumers have not made a prior choice (i.e., do not
have a status-quo to deviate from). By-and-large, they are unfamiliar with the particular product
and are provided little detail on the exact modification being applied. In addition, I find
consumers are not equally reluctant to all taste-based modifications, but their reluctance depends
on other factors, specifically, in this work, the perceived creativity of the given product, or on
how the change is framed by companies.
Having established the main effect, and specified certain conditions under which it is
more versus less likely to occur, I now focus on testing the proposed process directly. Recall I
contend that taste-based modifications are believed to alter the essence of the product, and that
such an alteration is aversive when applied to products perceived as more creative. In the next
study, I test the proposed process explanation using mediation.
2.10. Study 5
2.10.1. Overview
This study tests my full conceptual model simultaneously. In doing so, it demonstrates
that taste-based product modifications are perceived as altering the essence of a product, and this
change in essence is more aversive when products are perceived as more creative (see Figure 2-
1). Again, I hold the product constant and manipulate perceptions of the product’s creativity by
employing an eponymous brand in one condition and not the other.

31
In prior studies, participants were presented with both the unmodified and modified
version of a product and were asked to choose between the two. In this study, I show the effect in
a between-subject design. Participants read about either an unmodified or a modified product,
and subsequently reported their attitude toward that specific version. This change in study
structure demonstrates how the effect is independent of the paradigm employed, but also has
additional implications. When a company releases a new version of a product, it can replace the
prior version with the new one, or offer the new version alongside the prior version for some
period of time. Across studies, I look at both situations. In the previous studies, offering both
versions was inherent in the design, as participants chose between the two. Here, instead, in the
test condition, they read that the modified product has replaced the prior version and asked their
attitude towards it. In the control condition, nothing has changed. In other words, I show
consumers’ aversion towards taste-based product modifications occurs both when the modified
product is offered alongside the previous version, and when it is a replacement for the previous
version.
2.10.2. Method
The sample includes 601 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (54%
male, MAge = 41.11). Sample was set at 150 participants per condition and was ultimately
determined by how many participants completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The
study employed a 2 (Product: Unmodified vs. Modified) x 2 (Creativity: Low vs. High) between-
subject design. Participants were presented with information about a specific sweater. In the high
creativity condition, they read that the brand name was “Alex Light,” named after the designer
and owner of the brand (eponymous). In the low creativity condition, they read that the brand
name was “Capsule.” Further, in the unmodified product condition, participants read the product

32
was commercialized with one pattern of colors and that this pattern never changed. In the
modified product condition, participants read that the product was commercialized with one
pattern of colors, but later the pattern was changed.
Participants indicated their attitude toward the sweater on three separate items: (1) how
much they expected to enjoy the sweater; (2) how much they expected to like the sweater; and
(3) how positive their attitude was toward the sweater. I averaged responses to the three items to
create an index of overall attitude toward the sweater (α = .94). Additionally, participants
indicated the extent to which the product contained the sweater’s essence on the same three items
used in Study 3 (α = .96). All items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7
= “Quite a lot.”
To insure the measured constructs – attitude and essence perception – indeed tapped into
two different constructs, I performed a test of discriminant validity. The Fornell-Larcker (1981)
criterion has been shown to be an extremely reliable method for testing for discriminant validity
(Hilkenmeier et al., 2020). It requires the average variance extracted (AVE) of both constructs to
be greater than the squared correlation between the two constructs. In this case, the AVE for the
attitude measure is .84, the AVE for the essence measure is .88, and the squared correlation
between the two variables is .45, meeting this criterion and providing evidence of discriminant
validity between the measures of product attitude and essence perception.
2.10.3. Results
Attitude. Participants reported having a more positive attitude toward the unmodified
product (M = 5.30, SD = 1.08) than the modified product (M = 4.93, SD = 1.20, F(1,597) =
15.93, p < .001, η
2
= .03). This effect was qualified by a significant interaction (F(1,597) = 7.85,
p = .005, η
2
= .01). More specifically, when the product was associated with a creative individual

33
(high creativity) participants had a more positive attitude toward the unmodified product (M =
5.47, SD = 1.05) than the modified one (M = 4.84, SD = 1.34, F(1,597) = 23.02, p < .001, η
2
=
.04). However, when the product was not associated with a creative individual (low creativity)
participants were indifferent between the unmodified product (M = 5.14, SD = 1.08) and
modified product (M = 5.03, SD = 1.04, F(1,597) = .71, p = .400, η
2
< .01), even though
directionally they had a more positive attitude toward the unmodified (vs. modified) version of
the product. There was no significant main effect of creativity (F(1,597) = .64, p = .425, η
2
<
.01).
Essence. Participants believed that the product contained more essence when the product
was unmodified (M = 5.89, SD = 1.09) than when it was modified (M = 4.68, SD = 1.53,
F(1,597) = 124.99, p < .001, η
2
= .17). Importantly, this was the only significant effect. There
was no effect of whether the product was associated with a creative individual or not (F(1,597) =
1.01, p = .317, η
2
< .01), and no significant interaction (F(1,597) = .35, p = .556, η
2
< .01). Note
that the moderating effect of creativity intervenes after the mediator in my model (see Figure 2-
1). Indeed, perceived essence does not depend on whether the product was more or less creative.
Mediation. Using Model 14 of Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013), I ran a mediated
moderation model with the attitude index as the dependent variable, the essence index as the
mediator, whether the product was modified or not as the independent variable, and the level of
creativity as a moderator (see Figure 2-1). I find evidence in support of mediated moderation
(95% Bootstrap CI = .03 to .17). More precisely, consumers perceived the product as containing
less essence (a = -.61, Bootstrap CI = -.71 to -.50) when the product had been modified, and, the
less essence was perceived to be embedded in the product, the less positive the attitude toward
the product (b = .54, Bootstrap CI = .49 to .60). However, the effect of essence on attitude

34
toward the product appears stronger when the product was associated with a creative individual
(95% Bootstrap CI = .55 to .69) than when it was not (95% Bootstrap CI = .39 to .54).
2.10.4. Discussion
The results of Study 5 provide evidence in support of my theorizing that taste-based
modifications are perceived to alter the essence of the product, and this alteration is more
aversive when applied to those products that are perceived as more creative. I once again
implemented a commonly used marketing strategy – employing an eponymous brand – to
manipulate perceived creativity. While taste-based modifications are expected to alter the
essence of a product, consumers react more negatively when the modification is applied to a
product perceived as more creative. In the study that follows, I provide further support for my
proposed process explanation taking a moderation approach.
2.11. Study 6
2.11.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to offer further evidence of the proposed essence-based
explanation. I do so by showing that, if a creator intended a product modification from the
product’s inception, it results in a smaller perceived change to the product's essence, and,
consequently, elicits less aversiveness toward the modified version of the product. This is
because a product’s essence is established during the initial ideation phase, before the product is
commercialized (Hick, 2008). It follows that, product ideas that are part of that phase – even if
not immediately executed – can, to some extent, still be considered as constituting the product’s
essence. Therefore, in this study, I manipulate whether the creator had considered the taste-based
modification while initially ideating the product, as opposed to only after having commercialized
the product. Consistent with an essence explanation, I expect consumers will react negatively

35
only in the latter scenario. In this study, I emphasize perceived creativity in all conditions by
associating the product with a creative individual (i.e., use eponymous branding).
2.11.2. Method
The sample includes 600 participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (56%
male, MAge = 39.86). Sample was set at 200 participants per condition and was ultimately
determined by how many participants completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The
study employed a single factor between-subject design with three conditions (Modification: No
modification vs. Modification/Intended vs. Modification/Not intended). Participants were
presented with information about a specific sweater. In the no modification condition,
participants read that the designer always wanted the pattern of colors of the sweater to be as it is
now. In both modification conditions, participants instead read that the designer initially wanted
a different pattern of colors, but later decided to modify it. More specifically, in the
modification/intended condition, participants read that the newly applied pattern of colors was
one the designer had originally imagined – yet had not implemented – when ideating the product.
In the modification/not intended condition, participants read the newly applied pattern of colors
was only recently developed by the designer. Thus, in both the modification/intended and
modification/not intended condition, the product is undergoing a change in colors. However, I
argue that, in the modification/intended condition, because the creator had considered the
potential new colors when originally creating the sweater, applying such change is more aligned
to the product’s essence (i.e., how the product was supposed to be). This is because a product’s
essence is established during the initial ideation phase (Hick, 2008). Participants indicated their
attitude toward the sweater on the same three-item scale used in Study 5 (α = .96). Participants

36
indicated the extent to which the product contained the product’s essence on the same three-item
scale used in Studies 3 and 5 (α = .95).
2.11.3. Results
Manipulation check. A one-way ANOVA reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,597) =
46.86, p < .001, η
2
= .14). Planned contrasts reveal that, as expected, participants believed the
sweater had more of its essence in the no modification (M = 5.43, SD = 1.17) condition than in
the modification/not intended condition (M = 4.10, SD = 1.57, F(1,597) = 91.88, p < .001, η
2
=
.13). However, participants also indicated that the sweater had more of its essence in the no
modification than in the modification/intended condition (M = 4.93, SD = 1.38, F(1,597) =
12.94, p < .001, η2 = .02). More importantly, participants indicated the sweater had more of its
essence in the modification/intended than in the modification/not intended condition (F(1,597) =
35.42, p < .001, η
2
= .06).
Attitude. A one-way ANOVA reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,597) = 8.64, p <
.001, η
2
= .03). Planned contrasts reveal that, replicating the pattern of results of previous studies,
participants reported having a more positive attitude toward the sweater in the no modification
condition (M = 5.18, SD = 1.17) than in the modification/not intended condition (M = 4.66, SD =
1.43, F(1,597) = 16.83, p < .001, η
2
= .03). However, there was no significant difference in
respondents’ attitude between the no modification and the modification/intended condition (M =
5.00, SD = 1.22, F(1,597) = 2.15, p = .143, η2 < .01). Further, participants had a more positive
attitude toward the sweater in the modification/intended than in the modification/not intended
condition (F(1,597) = 6.87, p = .009, η
2
= .01).
2.11.4. Discussion

37
The results of this study provide additional evidence that consumers’ aversive reaction
toward taste-based product modifications is driven by a perception that the product’s essence is
not perceived in the same way. While I believe all taste-based modifications do – to some extent
– alter a product’s essence, here, I observe that the more the essence is perceived as having been
altered, the more negatively consumers react to the product modification. Taken together, these
results, and results from both Study 3 and Study 5 provide convergent evidence in support of the
proposed process, having taken both a mediation and a moderation approach.
2.12. Chapter Discussion
Companies frequently apply taste-based modifications to their products and have the
freedom to decide whether and how to promote these changes. The results of this research
suggest highlighting taste-based modifications might not always be an optimal strategy. In fact, I
show it often can have deleterious effects. A series of laboratory and field experiments support
the prediction that consumers consider taste-based modifications aversive when applied to more
creative products. This aversion is driven by inferences that taste-based modifications alter the
essence of the product (i.e., how the product was intended to be).
From a theoretical perspective, this research not only extends the literature on product
modification, adding taste-based modifications as a specific type of modification worthy of
researchers’ attention, but also contributes to work on essentialism within marketing by testing
how taste-based modifications can alter the perceived essence of a product.
A particular strength of this research is the variety of approaches taken. Across studies, I
tested the proposed effect using diverse stimuli (e.g., tomato sauce, a novel, a sweater) and
employing different designs (within-subject, between-subject). Further, I have participants
evaluate only the unmodified or modified product, as well as let them choose between an

38
unmodified and a modified version of a product. This supports the premise that the proposed
effect occurs independent of whether the company decides to introduce the new version of the
product alongside the previous version, or introduces the new version as a direct substitute.
Additionally, I manipulate the perceived creativity of the product, a critical moderator of
the effect, through multiple routes. I highlight how, for some categories of products (e.g., novel,
painting), products are naturally perceived as creative (Study 4a), while also showing that even
minor changes within the same product category can boost the perceived creativity. More
specifically, holding the focal product constant, I show how companies can boost the perceived
creativity by emphasizing a connection with a creative individual, accomplished by employing
eponymous branding (Study 4b, 5, and 6). This work suggests companies that use these
strategies should be particularly careful when communicating product modifications. Of note,
while I test one route through which the perceived creativity can be manipulated, many other
approaches are possible. Among these other routes, I believe perceived creativity would be
higher for hand-made products (vs. machine made), for products sold by smaller organizations
(vs. bigger corporations), and for limited-edition products, especially when created in
collaboration with a creative individual (e.g., Marshmello Coke, Teague, 2022).
With regard to process, I set out to provide supporting evidence through both moderation
and mediation. In Study 3 and Study 5, I measure perceived essence, and show consumers’
reluctance to taste-based modifications is driven by a belief that a product’s essence is less intact.
In Study 6, I test the general idea that, the more a taste-based modification is perceived to alter
the essence of a product, the more negatively consumers will react. While prior work in
marketing has focused primarily on essence transference (i.e., how a product can both acquire
and transmit essence from other sources), I believe it is as important to understand how the

39
essence of products is perceived differently by consumers and affects their attitudes and choices.
Here, I study how taste-based modifications affect perceptions of the essence of a product in a
damaging way.
Finally, in Study 1, I demonstrated the real-world consequences of promoting a taste-
based modification, while showing how the findings apply in an advertising context. While I test
the effect of using specific wording (e.g., new recipe), other researchers could investigate the
impact of using different wording, either veering toward quality or toward taste, on consumers’
attitude both toward the ad itself and the product advertised. They might also test for ways to
attenuate the effect of taste-based modifications using language that reassures the consumer that
the essence has not changed. To this end, consider how often products change their packaging
and employ the stock phrase “New Look, Same Great Taste”.
From a managerial point of view, these studies provide insight regarding whether and
when to communicate taste-based product modifications. I suggest that, for those companies
selling creative products, managers should either avoid disclosing taste-based modifications, or
describe the product change as more of a quality- than taste-based modification. As shown in
Study 3, the very same modification can be received by consumers either more positively or
negatively, depending on whether it is seen as quality- or taste-related. Thus, a company that
modifies the recipe for a food item, might choose to highlight quality-based consequences related
to the modification, and avoid promulgating any taste-based consequences. For example, a soda-
drink company that modifies the type of sweetener used in their drinks can downplay any change
in flavor (e.g., same great taste) or highlight any health or nutritional benefits (e.g., fewer
calories).

40
While I tested the effect across a variety of tangible and intangible products, future
research could explore how the findings extend to a service context. In Study 1, I moved in that
direction by collaborating with a service provider (i.e., a restaurant). However, in that study the
focus was still placed on a product offered (i.e., a dessert). When consumers interact multiple
times with a service provider, they might experience changes to the intangible service being
offered. Whether these changes are presented as being quality- or taste-related could be a driving
factor of their satisfaction. Think about a massage therapist that, for their signature massage,
decides to introduce a new technique. They could do so by either applying a technique that they
promote as being more enjoyable (taste-based, as more subjective), or as one that is better at
separating and loosening muscle fibers (quality-based, as more objective).
Further, as demonstrated by the real-world examples mentioned at the beginning, there
are many different types of taste-based modifications that can be encountered in the real world
(e.g., change in formulation, shape, color, design, flavor). My goal here was to study how
consumers react differently to taste-based modifications as compared to quality-based
modifications, rather than compare different types of taste-based modifications, a natural next
step that I leave to future research.
Future research could also extend this work by moving away from product modifications,
and instead explore the drivers affecting whether a product is perceived as more or less related to
quality versus taste. For example, previous work has begun to explore the role of dispersion of
preferences on taste versus quality perceptions, leading to mixed results (He & Bond, 2015;
Solomon et al., 1984). Some authors propose dispersion leads to taste inferences, while other
propose the opposite, or no relationship altogether. Future research could also investigate how
the structure of the market, such as information about a company’s market share, the number of

41
competitors, or about how many other consumers purchased or “liked” a particular product on
social media, influence whether consumers are more likely to perceive the product category as
differentiated by quality or taste. As this research and prior research make clear, assumptions
about whether product differences are a matter of vertical or horizontal differentiation have
broad consequences for consumer choice.

42
CHAPTER 3: CHANGES IN TASTES AND PERCEIVED EXPERTISE: A
PERSUASION STORY
3.1. Chapter Introduction
Suppose you ask a friend their opinion about a local restaurant, and this friend not only
praises the place, but also even recommends a specific dish. It seems reasonable to imagine that
you might be captivated by that dish, and consider trying it yourself. However, what if the friend
discloses their taste had changed and they now like dishes they did not like before? Will that
have any impact on the likelihood of following your friend’s recommendation? In this research, I
set out to answer this question.
People’s tastes often change during their life (Livingstone & Heer, 2018). Most
consumers can easily name a food they used to like, but do not like anymore, or something they
like to eat now, but did not like before. Moreover, it is not just about food. Consumers’ tastes
change in movies, music, décor, and other domains. While some of these changes could be the
result of trends or changes in the marketplace, many more are due to a personal change in
preferences (Wolf, 2007).
Importantly, people are free to choose whether to disclose a change in tastes to others,
leading to the question: What are the consequences of disclosing a change in tastes? Anecdotal
evidence suggests famous critics frequently change their mind about a product (whether it is a
restaurant, a movie, a theatrical piece, etc.), as is evident from mismatching reviews left at
different points in time (Landi, 2013; Pooley, 2022; Schjeldahl, 2012). Yet, it has also been
pointed out how critics tend to refrain from disclosing their tastes have changed, even when
recent reviews are in contrast to what they had previously said, likely due to a fear that changing
one’s mind risks undermining one’s authority (Livingstone & Heer, 2018). It seems some critics

43
have an intuition that disclosing a change in taste might not be an optimal strategy for those
whose profession might involve persuading consumers.
In this research, I seek to understand how consumers tend to respond to those whose
tastes change over time. Importantly, a change in tastes could be seen, at one extreme, as a
situation in which a person previously liked an option and presently does not like that option
anymore. At the other extreme, it might be a situation in which a person used to favor an option,
still likes it, but now favors a different option. In this essay, for the purpose of this research, I
define a change in taste as a situation in which a person undergoes a change in taste that moves
from liking to disliking something.
Prior work suggests that a “qualitative attitude change” (i.e., a change of valence – from
positive to negative) is perceived as greater than an otherwise identical change within valence
(i.e., from more to less positive) (Bechler et al., 2019). While both imply a change in demand, in
line with prior research, I expect consumers to react differently to someone who switches from
liking to disliking an option, compared to someone who simply shifts among favorites. Defining
a change in taste in this way also helps distinguish it from related concepts such as variety
seeking and satiation (Kahn 1995).
Given most people can freely choose whether to disclose that their tastes have changed
(and not just their current favorite), I explore whether disclosing a change in taste helps or hurts
one’s persuasiveness when giving subsequent recommendations. Importantly, in this work, I am
not interested in whether, when, or how consumers’ tastes change over time. Instead, I am
interested in how disclosing a change in taste drives others’ perceptions of the discloser, and the
likelihood of subsequently being persuaded by their recommendations.

44
To anticipate the findings, I find consumers are, on average, reluctant to follow a
recommendation from someone who discloses their tastes have changed in a given domain. This
effect is domain specific, such that when a person discloses a change in taste in one domain,
participants become reluctant to follow their recommendations in that domain, but not
necessarily in different domains. This is because consumers do not form an overall negative
impression of someone who discloses a change in tastes. Rather, I observe they perceive
someone else’s change in taste as a signal of a relative lack of expertise in that domain, and this
drives their reluctance to follow that person’s recommendations. My findings suggest consumers
hold a lay belief that expertise within a domain has an innate component, such that those who are
expert possess some natural talent that allows them to discriminate between options, and
recommend the best one. When consumers learn that a person has changed their taste in a given
domain, they interpret the change as a signal of a lack of that innate expertise, resulting in a
reticence to follow subsequent recommendations. Finally, I find this reticence is especially
strong among consumers prone to believe abilities are innate and cannot change over time (i.e.,
individuals with a “fixed” mindset; Dweck, 1999).
This research contributes to the existing literature in multiple ways. First, I advance work
on impression management by discussing one strategy that hurts perceptions of expertise,
disclosing a change in tastes. Relatedly, I also contribute to recent work on how consumers
perceive changes in others. Recent work suggests consumers tend to equate change with invested
effort, and reward those who change over time (Klein & O’Brien, 2017; Rodin & Price, 1995;
Soliman & Buehler, 2018). In this work, I highlight that, at times, disclosing a change can
backfire. Second, I advance work on self-theories by demonstrating how holding an entity (vs.
incremental) theory shapes consumers’ reaction to someone who discloses a change in tastes. I

45
find entity theorists (i.e., those who believe abilities are fixed and cannot improve over time), are
especially susceptible to react negatively to someone who discloses a change in tastes. Finally,
from a managerial standpoint, I highlight how disclosing a change in tastes can have negative
effects on persuasive appeals, whether those happen in a person-to-person discussion or in a
marketing context.
3.2. Literature Review
3.2.1. How Consumers Perceive Change
For years, researchers have focused on understanding how consumers form their
preferences (e.g., March, 1978; Simon, 1955; Slovic, 1995). Decision science had at one time
assumed consumers were rational and their preferences were stable across time, with different
presentations of the same choice yielding the same outcome (Edwards, 1954; Payne et al., 1992).
However, consumers’ preference formation has elicited considerable interest precisely because
multiple contextual elements have been found to play a relevant role in terms of how consumers’
preferences are formed and evolve over time (e.g., Huber et al., 1982; Huber et al., 2014; Payne
et al., 1993; Simonson, 1989; Tversky & Kahneman, 1986; Twersky & Simonson, 1993). For
example, a key assumption of prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) is that preferences
depend on a reference point evoked by how possible outcomes are described.
While past research has explored how consumers’ preferences evolve over time, far less
attention has been devoted to understanding how communicating a change in preference is
received by others. Previous work has, for example, focused on how consumers perceive a
change in opinion, highlighting consumers usually dislike such changes because they are seen as
a signal of hypocrisy (Effron et al., 2018; Kreps et al., 2017). However, while a change in
opinion usually involves changing one’s mind with regard to a social or political issue (e.g.,

46
Kreps et al., 2017), a change in preference is usually associated with changing one’s favored
option. This work looks at preferences in terms of consumption per se. To the best of my
knowledge, prior research on understanding how source certainty (i.e., how certain someone is
about their preference) impacts one’s persuasiveness is limited (Berger & Mitchell, 1989; Fazio
& Zanna, 1978). One notable exception is work by Karmarkar and Tormala (2010), who suggest
that, while high levels of source certainty usually help one’s persuasiveness, such certainty hurts
when the person giving recommendations is classified as an expert. In other words, being more
certain about one’s preferences makes non-experts more persuasive and experts less persuasive.
Nevertheless, how certain someone is about their preference when it comes to
consumption does not necessarily equate with whether that preference is more or less stable. A
food critic might change their taste in food from year to year, yet they can also be extremely
certain about the value of a recommended option at any point in time. Alternatively, the same
food critic might also never change their taste in food during their life, yet be somewhat
uncertain about the value of a recommended option at any point in time. Thus, I believe it is still
an open question as to whether learning if someone’s tastes have changed or not helps or hurts in
a persuasive attempt. In this project, I tackle this question.
Recent work has started to look at how disclosing a change in oneself is received by
others. Authors have studied both what causes people to recognize someone else has undergone a
change (i.e., “tipping points” of change; Klein & O’Brien, 2016; O’Brien, 2020; O’Brien &
Klein, 2017) and how people react to such change (Barden et al., 2005; Klein & O’Brien, 2016;
Rodin & Price, 1995; Soliman & Buehler, 2018). Across domains and situations, those results
suggest knowing someone has changed usually elicits a positive reaction. For example, Klein
and O’Brien (2017) show consumers are more inspired by those who recover from an

47
undesirable past (e.g., people who used to abuse extreme drugs, but no longer do so) compared to
those who have maintained consistently desirable standings (e.g., people who have never used
extreme drugs to begin with). Similarly, work by Rodin and Price (1995) suggests participants
give a person more “credit” for overcoming a stigma (i.e., being in good shape after being
overweight), than never having had the stigma to begin with (i.e., were always in good shape).
And, even when the stakes are higher, work by Soliman and Buehler (2018) suggests
workers who show an increasing trend in performance are evaluated more positively – and are
more likely to get a promotion – when compared to those who have always had a higher, yet
stable, performance level. Notably, this stream of research has thus far focused on understanding
how consumers react to a change in others when that change leads to either an objective or
assumed improvement of the self. Further, researchers have converged on an effort explanation.
This explanation suggests that, when a person undergoes a change, consumers interpret it as a
signal of invested effort and are willing to reward that effort.
In contrast, in this project, I focus on a situation in which a person discloses a change, yet
that change neither is a signal of invested effort nor can be interpreted as an improvement of the
self. Further, I look at how consumers react to such a disclosure, and propose disclosing a change
in tastes will reduce one’s persuasiveness when giving recommendations.
3.2.2. Expertise Perceptions
Importantly, as discussed before, I believe that disclosing a change in tastes is associated
with inferences about the perceived expertise of the discloser. Attribution of expertise is
extremely important when it comes to the perceptions of others (Baumeister, 1982; Leary et al.,
1994), and even more so when consumers are deciding whether to trust and follow a
recommendation. It has been shown that individuals evaluate appearances, behavior, and choices

48
made by others in order to infer their expertise in a given domain (Gershoff et al., 2001; Price &
Stone, 2004; Sniezek & Van Swol, 2001). For example, variety in what people choose can be a
signal of expertise, whether it’s variety in what people are willing to try (Sela et al., 2019), or in
the evaluations individuals give to multiple experiences (Wu et al., 2021). In this research, I
study another way in which people might influence, either intentionally or unintentionally, how
expert they are perceived to be, disclosing a change in tastes.
Prior work on how consumers evaluate talent and expertise has claimed a more positive
attitude toward those who achieve success because of natural talent (i.e., naturalness bias, Miceli
et al., 2020; Tsay, 2016; Tsay & Banaji, 2011). For example, when evaluating a musical
performance, participants perceive a musician who achieved success through natural talent as
more able and more likely to succeed, compared to a musician who achieved the same level of
success through hard work (Tsay & Banaji, 2011). This work builds on the argument that
consumers hold a lay belief such that expertise in a given domain has an innate quality to it.
Consumers tend to believe those who are expert enough to discriminate between options, and
recommend the best ones, are born with such ability. Thus, when a person discloses a change in
tastes, I expect consumers to infer that the target was not as much of an expert as they had
originally thought, or else they would have been able to discern whether that option was the best
from the beginning. This negative effect on perceived expertise drives consumers’ reluctance to
follow the discloser’s recommendations.
Previous work points out how consumers frequently hold multiple lay beliefs in their
mind, and these beliefs can be elicited simply by changing the task at hand (Cho & Schwarz,
2008; Deval et al., 2013). For example, consumers’ preference for natural talent is evident when

49
consumers hold the lay belief that “good art takes talent,” but could be reversed if participants
are primed with “good art takes effort” as a naive theory (Cho & Schwarz, 2008).
Further, prior work has suggested that, when it comes to abilities, there are important
individual level differences with respect to how consumers perceive change. Work by Dweck
(1999) suggests individuals can be placed on a continuum according to their views of where
ability originates, ranging from a “fixed” to a “growth” mindset, and that this mindset will
ultimately determine the extent to which they believe people can change. People with a “fixed”
mindset believe that intelligence, for example, is static and little can be done to improve one’s
intellectual ability. Ultimately, a fixed mindset individual sees one’s success in a domain as
driven by underlying ability and not by effort. Those with a “growth” mindset, in contrast,
believe that intelligence can be developed, that one’s abilities can be increased by learning, and
one’s success is driven by invested effort. In line with this reasoning, I expect individuals with a
“fixed” mindset to perceive someone who discloses their tastes have changed as less persuasive
in terms of their recommendations, compared to individuals with a “growth” mindset.
Hence, I expect a person disclosing a change in taste in a domain to be perceived as less
expert in that domain, making consumers reluctant to follow their recommendations. Further, I
expert this effect to be stronger for individuals with a “fixed” (vs. “growth”) mindset (see Figure
3-1).
FIGURE 3-1: Conceptual Model

50
3.3. The Current Investigation
Across five studies, I provide evidence in support of my predictions. In study 1, I
demonstrate consumers are reluctant to follow a recommendation from someone who discloses a
change in tastes, compared to someone whose tastes have apparently never changed. Further, I
show this effect is specific to someone who changes tastes (i.e., moves from liking to disliking
an option), but not to someone who simply switches among favorite options. Further, I provide
initial evidence that the effect is driven, at least in part, by perceived expertise. In study 2, I show
that consumers’ reluctance to follow a recommendation becomes stronger the more times the
person has changed their tastes. In study 3, I show consumers with a “fixed” mindset are
especially reluctant to follow the recommendation from someone who discloses their tastes have
changed. This is in line with the proposed explanation that the effect is driven by inferences that
a change in tastes is equated with a perceived lack of expertise (i.e., that expertise is perceived as
innate). In studies 4a and 4b, I rule out important alternative explanations. In study 4a, I show
that consumers’ reluctance to follow a recommendation from someone who discloses a change in
tastes is not driven by a belief the discloser is uncertain about the recommended option. In study
4b, I show consumers’ reluctance to follow the recommendation from someone whose tastes
have changed is domain-specific, and thus cannot be explained by more general negative
inferences about the discloser. Further, in Study 4b, I provide additional evidence that
consumers’ reluctance to follow a recommendation from those who disclose a change in tastes is
driven, at least in part, by perceptions of expertise.
3.4. Empirical Analysis – Pre-test
3.4.1. Overview

51
As mentioned earlier, I assume most people have experienced a change in taste, and
therefore can recall a situation in which their tastes have changed. As a first step, I set out to test
this assumption empirically. More precisely, I wanted to assess how frequently people
experience a change in their tastes, and in which domains this occurs more often.
3.4.2. Method
The sample includes 598 participants (50% male, MAge = 19.87) recruited on a student
subject pool. Sample was determined by how many participants attended a single lab session.
Participants were asked to indicate in which domains, if any, their tastes have changed over time
(i.e., they stopped liking something). The survey included 13 domains (food, music, movies,
books, interior design, sport, vacation type, leisure activities, clothes/style, make-up, hairstyle,
perfume/deodorant, and career/school), although participants could volunteer additional
domains. Next, participants indicated how expert they perceived themselves to be for all 13
domains on a scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”. This measure was collected for
exploratory purposes, to test whether individuals who reported a change in taste in a given
domain would perceive themselves as more or less of an expert, compared to those who
indicated their taste had not changed in that domain.
3.4.3. Results
Self-reported change in taste. Out of 598 participants only three (.5%) reported their
tastes had never changed, suggesting the vast majority of consumers, at least younger ones (i.e.,
college age), have experienced a change in their taste in some domain. Further, participants
indicated their tastes had changed in an average of eight out of 13 domains (avg. = 8, median =
8). The percentage of participants reporting their tastes had changed in various domains are as
follows: food (92%), music (85%), clothes/style (83%), hairstyle (66%), career/school (63%),

52
movies (58%), leisure activities (58%), books (48%), interior design (46%), sport (45%),
perfume/deodorant (41%), vacation type (40%), and make-up (38%).
Perceived expertise. In 11 of the 13 domains, I observe that participants who indicated
their tastes had changed perceived themselves as more of an expert, compared to participants
who indicated their tastes had not changed (p-values < .003). Interestingly, a change in taste is
positively associated with perceived expertise for oneself. Note that prior work suggests
consumers perceive change differently when it occurs to themselves as opposed to others
(O’Brien & Kardas, 2016). Observing a change in others results in lower expertise perception
would be a novel finding that is, to some extent, consistent with prior research on how changes
are perceived differently for oneself versus others.
3.4.4. Discussion
Having established that most people experience a change in tastes during their lifetime,
and knowing that they can either disclose it or not, I move to testing my main prediction that,
when someone discloses their tastes have changed, others become more reluctant to follow their
recommendation.
3.5. Study 1
3.5.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to test the prediction that consumers tend to be less likely to
follow a recommendation from someone who discloses their tastes have changed. It is important
to reiterate that I focus on a change in tastes in which a person used to like something, but does
not like it anymore. I consider the situation in which a person has a new favorite, but still likes
their prior favorite, as distinct. In this study, I show consumers are reluctant to follow a
recommendation from a person who discloses they do not like what they used to like and now

53
likes something else. This is not the case when the person simply has a new favorite, or has never
changed their tastes.
3.5.2. Method
The sample includes 600 participants recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk (52% male,
MAge = 41.49). Sample was set at 200 participants per condition and was ultimately determined
by how many participants completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The study was a
single factor between subject design with three conditions (taste: fixed vs. changed vs. shifted).
Participants were asked to imagine having recently moved to a new neighborhood and being at a
nearby coffee place. They further read that, while waiting in front of the baked goods section,
another customer starts talking to them. In all conditions, I control for perceptions of the other
customer’s variety seeking and/or experience with the coffee place by stating that the other
customer disclosed being a regular and having tried all of the baked goods. In the fixed condition,
the other customer disclosed he has always liked two of their muffins and recommends one. In
the changed condition, the customer disclosed he used to like one of their muffins, but does not
like it anymore, and now likes a different one, which he recommends. In the shifted condition,
the customer discloses he used to like one of their muffins, still likes it, but now likes a different
one more, which he recommends.
Participants indicated the extent to which they would be likely to follow the other
customer’s recommendation on a scale from 1 = “Not at all likely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”. As
a manipulation check, they also indicated the extent to which they believed the customer’s tastes
had changed over time, on a scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”. For exploratory
purposes, participants also indicated how knowledgeable they perceived the customer to be. All

54
measures were on a scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”. Stimuli for this and all
subsequent studies of this chapter are available in the Appendixes H-L.
3.5.3. Results
Manipulation check. A one-way ANOVA reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,596) =
62.85, p < .001, η
2
= .174). Participants perceived the customer’s tastes changed less in the fixed
condition (M = 3.98, SD = 1.38) than in the changed condition (M = 5.37, SD = 1.18, F(1,596) =
125.46, p < .001, η
2
= .174). Participants also perceived the customer’s tastes changed less in the
shift condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.16) compared to the changed condition (F(1,596) = 26.449, p <
.001, η
2
= .042).
Likelihood to follow recommendation. A one-way ANOVA on participants’ likelihood to
follow the recommendation reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,596) = 6.37, p = .002, η
2
=
.021). A series of planned contrasts reveal participants were more likely to follow the
recommendation in the fixed condition (M = 5.32, SD = 1.35) than in the changed condition (M =
4.92, SD = 1.47, F(1,596) = 9.36, p = .002, η
2
= .015). Participants were also more likely to
follow the recommendation in the shifted condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.11) compared to the
changed condition (F(1,596) = 9.73, p = .002, η
2
= .016).
Perceived expertise. A one-way ANOVA with participants’ perceived expertise of the
discloser reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,596) = 6.36, p = .002, η
2
= .021). Planned
contrasts reveal participants perceived the customer as more of an expert in the fixed condition
(M = 5.35, SD = 1.14) compared to the changed condition (M = 5.11, SD = 1.09, F(1,596) = 4.59,
p = .033, η
2
= .008). Participants also perceived the customer as more of an expert in the shifted
condition (M = 5.50, SD = 1.04) compared to the changed condition (F(1,596) = 12.52, p < .001,
η
2
= .021).

55
Mediation analysis. To test my proposed process, I run a mediation model using
PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013) with my manipulated conditions (fixed vs. changed) as
independent variable, likelihood to follow the recommendation as dependent variable, and
perceived expertise as mediator. Results reveal a significant indirect effect (Bootstrap CI -.32 to -
.01). Participants perceived someone who disclosed a change in tastes as less expert (b = -.23
Bootstrap CI -.45 to -.01), and the more expert they perceived the target to be, the more likely
they were to follow their recommendation (b = .70 Bootstrap CI .60 to .80). I also run the same
analyses comparing the shifted and changed conditions. Results reveal a significant indirect
effect (Bootstrap CI -.36 to -.10). Participants perceived someone who discloses a change in
tastes as less expert (b = -.39 Bootstrap CI -.60 to -.18), and the more expert they perceive the
target to be, the more likely they are to follow their recommendation (b = .58 Bootstrap CI .47 to
.69).
3.5.4. Discussion
The results suggest consumers are more reluctant to follow a recommendation from
someone who discloses their tastes have changed. Further, it distinguishes between a situation in
which a person changed their tastes from a situation in which a person simply has a new favorite,
which may be more closely related to variety-seeking than a permanent change. Only when
someone’s tastes have changed in a more profound way do consumers become reluctant to
follow a recommendation; but the same reluctance does not occur when someone simply
switches favorites. Further, this study provides initial process evidence, suggesting consumers
interpret a change in tastes, but not a shift in favorites, as a signal of lack of expertise within a
given domain.

56
Importantly, in this study, the customer in the fixed taste condition disclosed having
always liked two of the muffins. This was done to keep the total number of products liked (and
eventually then disliked in an alternative condition) constant across conditions. In follow up
studies, I relax this constraint and inform participants that the customer in the fixed taste
condition always liked only one option. Observing the same basic effect across studies is
reassuring in that the total number of options liked is not a relevant factor in driving the proposed
effect. Rather, it is the fact that a person discloses having changed their tastes that drives
consumers’ reluctance to follow their recommendations. In the upcoming study, I test the
strength of the proposed effect by testing whether consumers’ reaction becomes more negative
the greater number of times a consumer changes tastes.
3.6. Study 2
3.6.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to test whether the frequency of changes in taste has an impact
on consumers’ likelihood of following a recommendation. This would provide further evidence
in support of the proposed effect. A priori, I predicted that, the greater the number of times a
person’s taste has changed in a particular domain, the more reluctant other consumers would be
to follow their recommendation in that domain.
3.6.2. Method
The sample included 400 participants recruited in a student subject pool (49% male, MAge
= 19.89). Sample was determined by how many participants attended a single lab session. The
study included a single factor between subject design with three conditions (taste: fixed vs.
changed once vs. changed twice). Participants saw a scenario similar to study 1. In the fixed
condition, the customer disclosed he has always liked one of the muffins and recommends it. In

57
the changed once condition, the customer disclosed he used to like one of the muffins, does not
like it anymore, now likes a different one and recommends it. In the changed twice condition, the
customer disclosed he used to like one of the muffins, but does not like it anymore, started liking
a different muffin that he also does not like anymore, and now likes a different muffin and
recommends that one.
Participants indicated how likely they would be to follow the recommendation on a scale
ranging from 1 = “Not at all likely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”. As a manipulation check, they
also indicated whether the customer’s tastes had changed over time on a scale from 1 = “Not at
all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”.
3.6.3. Results
Manipulation check. A one-way ANOVA reveals a significant overall effect (F(2,397) =
55.70, p < .001, η
2
= .219). A series of planned contrasts reveal participants perceived the
customer’s tastes changed less in the fixed condition (M = 3.95, SD = 1.22) than in the changed
once (M = 4.73, SD = 1.22, F(1,397) = 25.33, p < .001, η
2
= .060) and changed twice conditions
(M = 5.59, SD = 1.38, F(1,397) = 111.32, p < .001, η
2
= .219). Participants also perceived the
customer’s tastes changed less in the changed once condition than in the changed twice one
(F(1,397) = 30.67, p < .001, η
2
= .072).
Likelihood to follow recommendation. A one-way ANOVA on participants’ likelihood to
follow the recommendation reveals an overall significant effect (F(2,397) = 22.36, p < .001, η
2
=
.101). Planned contrasts reveal that participants were more likely to follow the recommendation
in the fixed condition (M = 5.38, SD = 1.28) than in both the changed once (M = 5.08, SD = 1.05,
F(1,397) = 3.69, p = .055, η
2
= .009) and changed twice conditions (M = 4.36, SD = 1.48,
F(1,397) = 42.33, p < .001, η
2
= .096). Participants were also more likely to follow the

58
recommendation in the changed once condition than in the changed twice condition (F(1,397) =
21.13, p < .001, η
2
= .051).
3.6.4. Discussion
The results of this study confirm consumers’ aversion to changes in taste, such that a
person who discloses their taste changing more frequently is less likely to have their
recommendation followed. This result suggests that, while disclosing one change in taste reduces
one’s persuasiveness when giving recommendations, continuing to disclose additional changes in
tastes can have an even more deleterious effect. Thus, if a person has already disclosed a change
in taste in the past, they should still take into consideration the potential negative consequences
of disclosing another change in tastes, if they value their persuasive abilities.
I propose that a change in taste is perceived as a signal of lack of innate expertise in a
given domain. In line with this reasoning, I expect consumers who hold a “fixed” mindset (i.e., a
belief that abilities are fixed and cannot be improved) to react even more negatively to a
disclosure of a change in tastes. Indeed, individuals with a “fixed” mindset are more likely to
believe that abilities – and likely expertise – are innate and cannot be improved over time.
3.7. Study 3
3.7.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to test whether the effect depends on the individual receiving the
recommendation having a “growth” versus “fixed” mindset, while replicating the basic effect.
My main prediction is that consumers perceive a change in taste as a signal of lack of expertise.
Prior research suggests that people who hold a “fixed” mindset are especially likely to assume
abilities are fixed and cannot be changed over time. It follows that these people should be
especially prone to equate a change in taste with a signal of lack of abilities, thus being more

59
susceptible to react negatively to a disclosure of change in taste. Thus, I predict individuals with
a “fixed” (vs. “growth”) mindset will be significantly less likely to follow a recommendation
from someone who discloses a change in taste.
3.7.2. Method
The sample includes 519 participants recruited in a student subject pool (49% male, MAge
= 19.85). Sample was set at 300 participants per condition and was ultimately determined by
how many participants attended a single lab session. The study was a single factor between
subject design with two conditions (taste: fixed vs changed). Participants were asked to imagine
having recently moved to a new neighborhood and coming across a local restaurant’s review
while deciding where to go for dinner. The reviewer disclosed being an aficionado of the
restaurant and having tried all of their dishes, from which they recommend the grilled chicken. In
the fixed taste condition, the reviewer mentioned they always liked the grilled chicken. In the
changed taste condition, the reviewer instead disclosed they used to like another dish more, but
they do not like it anymore and now really like the one (chicken) they recommend.
Participants indicated how likely they would be to follow the recommendation on a scale
from 1 = “Not at all likely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”. To tap into participants’ growth vs fixed
mindset, I employed the 8-items growth mindset scale developed by Dweck (1999) (See
Appendix M for details on items used). Importantly, this scale was measured when participants
first signed up for the university lab (i.e., weeks in advance of completing this study). Finally, as
a manipulation check, participants indicated to what extent they perceived the neighbor’s tastes
have changed over time on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”.
3.7.3. Results

60
Manipulation check. Participants perceived the neighbor’s tastes have changed more in
the changed condition (M = 4.96, SD = 1.21) than in the fixed condition (M = 3.78, SD = 1.31,
F(1,518) = 114.55, p < .001, η
2
= .181).
Likelihood to follow recommendation. Importantly, in line with my prediction,
participants were more likely to follow the recommendation in the fixed condition (M = 4.77, SD
= 1.40) compared to the changed condition (M = 4.53, SD = 1.32, F(1,518) = 4.26 , p = .040, η
2
=
.008).
“Growth” vs. “fixed” mindset moderation. I collapsed the eight items of the growth/fixed
mindset scale into a single index (Cronbach’s alpha = .87), such that lower values indicated more
of a “fixed” mindset, and higher values more of a “growth” mindset. I employed PROCESS
model 1 (Hayes 2013) to test for an interaction with this continuous measure. Results reveal a
marginally significant interaction (p = .077). Johnson-Neyman analyses reveal the effect is
significant below the value of 3.78 on the continuous measure. Importantly, participants’
reluctance to follow the recommendation from someone who discloses a change in taste is
stronger the more the participant has a “fixed” mindset (see Figure 3-2 for visual representation,
range on x-axis represent the 16
th
to 84
th
percentile of the sample on the “growth” vs. “fixed”
mindset scale).

61
FIGURE 3-2: Interaction Plot

3.7.4. Discussion
The results of this study suggest that those people who more strongly believe abilities are
stable and cannot be improved, and thus expertise is linked with innate talent, are reluctant to
follow a recommendation from someone who discloses a change in tastes. This is in line with the
proposed process explanation that disclosing a change in tastes tends to be perceived as a signal
of a lack of expertise, eliciting a reluctance to follow the recommendation.
Having provided indirect evidence for the proposed explanation, in the next two studies, I
focus on ruling out two competing explanations. First, in study 4a, I show an inferred lack of
certainty about one’s preferences does not contribute to the effect. Second, in study 4b I show
that a change in tastes does not signal something unappealing about the person, which could
affect how their recommendation is perceived. I show consumers’ reluctance to follow the
recommendation is domain specific – and does not extend beyond that domain. If negative
attributions were made about the individual, one would expect their recommendations to be
resisted across domains. In addition to ruling out important alternative explanations, in study 4b,

62
I also provide additional evidence in support of the proposed process explanation, doings so by
explicitly showing that consumers’ reluctance to follow recommendations from those who
disclose a change in tastes is driven by expertise perceptions.
3.8. Study 4a
3.8.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to rule out an important alternative explanation. Given previous
work suggests source certainty is an important predictor of one’s persuasiveness (Berger &
Mitchell, 1989; Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Karmarkar & Tormala, 2010), I sought to insure that
disclosing a change in tastes was not weakening the persuasiveness of one’s recommendation
because it was perceived as a signal of lack of certainty about one’s preferences. To do so, I
manipulated whether the recommender disclosed being extremely certain or not about their
recommended option. If perceived strength of preference is driving the effect, then I would
expect the effect to disappear when the person explicitly mentions being extremely certain about
their recommended option.
3.8.2. Method
The sample includes 402 participants recruited in a student subject pool (56% male, MAge
= 20.07). Sample was set at 200 participants per condition and was ultimately determined by
how many participants attended a single lab session. The study was a 2 (taste: fixed vs changed)
x 2 (preference strength: high vs control) between-subject design. Participants were asked to
imagine being new to a neighborhood and needing to decide where to go for dinner. Participants
were told they noticed a small restaurant nearby and checked its reviews on Yelp where they
were presented with a single review for the restaurant. In the fixed taste condition, the reviewer
mentioned they always liked the restaurant’s grilled chicken and recommended it. In the changed

63
taste condition, the reviewer instead disclosed they used to like the restaurant’s lamb, but do not
like it anymore and now really like the grilled chicken and recommend it. In the high strength of
preference condition, participants further read that the reviewer had never been so sure about a
dish – the grilled chicken – in their life. In the control condition, participants were not provided
any strength of preference information.
Participants indicated how likely they would be to follow the recommendation on a scale
from 1 = “Not at all likely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”. Further, they also indicated how positive
their attitude toward the restaurant was on a scale from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”. As
manipulation checks, participants indicated whether the customer’s tastes have changed and how
sure the reviewer was about recommending the grilled chicken, doing so on scales that ranged
from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Quite a lot”.
3.8.3. Results
Manipulation check. As expected, participants report the reviewer’s tastes had changed
more in the changed condition (M = 5.23, SD = 1.15) than in the fixed condition (M = 3.82, SD =
1.36, F(1,400) = 126.65, p < .001, η
2
= .240). Participants also perceived the discloser as more
sure about their preference in the high strength condition (M = 6.06, SD = 1.17) than in the
control condition (M = 5.37, SD = 1.31, F(1,400) = 30.08, p < .001, η
2
= .070).
Likelihood to follow recommendation. A two-way ANOVA on likelihood to follow the
recommendation reveals a significant effect of taste (F(1,398) = 9.22, p = .003, η
2
= .023), such
that participants were more likely to follow the recommendation when the person’s taste was
fixed (M = 5.37, SD = 1.34) than when it changed (M = 4.98, SD = 1.31). Further, there was a
significant effect of preference strength (F(1,398) = 31.61, p < .001, η
2
= .074), such that
participants were more likely to follow the recommendation when the reviewer was certain about

64
the recommendation (M = 5.54, SD = 1.19) compared to the control condition (M = 4.82, SD =
1.39). There was, however, no significant interaction (F(1,398) = .09, p = .767, η
2
< .001).
Attitude toward restaurant. A two-way ANOVA on participants’ attitude toward the
restaurant reveals a significant effect of taste (F(1,398) = 5.27, p = .022, η
2
= .013), such that
participants had a more positive attitude toward the restaurant in the fixed (M = 5.39, SD = 1.04)
than in the changed condition (M = 5.16, SD = 1.03). Further, there was a significant effect of
preference strength (F(1,398) = 13.64, p < .001, η
2
= .033), such that participants had a more
positive attitude when the reviewer was certain about the recommendation (M = 5.47, SD = .96)
compared to the control condition (M = 5.09, SD = 1.08). There was no significant interaction
(F(1,398) = .18, p = .669, η
2
< .001).
3.8.4. Discussion
The results of this study provide further evidence for the proposed effect, while ruling out
the notion that a change in taste is perceived as a signal of uncertainty about the person’s
preferences. Indeed, if uncertainty was driving the effect, I should have observed the effect
disappear when the person explicitly mentioned being extremely certain about their
recommended option.
3.9. Study 4b
3.9.1. Overview
The goal of this study is to understand whether the documented effect extends across
domains. In other words, does disclosing a change in taste in one domain make a person less
persuasive when recommending an option in a different domain? If those who disclose a change
in taste in one domain become less persuasive overall, that would suggest a change in tastes
alters how consumers perceive the discloser as a person (e.g., fickle, variety-seeking, unreliable).

65
If, instead, those who disclose a change in taste in one domain become less persuasive only in
that domain, this would suggest disclosing a change in tastes alters how consumers perceive the
person’s recommendation in that domain only, consistent with my domain-specific perceived
expertise explanation. As a second goal, this study also aims to provide additional evidence for
the proposed process, namely a consumers’ reluctance to follow recommendations from those
who disclose a change in tastes is driven by perceived expertise.
3.9.2. Method
The sample includes 500 participants recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk (42% male,
MAge = 38.64). Sample was set at 250 participants per condition and was ultimately determined
by how many participants completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The study was a
single factor between subject design with two conditions (taste: fixed vs changed). Participants
were asked to imagine being at a dinner with friends, and were told that one of their friends
(Alex) either mentioned they always liked the Panang curry, or that they used to like it, but do
not like it anymore and now like another dish the most. Then, participants read that some of the
other dinner attendees (i.e., not Alex) were planning to go to a movie and that Alex
recommended a specific film he really liked. Thus, Alex disclosed a change in taste within the
food domain, and subsequently recommended an option outside of that domain (in the film
domain).
Participants indicated how likely they would be to follow Alex’s film recommendation on
a 7-point scale from 1 = “Not at all likely” to 7 = “Extremely likely”. Further, participants
indicated how knowledgeable they perceived Alex to be both in both the food and film domains
(same measure as Study 1), and how likely they would be to ask Alex for future
recommendations for both food and films. All measures were on a 7-point scale from 1 = “Not at

66
all” to 7 = “Extremely”. These last four items allow me to disentangle how consumers’ attitudes
toward Alex’s recommendation changes depending on the domain of focus.
3.9.3. Results
Film domain. A one-way ANOVA on likelihood to follow the movie recommendation
reveals no significant effect across conditions (F(1,498) = .05, p = .828, η
2
< .001). The same
analyses reveals no significant effect on likelihood to ask for future film recommendations in the
domain of film (F(1,498) = .05, p = .831, η
2
< .001), and perceived knowledge in the domain of
film (F(1,498) = .22, p = .640, η
2
< .001).
Food domain. A one-way ANOVA on likelihood to ask for future food recommendations
reveals participants were significantly more likely to ask for a future food recommendation when
Alex’s tastes did not change (M = 4.68, SD = 1.41) than when it had changed (M = 4.39, SD =
1.32, F(1,498) = 5.56, p = .019, η
2
= .011). Similarly, participants perceived Alex as more
knowledgeable when their tastes did not change (M = 4.68, SD = 1.09) than when they changed
(M = 4.36, SD = 1.13, F(1,498) = 10.38, p = .001, η
2
= .020).
Likelihood to ask for future recommendations. While Alex only gave one specific
immediate recommendation (i.e., a film), when it comes to participants’ likelihood to ask for
future recommendations, I collected measures for both the food and film domain. This allows me
to compare across domains. Thus, I ran a repeated-measure ANOVA with domain as a repeated
factor and my manipulated condition (taste: fixed vs changed) as a between factor.
Results reveal a significant effect of domain (F(1,498) = 42.12, p < .001, η
2
= .078), such
that participants were, on average, more likely to ask for future food recommendations (M =
4.53, SD = 1.37) rather than for future film recommendations (M = 4.19, SD = 1.46). There was
no overall effect of taste (F(1,498) = 1.87, p = .172, η
2
= .004). More importantly, there was a

67
significant interaction (F(1,498) = 6.23, p = .013, η
2
= .012). Within the food domain,
participants were more likely to ask for future recommendations when Alex’s taste did not
change (M = 4.68, SD = 1.41) than when it changed (M = 4.39, SD = 1.32, F(1,498) = 5.56, p =
.019, η
2
= .011). Within the film domain there was no difference (F(1,498) = .05, p = .831, η
2
<
.001)
Mediation analyses. I also tested the prediction that consumers’ reluctance to follow a
recommendation from someone whose tastes have changed is driven by perceived expertise. To
do so, I run a mediation model using PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013) with likelihood to ask
for future food recommendation as dependent variable, my manipulated conditions as
independent variable, and perceived knowledge within the food domain as the mediator. Results
reveal a significant indirect effect (Bootstrap CI -.23 to -.06). Participants perceived a person
who disclosed a change in tastes as less expert (b = -.17 Bootstrap CI -.26 to -.07), and the more
expert a person was perceived to be, the more participants were likely to ask for future
recommendations (b = .88 Bootstrap CI .80 to .96).
3.9.4. Discussion
The results of this study provide evidence that disclosing a change in taste within a
domain has an impact on how a person is perceived within that domain specifically, but not in
other domains. Thus, consumers’ reluctance to follow recommendations from those who disclose
a change in tastes cannot be explained by how the discloser is perceived as a judge overall, but
rather requires an explanation at the domain level. The proposed explanation is that those who
disclose a change in tastes are seen as less expert within that domain. I provide support for this
explanation by showing consumers perceive someone who discloses a change in taste for food as

68
less knowledgeable in the food domain. This, in turn, lowers their likelihood of asking for future
food recommendations, but not film recommendations.
Taken together, the last two studies provide convergent evidence that consumers’
reluctance to follow a recommendation from someone who has disclosed their tastes have
changed requires an explanation at the domain-specific level. The effect is not driven by
inferences about the person broadly. These results are consistent with the effect being driven by a
perception that the discloser is less of an expert in that domain.
3.10. Chapter Discussion
Consumers’ tastes frequently change, and consumers are free to decide whether to
disclose these changes or not to others. The results of this research suggest disclosing a change in
one’s tastes might have implications for how recommendations are subsequently received by
others. I show disclosing a change in tastes can reduce one’s persuasiveness when
recommending what might appeal to others. When someone discloses a change in taste within a
given domain, consumers interpret this as an indicator of a lack of innate expertise within that
domain, and become more reluctant to follow their recommendation, or ask for future ones.
From a theoretical perspective, this research not only extends work on impression
management, discussing one strategy that hurts perceptions of expertise – disclosing a change in
tastes – but also contributes to recent work on how consumers perceive changes in other people.
While researchers recently have highlighted situations in which consumers react positively to
someone who has changed over time (Klein & O’Brien, 2017; Rodin & Price, 1995; Soliman &
Buehler, 2018), in this work, I discuss one particular situation in which the opposite is true. In
my context, consumers react negatively when they hear a person’s tastes have changed.

69
Importantly, across studies, I provide evidence consistent with the proposed process
explanation, doing so by taking different routes. In study 1, I provide evidence that consumers
perceive someone who changed tastes as less expert compared to someone whose tastes did not
change. The same is true compared to someone whose preference shifted among their most
preferred options. In study 3, I measure individual differences with respect to whether consumers
believe abilities are innate, and show consumers who more strongly believe in innate abilities are
more inclined to display a reticence toward recommendations from someone who discloses their
tastes have changed. In study 4a, not only do I show the effect cannot be explained by inferences
about the discloser per se, requiring an explanation at the domain level, but I also test the
proposed process more directly via mediation. Combined, these results provide substantial
support for the proposed expertise explanation.
Across stimuli, I controlled for the customer’s familiarity with the options offered by
mentioning in most of the studies that the customer had tried all the options before
recommending one of them. Further, I employed situations in which participants were interacting
face to face with the customer making the recommendation, as well as read a review online.
Doing so increases the generalizability of the results, highlighting how disclosing a change in
tastes can be perilous both when interacting with others in person, and when expressing one’s
opinion in online review platforms.
From a managerial point of view, this work suggests disclosing a change in tastes can
have negative effects on persuasive appeals. This is important not only for online platforms
where people post reviews, but also in all industries in which a person’s or company’s role is to
persuade others (e.g., food critics, movie critics, recommendation agents, and sales personnel).

70
As the studies suggest, disclosing a change in tastes can dampen one’s perceived expertise in a
field, and have significant implications for one’s career in these fields.
Across studies, I focus on situations in which a person changes from liking to disliking an
option. While I expect the effect to occur when preferences shift in the opposite situation (i.e.,
changing from disliking to liking an option), I do not have data in support of this prediction. I
leave that for future research.
In this project, I also focused heavily on the food domain, in light of the results of the
pre-test that suggest this is the domain in which most people report their tastes changing over
time. Thus, I expected food to be the domain in which, if anything, consumers would be more
positively predisposed to change. I believe studying changes in taste in the domain of food
provides a conservative test of my theorizing. Future work could, however, explore how this
effect translates across domains. Another promising avenue for future research would be to
explore whether the frequency with which a consumer’s tastes change in a given domain impacts
how they evaluate recommendations from others whose tastes have changed in that domain.
Further, in the pre-test, I observed that individuals who report having changed taste in a
domain perceive themselves as significantly more expert within that domain, compared to those
who reported not having changed their taste in that domain. While this is outside the scope of
this research, I believe it is worth unpacking this relationship to better understand how
consumers perceive their own changes, and what consequences this has for how they perceive
themselves. Previous work seems to suggest consumers are likely to downplay their own
changes, and over-report stability when comparing their current to previous preferences (Epstein,
1973; James, 1890; Ross, 1987). However, what happens when they do perceive they have
changed? Again, I leave this and related questions to future research.

71
Ultimately, most people care about making a favorable impression when communicating
with others, and therefore frequently engage impression management strategies to increase their
chances of being liked. Sometimes, however, consumers fail to predict the potential negative
consequences of disclosing information (Sezer et al., 2018). In this essay, I highlighted one type
of information – a change in tastes – that, if disclosed to others, might negatively affect the
impression they make. They will be seen as less of an expert, which is likely to reduce their
persuasiveness when giving recommendations. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “speak only if it
improves upon the silence” and, when it comes to changes in tastes, silence might outperform
speaking.

72
References
Ali, A., Kalwani, M. U., & Kovenock, D. (1993). Selecting product development projects:
Pioneering versus incremental innovation strategies. Management Science, 39(3), 255–
274.
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers
react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81–94.
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: Responses to
attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 690–701.
Barden, J., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Saying one thing and doing another: Examining
the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1463–1474.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Bechler, C. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2019). Perceiving attitude change: How
qualitative shifts augment change perception. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 82, 160–175.
Bellezza, S., Ackerman, J. M., & Gino, F. (2017). Be careless with that!” Availability of product
upgrades increases cavalier behavior toward possessions. Journal of Marketing Research,
54(5), 768–784.
Berger, I. E., & Mitchell, A. A. (1989). The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude
confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3),
269–279.
Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1–29.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge.
Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering
advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285–298.
Chaigneau, S. E., Castillo, R. D., & Martínez, L. (2008). Creators’ intentions bias judgments of
function independently from causal inferences. Cognition, 109, 123–132.
Chaigneau, S. E., Puebla, G., & Canessa, E. C. (2016). Why designer’s intended function is
central for proper function assignment and artifact conceptualization: Essentialist and
normative accounts. Developmental Review, 41, 38–50.
Charters, S. (2006). Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: A review. Consumption
Markets & Culture, 9(3), 235–255.

73
Cho, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of great art and untalented artists: Effort information and the
flexible construction of judgmental heuristics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3),
205–211.
Cui, Y., Orhun, Y. A., & Duenyas, I. (2019). How price dispersion changes when upgrades are
introduced: Theory and empirical evidence from airline industry. Management Science,
65(8), 3470–3469.
DCMS (1998). Creative industries mapping document. DCMS.
Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive
opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),
1185–1201.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Psychology Press.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380–417.
Effron, D. A., Markus, H. R, Jackman, L. M., Muramoto, Y., & Muluk, H. (2018). Hypocrisy
and culture: Failing to practice what you preach receives harsher interpersonal reactions
in independent (vs. interdependent) cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
76(5), 371–384.
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited, or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist,
28, 404–416.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-
behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4), 398–408.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children.
Cognition, 23, 183–209.
Gelman, S. A., Meyer, M. A., & Noles, N. S. (2013). History and essence in human cognition.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 142–143.
Gershoff, A. D., Broniarczyk, S. M., & West, P. M. (2001). Recommendation or evaluation?
Task sensitivity in information source selection. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3),
418–438.
Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, E. R. (1973). Similarity in influence process-belief-value distinction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 117–122.

74
Gordon, B. R. (2009). A dynamic model of consumer replacement cycles in the pc processor
industry. Marketing Science, 28(5), 846–867.
Goulding, I. (1983). New product development: A literature review. European Journal of
Marketing, 17(3), 3–30.
Gouvea, R., & Vora, G. (2018). Creative industries and economic growth: Stability of creative
products exports earnings. Creative Industries Journal, 11(1), 22–53.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
He, S. X., & Bond, S. D. (2015). Why is the crowd divided? Attribution for dispersion in online
word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1509–1527.
Hick, D. H. (2008). When is a work of art finished? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
66(1), 67–76.
Hilkenmeier, F., Bohndick, C., Bohndick, T., & Hilkenmeier, J. (2020). Assessing
distinctiveness in multidimensional instruments without access to raw data - A manifest
Fornell-Larcker Criterion. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 223.
Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. Allen Lane
Penguin.
Hoyer, W. D., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). The role of aesthetic taste in consumer
behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 167–180.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives:
Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research,
9(1), 90–98.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (2014). Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. Journal of
Marketing Research, 51(4), 520–525.
Huh, Y. E., & Kim, S. (2008). Do early adopters upgrade early? Role of post-adoption behavior
in the purchase of next-generation products. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 40–46.
Ibrahim, N., & Häubl G. (2020). Nuanced effects of decision effort on decision confidence in
matters of quality versus matters of taste. In J. Argo, T. M. Lowrey & H. J. Schau (Eds.),
NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 48, 1175–1180. Association for Consumer
Research.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Holt.
Johne, F. A., & Snelson, P. A. (1989). Product development approaches in established firms.
Industrial Marketing Management, 18(2), 113–124.

75
Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer Variety-Seeking Among Goods and Services: An Integrative
Review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2 (3), 139–148.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
Kardes, F. R., & Kalyanaram, G. (1992). Order-of-entry effects on consumer memory and
judgment: An information integration perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3),
343–357.
Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. (2010). Believe me, I have no idea what I’m talking about: The
effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36(6), 1033–1049.
Kelemen, D., & Carey S. (2006). The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. In E.
Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their
representation. Oxford University Press.
Klein, N., & O'Brien, E. (2016). The tipping point of moral change: When do good and bad acts
make good and bad actors? Social Cognition, 34(2), 149–166.
Klein, N., & O’Brien, E. (2017). The power and limits of personal change: When a bad past does
(and does not) inspire in the present. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
113(2), 210–229.
Kreps, T. A., Laurin, K., & Merritt, A. C. (2017). Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous
evolution? When leaders change their moral minds. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 113(5), 730–752.
Landi, A. (2013). Split decisions: When critics change their minds. ARTnews,
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/when-critics-change-their-mind-2172/
Leary, M. R., Nezlek, J. B., Downs, D., Radford-Davenport, J., Martin, J., & McMullen, A.
(1994). Self-presentation in everyday interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender
composition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 664–673.
Lee, C., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., Joy-Gaba, J. A., & Profitt, D. R. (2011). Putting like
a pro: The role of positive contagion in golf performance and perception. PLoS One,
6(10), e26016.
Li, Y., & Jin, Y. H. (2009). Racing to market leadership: Product launch and upgrade decisions.
International Journal of Production Economics, 119(2), 284–297.
Liu, P. J., McFerran, B., & Haws, K. L. (2020). Mindful matching: Ordinal versus nominal
attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 134–155.
Livingstone, J., & Heer, J. (2018). Changing our minds. New Republic,
https://newrepublic.com/article/152795/changing-minds

76
Macadam, D. (2017). iPhone X: Why did people queue up overnight? BBC,
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41855890
March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell
Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608.
Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosinadou, & A. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Miceli, G., Scopelliti, I., & Raimondo, M. A. (2020). Insight versus effort. Communicating the
creative process leading to new products. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 37(3), 602–620.
Miller, C. J., Wiles, M. A., & Park, S. (2019). Trading on up: An examination of factors
influencing the degree of upgrade: Evidence from cash for clunkers. Journal of
Marketing, 83(1), 151–172.
Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations
through physical contact with “disgusting” products. Journal of Marketing Research,
44(2), 272–283.
Narasimhan, C., & Turut, O. (2013). Differentiate or imitate? The role of context-dependent
preferences. Marketing Science, 32(3), 393–410.
NCSES (2022). Businesses spent over a half trillion dollars for R&D performance in the United
States during 2020, a 9.1% increase over 2019. National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22343
Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States:
Transmission of germs and of interpersonal influence. Ethos, 22(2), 158–186.
NESTA (2009). Beyond the creative industries: Mapping the creative economy in the United
Kingdom. NESTA.
Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2014). Authenticity is contagious: Brand essence and the original
source of production. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 371–386.
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of
objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215–228.
O’Brien, E. (2020). When small signs of change add up: The psychology of tipping points.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 55–62.
O’Brien, E. (2022). The “next” effect: When a better future worsens the present. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 456–465.
O'Brien, E., & Kardas, M. (2016). The implicit meaning of (my) change. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 111(6), 882–894.

77
O'Brien, E., & Klein, N. (2017). The tipping point of perceived change: Asymmetric thresholds
in diagnosing improvement versus decline. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 112(2), 161–185.
Ofek, E., & Srinivasan, V. (2002). How much does the market value an improvement in a
product attribute? Marketing Science, 21(4), 398–411.
Okada, E. M. (2006). Upgrades and new purchases. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 92–102.
Padmanabhan, V., Surendra R., & Srinivasan, K. (1997). New products, upgrades, and new
releases: A rationale for sequential product introduction. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(4), 456–472.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A
constructive processing perspective. Annual review of psychology, 43(1), 87–131.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge
University Press.
Pooley, K. (2022). 10 times film critics actually changed their mind. What Culture,
https://whatculture.com/film/10-times-film-critics-actually-changed-their-mind
Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers:
Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(1), 39–
57.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In Vosniadu, S., & Ortony,
A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Rodin, M., & Price, J. (1995). Overcoming stigma: Credit for self-improvement or discredit for
needing to improve? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(2), 172–181.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories.
Psychological Review, 96(2), 341–357.
Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in
disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703–
712.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
Schjeldahl, P. (2012). Changing my mind about Gustav Klimt’s “Adele”. The New Yorker,
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/changing-my-mind-about-gustav-
klimts-adele
Sela, A., Hadar, L., Morgan, S., & Maimaran, M. (2019). Variety-Seeking and perceived
expertise. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(4), 671–679.

78
Sela, A., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2017). Comparison neglect in upgrade decisions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 54(4), 556–571.
Sezer, O., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Humblebragging: A distinct—and ineffective—self-
presentation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 52–74.
Shani, Y., Appel, G., Danziger, S., & Shachar, R. (2020). When and why consumers
“accidentally” endanger their products. Management Science, 66(12), 5757–5782.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364–371.
Smith, R. K., Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2016). Closer to the creator: Temporal contagion
explains the preference for earlier serial numbers. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5),
653–668.
Sniezek, J. A., & Van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor
system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 288–307.
Soliman, M., & Buehler, R. (2018). Why improvement can trump consistent strong performance:
The role of effort perceptions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 52–64.
Solomon, M. R., Pruitt, D. J., & Insko, C. A. (1984). Taste versus fashion: The inferred
objectivity of aesthetic judgments. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2(2), 113–125.
Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2009). Strength in numbers or less is more? A matter of
opinion and a question of taste. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8),1099–
1111.
Spiller, S. A., & Belogolova, L. (2017). On consumer beliefs about quality and taste. Journal of
Consumer Research, 43(6), 970–991.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Three kinds of opinion comparison: The triadic
model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 219–237.
Teague, K. (2022). I tried the new Marshmello limited-edition Coca-Cola. Here's what it tastes
like. CBNET, https://www.cnet.com/culture/i-tried-the-new-marshmello-limited-edition-
coca-cola-heres-what-it-tastes-like/
Tellis, G. J., & Crawford, C. M. (1981). An evolutionary approach to product growth theory.
Journal of Marketing, 45(4), 125–132.
Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MIT Press.

79
Tsay, C. (2016). Privileging naturals over strivers: The costs of the naturalness bias. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 40–53.
Tsay, C., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of
achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 460–465.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal
of Business, 59(4), 251–278.
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science,
39(10), 1179–1189.
UNCTAD (2010). Creative economy: A feasible development option. UNCTAD.
UNESCO (2022). Re-Shaping policies for creativity: addressing culture as a global public good.
Global Report.
Valsesia, F., Nunes, J., & Ordanini, A. (2016). What wins awards is not always what I buy: How
creative control affects authenticity and thus recognition (but not liking). Journal of
Consumer Research, 42(6), 897–914.
Wolf, M. (2007). Can theatre critics change their minds? The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2007/nov/07/cantheatrecriticschangethe
Wu, X., Jin, L., & Xu, Q. (2021). Expertise makes perfect: How the variance of a reviewer's
historical ratings influences the persuasiveness of online reviews. Journal of Retailing,
97(2), 238–250.
Xiong, Y., Zhao, P., Xiong, Z., & Li, G. (2016). The impact of product upgrading on the
decision of entrance to a secondary market. European Journal of Operational Research,
252(2), 443–454.
Yalcinkaya, G., Aktekin, T., & Yeniyurt, S. (2020). Out with the old: A Bayesian approach to
estimating product modification rates. Journal of Business Research, 118, 141–149.
Yin, S., Ray, S., Gurnani, H., & Animesh, A. (2010). Durable products with multiple used goods
markets: Product upgrade and retail pricing implications. Marketing Science, 29(3), 540–
560.
Zhu, R. J., Chen, X. J., & Dasgupta, S. (2008), “Can trade-ins hurt you? Exploring the effect of a
trade-in on consumers’ willingness to pay for a new product,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 45(2), 159–170.

80
APPENDIX A – Stimuli S1 Chapter 2

81
APPENDIX B – Stimuli S2 Chapter 2
Frequently companies modify one of their existing products and release a new version of
it. They could apply a wide range of product modifications. Now take a moment to think about a
product modification that you really liked {vs. disliked}. In other words, think of a situation in
which a company applied some change to their product and released a new version of it, and you
perceived the new version to be much more {vs. much less} appealing than the previous one.
Please focus on a specific product that has been modified.
What was the product that was modified?
Use the space below to describe what the product modification was and why you liked {vs.
disliked} it
[Page break]
Think about the product modification you just described. If you were to categorize it, would you
say that the modification had to do more with quality (i.e., most consumers agree whether the
change is an improvement or a deterioration from the prior version) or taste (i.e., there is no
objectively better or worse version, it simply depends on the taste of the individual consumer)?

82
APPENDIX C – Stimuli S3 Chapter 2
The "Antonella" tomato sauce (displayed below) is a marinara sauce produced by a local
company. Initially, the company used one specific type of tomato as main ingredient for the
sauce. However, after a while, the company decided to switch to a different type of tomato. The
new tomato used does not change the shelf life of the product but does change the flavor of the
sauce {vs. The new tomato used does not change the flavor of the sauce but does change the shelf
life of the product.} Both versions of the tomato sauce are still available in stores.

83
APPENDIX D – Stimuli S4a Chapter 2
{In random order, one per page}
Scenario 1: Imagine you are interested in reading a certain paperback novel {vs. biography
book}. You read online that the book {vs. biography} was published some time ago, but later on a
modified version of the book got published in which some language and elements of the plotline
had been changed.
Scenario 2: Imagine you find out about an artist at a local art exposition {vs. home décor store}.
On the art gallery {vs. home décor store} website, you read that one of the artist’s paintings {vs.
wallpapers} was completed {vs. put on sale} a while back. Later on, however, a modified version
of the same painting {vs. wallpaper} was produced, in which the scenery in the background was
changed.
Scenario 3: Imagine you are looking to buy a mid-century mirror {vs. vanity mirror}. As you
walk through a store you ask a sales assistant for more info on one specific mirror. He explains
that that mid-century mirror {vs. vanity mirror} initially had satin-gold finish, but is now being
offered with satin-bronze finish.

84
APPENDIX E – Stimuli S4b Chapter 2
What is your gender?
What is your age?
Are you a {University Name} student?
Do you have a car?
How frequently do you use public transport in {University City}?
When you use public transport in {University City}, which of the following do you use more
frequently?
[Page break]
You are finished with the study! As a thank you gift for participating in the study we want to
give you a chocolate. We partnered with Delice, a chocolate brand easily available in most
grocery stores across Europe {vs. a European Master Chocolatier Chef that gave the brand his
own name and sells his products in specialty stores across Europe}. You can choose which of
two chocolates to get: the initial recipe from Delice {vs. the chef and master chocolatier Delice}
that uses one specific type of cocoa beans, or the more recent version of it where the brand {vs.
chef and master chocolatier} modified the recipe and started using a different type of cocoa
beans in the mix.

85
APPENDIX F – Stimuli S5 Chapter 2
Imagine you notice one of your friends is wearing a cool t-shirt. They tell you it’s from
the brand Capsule {vs. Alex Light, named after the designer and owner Alex Light}. You visit the
brand website and browse their collection. You notice the website provides a small info section
for each of their products. You focus on a sweater in their product line named "Nebula", and you
read that the brand Capsule {vs. the designer Alex Light} always wanted the pattern of colors
and design for the sweater to be as it is now {vs. initially wanted the pattern of colors and design
for the sweater to be different from how it is now. However, after the sweater was
commercialized, decided to modify the sweater and created the new version that is displayed on
the webpage}.

86
APPENDIX G – Stimuli S6 Chapter 2
Imagine you notice one of your friends is wearing a cool t-shirt. They tell you it’s from
the brand Alex Light, named after the designer and owner Alex Light. You visit the brand
website and browse their collection. You notice the website provides a small info section for
each of their products.
You focus on a sweater in their product line named "Nebula", and you read that the designer
Alex Light had multiple design ideas for the sweater, and one of them was the pattern of colors
and design that is displayed on the website today. { vs. You focus on a sweater in their product
line named "Nebula", and you read that the designer Alex Light had multiple design ideas for the
sweater. The pattern of colors and design that is displayed on the website today is one of the
ideas he envisioned for the sweater. He initially created the sweater with a different pattern of
colors and design, but, after the sweater was commercialized, decided to modify the sweater and
implement one of the other designs he had imagined. vs. You focus on a sweater in their product
line named "Nebula", and you read that the designer Alex Light had multiple design ideas for the
sweater. However, the pattern of colors and design that is displayed on the website today is NOT
one of the ideas he had envisioned for the sweater. He initially created the sweater with a
different pattern of colors and design, but, after the sweater was commercialized, decided to
modify the sweater and implement a new design he developed later.}

87
APPENDIX H – Stimuli S1 Chapter 3
Imagine you just moved to a new neighborhood and are visiting a nearby coffee place.
While checking out their baked goods section, another customer notices your uncertainty and
approaches you.
He tells you he is a regular at the coffee place and has tried all their baked goods. He goes
on talking about how he has always liked one of their muffins, still likes it, but now likes another
one better {vs. he has always liked one of their muffins, but his taste has changed and doesn’t
like it anymore. He now likes another one. Vs. he has always liked two of their muffins}. He
recommends you try the latter {vs. the latter vs. one of them}, it’s called “Morning Glory
Muffin.”

88
APPENDIX I – Stimuli S2 Chapter 3
Imagine you just moved to a new neighborhood and are visiting a nearby coffee place.
While checking out their baked goods section, another customer in line notices your uncertainty
and starts a conversation.
He tells you he is a regular at the coffee place and has tried all their baked goods. He goes
on talking about how he has always liked one of their muffins {vs. he has always liked one of
their muffins, but his tastes have changed and does not like it anymore. He now likes a different
one. vs. initially he used to like one of their muffins, but his tastes have changed and does not like
it anymore. He then really liked a different one, but now no longer likes that one either. He now
likes a different one from both of those}. He recommends you try it {vs. the latter vs. it}, it’s
called the “Morning Glory Muffin.”

89
APPENDIX J – Stimuli S3 Chapter 3
Imagine you just moved to a new neighborhood and are deciding which restaurant to go
to for dinner. You noticed a small restaurant near your house and decide to check it out on a
review platform to see what other users think of it. You come across the following review:
“I am an aficionado of this little place and have tried all their dishes by now. My favorite
one has always been their grilled chicken {vs. My favorite one used to be their lamb, but my
tastes have changed over time, and I don’t like it anymore. Now, my favorite dish is their grilled
chicken}. Would recommend anyone going to this place to try it.”

90
APPENDIX K – Stimuli S4a Chapter 3
Imagine you are at a local Thai restaurant with your friends. One of your friends, Alex,
mentions that he always liked their Panang curry {vs. he used to like their Panang curry, but
doesn’t like it anymore, and now likes another of their dishes better}.
Once the dinner is over, you decide to go to a movie theater and are deciding which
movie to watch. Your friend Alex – who won’t be able to come with you at the movie theater –
recommends the movie “Like a dog on the freeway” that he recently saw and really liked.

91
APPENDIX L – Stimuli S4b Chapter 3
Imagine you just moved to a new neighborhood and are deciding which restaurant to go
to for dinner. You noticed a small restaurant near your house and decide to check it out on a
review platform to see what other users think of it. You come across the following review:
“I am an aficionado of this little place and have tried all their dishes by now. My favorite
one has always been their grilled chicken{vs. used to be their lamb, but my tastes have changed
over time, and I don’t like it anymore. Now, my favorite dish is their grilled chicken}. Would
recommend anyone going to this place to try it. {vs. I have never been so sure about a dish in my
whole life}”

92
APPENDIX M – “Growth” vs. “Fixed” mindset scale items
1. The kind of person someone is, is something very basic about them and it can’t be
changed very much
2. People can do things differently, but the important parts of who they are can’t really be
changed
3. Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics.
4. As much as I hate to admit it, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. People can’t really
change their deepest attributes.
5. People can always substantially change the kind of person they are.
6. Everyone is a certain kind of person, and there is not much that can be done to really
change that.
7. No matter what kind of person someone is, they can always change very much.
8. All people can change even their most basic qualities.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A central element of any marketing or interpersonal interaction is deciding what to disclose to others. Marketers spend substantial time editing the final wording for a marketing message in order to increase the chances of securing consumer approval. Similarly, individuals carefully consider what information to share with others, friends or strangers, in order to manage the impressions others form of them. In my dissertation, across two essays, I explore situations in which both companies and individuals disclose something has changed. Further, I focus on changes that are related to people’s idiosyncratic preferences (i.e., individual taste), and highlight how a disclosure of these type of changes generally elicit a negative reaction. In Essay 1, I focus on the company side. Here, I study how consumers react when a company discloses applying a taste-based modification (i.e., a modification that does not improve the objective quality of a product). In Essay 2, I focus on the consumer side. Here, I study how consumers react when another individual discloses their tastes (i.e., individual preferences) have changed in a given domain.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategic audience partitioning: antecedents and consequences

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

How do consumers use brands for identity signaling: Impact of brand prominence on consumers' choice and social interaction

PDF

How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

PDF

Manipulating consumer opinion on social media using trolls and influencers

PDF

Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Rhetoric in elite-led radical change: China's capitalist transformation from 1978-2008

PDF

Age-related changes in cognitive functioning and their implications for the reacquisition of conditioned taste avoidances

PDF

Understanding how organizational culture and expectations influence retention of managers

PDF

Essays on the role of entry strategy and quality strategy in market and consumer response

PDF

Essays on understanding consumer contribution behaviors in the context of crowdfunding

PDF

Better now than later: the cost of victims' delayed accusations

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

Disclosure distance and earnings announcement returns

PDF

The changing policy environment and banks' financial decisions

PDF

Essays on consumer returns in online retail and sustainable operations

PDF

Essays on consumer conversations in social media

PDF

People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience

Asset Metadata

Creator Solinas, Elisa (author)

Core Title Disclosure of changes in taste: implications for companies and consumers

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/17/2023

Defense Date 03/27/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag change,creativity,OAI-PMH Harvest,persuasion,taste

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Nunes, Joseph (committee chair), Buechel, Eva (committee member), Diehl, Kristin (committee member), Hagen, Linda (committee member), Schwarz, Norbert (committee member)

Creator Email solinas@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113015581

Unique identifier UC113015581

Identifier etd-SolinasEli-11639.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SolinasEli-11639

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Solinas, Elisa

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230417-usctheses-batch-1023 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu