MGT 3330 GA TECH Time Window as A Self-Control Denominator Summary

User Generated

mnarnfuyrll

Writing

MGT 3330

Georgia Institute of Technology

Description

Size 12 font

Double Spaced

2 pages

Summary and 1 critique.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Time Window as a Self-Control Denominator: Shorter Windows Shift Preference toward Virtues and Longer Windows toward Vices RAFAY A. SIDDIQUI FRANK MAY ASHWANI MONGA When planning future consumption, individuals are known to opt for large virtue quantities and small vice quantities as a means of self-control. We argue that such planning may also involve the time window within which a given quantity needs to be consumed because the final objective is to plan for a desired consumption rate (i.e., quantity/time window)—a high virtue rate and a low vice rate. Five studies reveal that, when quantity is held constant, a short window (i.e., high rate) nudges individuals toward virtues, and a long window (i.e., low rate) toward vices. We find this effect for hypothetical and real virtue-vice choices, preferences, and willingness to extend a time window. Furthermore, these effects are mediated by the pursuit of long-term health goals, and are moderated such that the effect of time windows is stronger for those who need more help in meeting their self-control goals—that is, impulsive individuals. While these effects are consistent with self-control, we discuss a blend of mechanisms that may be working in conjunction, particularly at the stage that we focus on: planning rather than consuming. Our results offer strong theoretical implications and important consequences for the marketplace where expiration periods and other time windows are ubiquitous. Keywords: time, virtue, vice, self-control C onsumers often encounter a time window within which the units of a good need to be consumed. For instance, a grocery store may sell packs of salad boxes, cupcakes, and other products that need to be consumed within a given period. We propose that time windows have asymmetric consequences for virtues versus vices: a shorter window increases preference for virtues (e.g., salads), but a longer window increases preference for vices (e.g., cupcakes). Our findings add to the self-control literature about a farsighted planner trying to control a myopic doer’s actions (Benabou and Pycia 2002; Schelling 1984; Thaler and Shefrin 1981). The planner tries to nudge the doer self toward virtues, and away from vices (DellaVigna and Malmendier 2006; Prelec and Loewenstein 1998; Schelling 1992; Trope and Fishbach 2000). In the domain of products, self-control plans often involve opting for a large quantity of virtues and a small quantity of vices (Mishra and Mishra 2011; Wertenbroch 1998). We argue that such planning may also involve the consumption time window because the final objective is not simply to control the Rafay A. Siddiqui (rafay.siddiqui@polyu.edu.hk) is assistant professor of marketing at the Faculty of Business, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong; Frank May (fmay@vt.edu) is assistant professor of marketing at the Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; and Ashwani Monga (amonga@business.rutgers.edu) is professor of marketing at Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark and New Brunswick, NJ 07102. All authors contributed equally. Corresponding author: Rafay A. Siddiqui. Vicki Morwitz served as editor and Rebecca Hamilton served as associate editor for this article. Advance Access publication October 24, 2016 C The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. V All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com  Vol. 43  2017 DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucw064 932 SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA quantity, but to consume virtues at a high rate and vices at a low rate. Given our perspective of a consumption rate for self-control (i.e., quantity/consumption time window), prior research has focused on just the numerator (i.e., quantity). Five studies reveal how, keeping the numerator constant, the denominator (i.e., time window) has an asymmetric effect on plans for virtue versus vice consumption. We also contribute to the literature on the psychology of time periods. One stream of research has examined the effect of switching time periods, such as on aspirational behaviors, mental accounting, and employee motivation (Dai, Milkman, and Riis 2014; Kaur, Kremer, and Mullainathan 2010; Soster, Monga, and Bearden 2010). Another stream has explored the time period available to complete activities, such as redeeming coupons and mail-in rebates (Inman and McAlister 1994; Krishna and Zhang 1999). Because the cost of spending time looms large (Zauberman and Lynch 2005), consumers procrastinate time-consuming activities such as visiting museums, writing class reports, and completing rebate forms and saving plans (Ariely and Wertenbroch 2002; Gourville and Soman 2011; O’Donoghue and Rabin 1999; Shu and Gneezy 2010; Soman 1998). Complementing this research on timeconsuming activities, we show how the time windows associated with products have an asymmetric influence on virtues versus vices. Our findings also have strong managerial and public policy implications because time windows are ubiquitous across food products as well as other contexts, such as payper-view programs available for a few hours, and amusement park tickets valid for a weekend. In the general discussion, we will elaborate further on the implications for both theory and practice. SELF-CONTROL: PLANNING MORE VIRTUE AND LESS VICE CONSUMPTION People face a variety of self-control challenges. From the perspective of multiple selves within a single individual, the planner self wants to maximize utility over the long run, while the doer self wants to maximize utility for just the immediate time period (Benabou and Pycia 2002; Schelling 1984; Thaler and Shefrin 1981). Self-control involves the farsighted planner trying to control the myopic doer’s actions. This dynamic, which can also be seen as a desire-willpower conflict pitting short-term desires against long-term interests (Hoch and Loewenstein 1991), is integral to virtues and vices. Virtues offer immediate costs, but benefits are accrued in the long run; one may dislike eating bland salads, but the eventual outcome will be a boost to one’s health. Conversely, vices offer immediate benefits, but costs are incurred in the long run; one may enjoy eating delicious 933 desserts, but the eventual outcome will be added inches to the waistline. Individuals understand that their long-term interest is better served when they consume more virtues and fewer vices (Read, Loewenstein, and Kalyanaraman 1999; Wertenbroch 1998). They want to embrace virtues and their positive self-signals, and avoid vices and their negative self-signals (Benabou and Tirole 2004; Bodner and Prelec 2003; DellaVigna and Malmendier 2004; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012; Khan and Dhar 2006, 2007; Kivetz and Zheng 2006). Despite these good intentions, individuals frequently lack the willpower to consume a distasteful virtue, or deny themselves a tempting vice. Knowing that willpower may give way in the face of desires, a planner often makes self-control plans so that the future doer consumes more virtues and fewer vices (Benabou and Tirole 2004; Thaler and Shefrin 1981). Taking a virtue example, individuals may not have the self-control to go ahead with a painful medical procedure that provides long-term benefits. Therefore, they impose penalties on themselves if they fail to undergo the procedure (Trope and Fishbach 2000). Taking a vice example, individuals may not have the self-control to avoid frivolous expenditures. To restrict future spending, they proactively resort to mental accounting—they restrict the inherent fungibility of money by creating a preset budget for categories such as “entertainment” (Gourville and Soman 1998; Heath and Soll 1996; Prelec and Loewenstein 1998; Thaler 1980, 1985). Also, to discourage future drug use, addicts deter themselves by writing self-incriminating letters that others may see in the event of a relapse (Schelling 1992). Thus, individuals make plans that help them align future actions with self-control goals. ROLE OF QUANTITY IN PLANNING VIRTUE AND VICE CONSUMPTION The current research is focused on the domain of products. In this domain, individuals are known to prefer certain quantities, depending on whether the goal is to promote virtue consumption or limit vice consumption. For virtues, because there is a long-term benefit to increasing the intake, consumers prefer large quantities. Mishra and Mishra (2011) observe that for products perceived as virtues (e.g., raisins), individuals forgo a discount and favor a bonus pack that offers a larger quantity. In the case of virtue magazines (e.g., Foreign Policy), readers pay more for a subscription of all issues through the year, even though it is cheaper to purchase single issues; that is, subscription prices are higher than corresponding individual newsstand rates (Oster and Morton 2005). And at gyms, it is often cheaper to just pay for visits than have a monthly membership. However, individuals sign up for a membership to encourage themselves to visit the gym more often (DellaVigna and Malmendier 2006). 934 For vices, because there is a long-term benefit to decreasing the intake, consumers prefer small quantities. Wertenbroch (1998) shows that smokers favor small packs of cigarettes over price discounts on cartons. Thus, they opt for the economically inferior option to restrict their cigarette quantity. Similarly, Mishra and Mishra (2011) observe that for tasty chocolates, which are perceived as vices, individuals forgo a bonus pack and opt for a discounted regular pack. We should clarify that doers may or may not comply with planners. Considering virtues, one may buy more raisins but not eat them, receive Foreign Policy through the year and never read an issue, and sign up for gym memberships but not take advantage of the unlimited gym visits. Indeed, members do not visit the gym frequently enough to even recoup their membership expense. To use the title of DellaVigna and Malmendier’s (2006) article, buying gym membership is akin to “paying not to go to the gym.” Similarly, considering vices, buying small packs of cigarettes or tasty chocolates does not ensure reduced consumption because one is still free to consume the small packs quickly and then buy more packs. Thus, it is not critical to our theory whether or not doers consume as planners intend. What is critical is that planners lean toward consumption opportunities that entail higher quantities of virtues and lower quantities of vices. ROLE OF TIME WINDOW IN PLANNING VIRTUE AND VICE CONSUMPTION Our thesis is that just planning the quantity to be consumed does not offer a comprehensive plan to align future consumption with self-control objectives. A large quantity of virtue spread over a very long time would be ineffective, just as a small quantity of vice compressed in a very short time period would be harmful. A comprehensive selfcontrol plan requires one to control the rate at which future consumption occurs—consume virtues at a high rate and vices at a low rate. Considering gym visits as a virtue product, individuals would meet the goal of good health not just by signing up for more visits, but by completing those visits within a time window that yields a high rate of gym visits. Similarly, considering cigarettes as a vice product, individuals would meet the self-control goal of good health not just by buying fewer cigarettes, but by smoking those cigarettes within a time window that yields a low rate of cigarette smoking. Given our perspective of a self-control consumption rate (i.e., quantity/consumption time window), prior research has focused on just the numerator (i.e., quantity). We argue that because the denominator (i.e., time window) can alter the consumption rate, it would also factor into individuals’ planning of virtue and vice consumption. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Consider the case of virtues. When quantity is held constant, a shorter time window promotes a higher consumption rate. Therefore, for an individual trying to exert selfcontrol over future consumption (i.e., aim for higher consumption rate), a shorter time window would be preferable. As an example, think of a consumer who sees wheatgrass juice as a virtue that offers an unpleasant taste in the short run, but health benefits in the long run. When considering a package of four drinks that last for a long time (e.g., twoweek expiration), the individual knows that because she finds wheatgrass juice distasteful, she would stretch the consumption over two weeks rather than consume quickly. This low rate of consumption would be misaligned with her self-control goal of a high rate of virtue consumption. Now assume that the drinks last for a shorter time (e.g., one week). A one-week period would be adequate to consume all four drinks, but provide less consumption flexibility than a two-week period. Precisely because of this restricted flexibility, a planner knows that stretching out juice consumption will not be an option, and the consequent high consumption rate will yield a positive impact on health. It is possible that the doer still procrastinates and ends up never consuming the drinks. However, for the planner, a one-week (vs. two-week) period offers the promise of a higher rate of consumption. Thus, a one-week period is more attractive for someone genuinely aiming for self-control of virtues (i.e., elevating future rate of consumption). Moreover, this shorter period also provides a more favorable self-signal (Benabou and Tirole 2004; Bodner and Prelec 2003; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012). Specifically, if self-control were not of any concern, one would prefer a two-week (vs. one-week) period that provides an excuse to consume the distasteful drinks later rather than sooner. However, given self-control considerations, a one-week period proves a more favorable self-signal of aiming for a high rate of virtue consumption. Overall, therefore, the consumer will be more inclined toward the drinks package if it were offered with a one-week (vs. two-week) expiration period; that is, shorter time windows will increase preference for virtues. Now consider the case of vices. When quantity is held constant, a longer time window promotes a lower consumption rate. Therefore, for an individual trying to exert self-control over future consumption (i.e., aim for lower consumption rate), a longer time window would be preferable. As an example, think of a consumer who sees cupcakes as a vice that offers a great taste in the short run, but adverse health consequences in the long run. When considering a package of four cupcakes that last for a short time (e.g., one-week expiration), the consumer knows that he would not let the tempting cupcakes go to waste and, therefore, a high rate of consumption is assured. This high rate of consumption would be misaligned with his selfcontrol goal of a low rate of vice consumption. Now assume that the consumer considers cupcakes that last for a SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA longer time (e.g., two weeks). As a planner, the consumer knows that he will now be able to stretch out cupcake consumption over two weeks, and the consequent low consumption rate will limit the negative impact on health. It is possible that the doer still consumes all cupcakes within the first week. However, for the planner, a two-week period provides a greater opportunity to consume at a lower rate than what a one-week period would permit. Thus, a two-week period is more attractive for someone genuinely aiming for self-control of vices (i.e., curbing future rate of consumption). Moreover, this longer period also provides a more favorable self-signal (Benabou and Tirole 2004; Bodner and Prelec 2003; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012). Specifically, if self-control were not of any concern, one would prefer a one-week (vs. twoweek) period that provides an excuse to consume the tempting cupcakes sooner rather than later. However, given self-control considerations, a two-week period provides a more favorable self-signal of aiming for a low rate of vice consumption. The literature on guilt mitigation and justification (Mishra and Mishra 2011) is also consistent with this notion. While not consuming vice at all, in any quantity, may be ideal from a self-control perspective, a smaller quantity is in the right direction because it promises to inflict less harm than a larger quantity. Analogously, a longer time window offers the promise of less harm. Overall, therefore, the consumer will be more inclined toward the cupcakes package if it were offered with a two-week (vs. one-week) expiration period; that is, longer time windows will increase preference for vices. OVERVIEW OF PREDICTIONS AND STUDIES Following the above discussion, we predict an asymmetric effect of time windows on virtue versus vice products. A shorter time window should increase preference for virtues because the self-control goal is a high consumption rate. However, a longer time window should increase preference for vices because the self-control goal is a low consumption rate. Taken together, a shorter time window should nudge preference toward virtues and away from vices. Five studies support our predictions. In study 1, we find that choice of virtue rather than vice is higher when the time window is shorter. In study 2, we replicate this effect in a choice between real products, where we also track consumption. In study 3, we employ a preference, rather than choice, format. This format reveals not only that shorter windows nudge people toward virtues and away from vices, but also teases apart the virtue versus vice effects; shorter time windows increase preference for virtues, whereas longer windows increase preference for vices. In study 4, we test our theory by asking participants whether they would invest nominal effort for a longer time 935 window, or just accept a short window. In line with our other results, people opt for a longer window more in the case of vices rather than virtues. We also show that, consistent with self-control, the pursuit of long-term goals mediates the influence of time windows. Specifically, time windows influence perceptions of achieving good health differently for virtue versus vice products, which then leads to differences in the inclination to opt for a longer time window. In study 5, we test our theory via moderation. Our argument is that because people anticipate self-control challenges, they adopt plans that help them exert self-control. However, not all individuals are aware of their self-control issues, and there is individual variation in the extent to which people view themselves as impulsive (O’Donoghue and Rabin 1999; Puri 1996). Making plans to facilitate future self-control is more likely for those who need greater help with self-control—those who are high on impulsivity. For instance, Wertenbroch, Soman, and Nunes (2001) find that high (vs. low) impulsives self-impose constraints on their borrowing, so that the reduced liquidity deters them from shopping. Similarly, in research more central to our theorizing, Wertenbroch (1998) observes that high (vs. low) impulsives are more likely to rely on quantity as a means of self-control. Our argument for time windows follows a similar logic. A low-impulsive planner knows that the doer is less likely to falter on self-control at the point of consumption, and so there is a lesser need to rely on time windows to control consumption. Conversely, a high-impulsive planner knows that the doer is more likely to falter on self-control, and so there is a greater need to rely on time windows. In line with this, study 5 shows that the effect of shorter time windows shifting preference toward virtues and away from vices is stronger for high (vs. low) impulsives. We should note that the results that we observe for planners are consistent with self-control but do not necessarily implicate genuine self-control as the sole underlying mechanism. Indeed, whether self-control is truly exerted or not would be evident only when doers consume. At the planning stage, several mechanisms may be working in conjunction, such as a genuine desire for self-control, selfsignaling, and justification. Later, in the General Discussion, we will elaborate on these finer processes and offer some tentative suggestions to explore them further. For now, in the studies that follow, we will limit our interpretations to how our results are broadly consistent with self-control. STUDY 1 In study 1, we test whether shorter time windows increase the choice share of virtues relative to vices. Specifically, we present participants with a scenario of a choice between a relative vice (i.e., dessert subscription) 936 and a relative virtue (i.e., salad subscription) while varying the time window in which the vice or virtue is to be consumed. We keep the subscription quantity constant at eight servings of either dessert or salad. Half the participants choose between the two when the servings are spread over a short time window (four weeks), and half make this choice when the servings are spread over a long time window (four months). We predict that a shorter time window will increase the choice share for a salad (vs. dessert) subscription. Two aspects of this study are worth highlighting. First, we spread out consumption over fixed time intervals. In the short-time-window condition (four weeks), we stipulate two servings every week, and in the long-time-window condition (four months), we stipulate two servings every month. Note that time intervals are not manipulated: they are present in both conditions, and the number of intervals is four for both. Hence, any choice effects that we observe cannot be attributed to the intervals, but only to the time window. The only reason to include intervals is to convey to participants that the time window would be strictly followed. When the salad or dessert arrives at fixed intervals, one would be bound to a rate of consumption. Thus, a participant choosing dessert in a specific time-window condition would do so only if he or she genuinely accepts that rate of dessert consumption. Therefore, the current setting offers a strict test of our theorizing. However, in later studies, we also examine whether our results replicate when this constraint of intervals is relaxed. Second, although the use of dessert as vice and salad as virtue is common in prior research (Kivetz and Keinan 2006; Kivetz and Zheng 2006), we used pretests to confirm two aspects: (a) the two products differ in terms of vicevirtue perceptions, and (b) the two products are consumed similarly in participants’ regular lives. For the first test, 59 participants from the Mechanical Turk online panel (41% female, Mage ¼ 33) responded to a question adapted from Khan and Dhar (2007). Specifically, we informed the participants, “A virtue is something that is not very tempting now but may be more beneficial later on. A vice is something tempting that may have fewer benefits later on.” Participants then rated either eating a salad or a dessert on a scale from 0 to 100 (0 ¼ vice; 100 ¼ virtue). (The numerical values on the slider scale were not visible to participants.) As expected, in a relative sense, a salad was more virtue and a dessert was more vice (MSalad ¼ 79.86, SD ¼ 17.53, MDessert ¼ 14.60, SD ¼ 15.64; F(1, 57) ¼ 227.98, p < .001). To test whether participants consume the two products similarly in their regular lives, we told a separate group of 59 undergraduate students from the University of South Carolina (68% female, Mage ¼ 21) the following: “We are interested in learning about how much you consume certain types of food. Think about the number of times you consume desserts and salads in a typical month. Using the JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH slider scale below, please indicate whether you, on average, eat salads more times a month than desserts, desserts more times a month than salads, or you eat them an equal number of times.” Participants provided their answers on a scale from 0 to 100 (0 ¼ Eat desserts more times a month; 50 ¼ Eat salads and desserts an equal number of times a month; 100 ¼ Eat salads more times a month). The mean response did not deviate significantly from the midpoint of 50, confirming that there was no significant difference between the rate of consumption of salads and desserts (M ¼ 55.85, SD ¼ 33.10, t(58) ¼ 1.36, p > .1). In sum, both salad and dessert are consumed similarly by participants, but salad (vs. dessert) is viewed as more of a virtue rather than vice product. Method Two-hundred twenty-two undergraduate students (46% female, Mage ¼ 21) at the University of South Carolina successfully participated in the study. (Eight responses were excluded because participants incorrectly answered an attention-filter question: “This question is just to make sure that you are paying attention to this survey. Please mark ‘5’ as your response.”) A single factor (time window: short vs. long) between-subjects design was employed. Participants in the short time window (i.e., four weeks) condition were asked to imagine the following scenario: Imagine that a “Food of the Week” club is offering a promotion on two of its offerings: desserts and salads. 4-week subscriptions to both desserts and salads are on sale for $20 each. The dessert subscription covers a variety of great tasting desserts. If you buy the 4-week subscription for desserts, you will receive two servings of a unique dessert every week for 4 weeks. The salad subscription covers a variety of healthy salads. If you buy the 4-week subscription for salads, you will receive two servings of a unique salad every week for 4 weeks. Which one would you buy? In the long-time-window condition (i.e., four months), the scenario was similar to the one above, and the number of servings was identical. However, the eight servings of “Food of the Week” (i.e., two servings  four weeks) were presented as eight servings of “Food of the Month” (i.e., two servings  four months). Participants’ choice of subscription served as the dependent variable. Finally, participants answered standard demographic questions. Results To test whether the number of people choosing the dessert subscription over the salad subscription varied as a function of the time window, we conducted a binary logistic regression with the time window serving as the independent variable (Short ¼ –1, Long ¼ 1) and the choice between the two subscriptions serving as the dependent SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA variable (0 ¼ Salad subscription, 1 ¼ Dessert subscription). We found that the salad (vs. dessert) subscription was chosen significantly more often when the time window was four weeks rather than four months (50.9% vs. 37.5%; b ¼ .27, SE ¼ .136, z ¼ 2.01, 95% CI (.003, .54), p < .05, R2 ¼ .02). Discussion Consistent with our predictions, we found that a shorter time window shifted preference away from the vice (i.e., dessert) and toward the virtue (i.e., salad). Thus, more virtuous consumption results when we increase the rate of consumption by shrinking the denominator (i.e., time window), while keeping the numerator (i.e., quantity of servings) constant. STUDY 2 Study 2 builds upon study 1 in two ways. First, we test whether our effects emerge for choices between real products as opposed to hypothetical ones. Instead of using different products (salad vs. dessert), we rely on a single product category, granola bars, but employ a decadent chocolate version as a vice, and a nutritional fruit version as a virtue. In a pretest with 33 undergraduate students from Virginia Tech using the scale described in study 1, we confirmed that, in a relative sense, fruit granola bars are seen as a virtue, and chocolate granola bars as a vice (Mfruit ¼ 59.82, SD ¼ 32.33, Mchocolate ¼ 31.06, SD ¼ 30.71, F(1, 31) ¼ 6.85, p < .05). Second, we remove the constraint of fixed time intervals; that is, we give people an overall time window (two days vs. seven days) and do not specify how they should spread out the granola bars that they choose. We predict that our study 1 results will replicate, such that the choice share of virtue will be higher when the time window is two (vs. seven) days. One possibility here is that participants may choose more vice in the seven-day condition (as we predict), but only as an excuse to choose the vice, without having any actual self-control intention to spread out consumption. Therefore, we track consumption to get some initial empirical insights. We cannot make any a priori prediction about whether the doer will comply with the planner (i.e., consume as stipulated by the time window), but want to empirically observe whether compliance for virtues versus vices is similar. If we observe that vices are consumed faster than virtues, then two possibilities exist: either self-control intentions were honest but then faltered at the time of consumption; or self-control intentions were never honest in the first place—vice choosers planned faster consumption all along. In contrast, if we observe that vices are consumed at the same pace as virtues, then there is only one possibility: self-control intentions were genuine for vices 937 as much as for virtues. Note that we are not making a theoretical prediction because the actual pace of consumption would depend on several factors, such as how tempting a product is. We merely contend that for our particular stimuli, if virtue and vice choosers consume similarly, then there is no reason to suspect that vice choosers planned to ignore the stipulation of time windows, while virtue choosers did not. We can infer that all choosers were honestly aiming for self-control. While this would be only an empirical inference, we will later explore self-control more theoretically, using mediation and moderation. Method Eighty-six undergraduate students (52% female, Mage ¼ 21) at Virginia Tech participated in the study for extra course credit. Under the guise of a study to understand their opinions of granola bars, students were asked to pick the type they wanted, and randomly assigned to either the short-window or long-window condition. Given the Monday-Wednesday class schedule, choice data was collected on Monday and consumption data on Wednesday. To ensure that students did not become aware of the different time-window conditions, they were asked not to converse with each other regarding the study, as that would influence opinions. (Probes at the end of the study confirmed that students were unaware of assignments to conditions.) On a Monday, the students were provided the cover story about understanding opinions of granola bars. They then read the following: “We would like to give you some food products today (as soon as you are done with this survey). In later classes, we will ask you for your opinions about these products. You can choose which products you want to give opinions on: 2 decadent Nature Valley chocolate granola bars or 2 nutritional Nature Valley fruit granola bars.” Right after this, students were told the time window within which they should consume the two bars (i.e., two days or seven days). Participants then chose the bars they wanted. (They could choose to opt out and not receive any bars; no one did that.) We then verified that, in their regular lives, participants consumed chocolate and fruit granola bars at a comparable level. Specifically, when asked to indicate the extent to which they consume fruit relative to chocolate bars in a week (1 ¼ Eat fruit bars more times, 4 ¼ Eat both equally, 7 ¼ Eat chocolate bars more times), the mean response was not significantly different from the midpoint of 4 (M ¼ 3.91, SD ¼ 1.57, t(85) ¼ –.55, p > .5). Next, participants completed standard demographic questions. The follow-up survey was conducted two days later, on Wednesday, to assess the number of bars that participants had consumed. Note that this two-day mark was the critical point for us to assess differences between participants who were in the two-day versus seven-day conditions (i.e., by 938 the seven-day mark, both groups were expected to consume all the bars anyway). Once participants provided their responses, they were debriefed and the study was terminated. Results Choice. We conducted a binary logistic regression with time window serving as the independent variable (Short ¼ –1, Long ¼ 1) and choice as the dependent variable (0 ¼ Fruit granola bars, 1 ¼ Chocolate granola bars). The analysis revealed that more participants chose the fruit bars when the time window was short (two days) rather than long (seven days), indicating that, as predicted, the shorter window encouraged choice of virtue over vice (% choosing fruit: Short ¼ 67%, Long ¼ 42%; b ¼ .53, SE ¼ .22, z ¼ 2.35, 95% CI (.09, .96), p < .05, R2 ¼ .09). Consumption. Out of the 86 participants who made choices on Monday, 81 were available for the follow-up study at the two-day mark on Wednesday. (For the five who were not available for the follow-up, drop-out numbers were very similar across different groups; one participant each for fruit–two-day, fruit–seven-day, and chocolate–seven day; and two participants for chocolate– two day.) The results revealed that the time window influenced the rate of consumption. More bars were consumed in the twoday (vs. seven-day) condition (Mshort ¼ 1.80, SD ¼ .79, Mlong ¼ 1.29, SD ¼ .78, F(1, 79) ¼ 8.42, p < .01; Cohen’s d ¼ .65). More important, the possibility that participants may choose chocolate bars in the seven-day condition but consume them right away (but not do so for fruit bars) does not hold. In the seven-day condition, whether participants had chosen chocolate or fruit bars, the mean consumption was identical (Mchocolate ¼ 1.29, SD ¼ .81, Mfruit ¼ 1.29, SD ¼ .77, F(1, 39) ¼ .00, p > .9; Cohen’s d ¼ 0). Thus, it seems unlikely that participants used the seven-day window as simply an excuse to pick the vice, only to consume all bars quickly. Similarly, in the two-day condition, it did not matter whether participants had chosen chocolate or fruit bars (Mchocolate ¼ 1.67, SD ¼ .65, Mfruit ¼ 1.86, SD ¼ .85, F(1, 38) ¼ .48, p > .4; Cohen’s d ¼ .25). Discussion Consistent with the results of study 1, a shorter time window encouraged choice of virtue over vice. We observed this for real choices in which actual consumption was anticipated. Moreover, participants complied with the time window, in that the consumption rate was higher in the two-day (vs. seven-day) condition, with no difference between virtue and vice participants. We cannot interpret these results as evidence that consumption plans will always carry over to actual consumption. After all, our theory is only about planners, not doers, and these empirical JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH results may change from one product to another. However, these results do help us draw an inference. Given that virtue and vice doers consume the products similarly, vice planners could not have thought of long time windows as just an excuse to choose vice, while actually intending to consume early. If they had thought so, then their later selves, vice doers, would have consumed faster than virtue doers. Thus, we can make an empirical (though not theoretical) inference that doers were indeed aiming for selfcontrol, and not using the time window as just an excuse to cater to their impulses. We provide more evidence in the next three studies, which is consistent with self-control. In study 3, we rely on preference (rather than choice), which lets us clearly observe the asymmetry—the pattern that emerges for vices is opposite to the pattern for virtues. In study 4, consistent with self-control, we show mediation via pursuit of long-term goals. Finally, in study 5, we show moderation via impulsivity, such that our results are stronger for those who need more help with self-control. STUDY 3 Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence for the effect of shorter time windows leading to a shift toward virtues rather than vices. However, given the choice format, these studies do not provide evidence for the predicted separate effects of vice versus virtue—that a shorter time window elevates preference for virtues, whereas a longer time window elevates preference for vices. We test these separate effects in the current study. Another change from our earlier studies pertains to the stimuli. In study 1, we employed different product categories (i.e., salad vs. dessert). In study 2, we employed different variants of the same product category (i.e., chocolate vs. fruit granola bars). In the current study, we employ a single product, red wine, and simply measure vice-virtue perceptions. Some people think of red wine as a vice; they may consider it a tempting product that helps them unwind, but is short on future benefits and may lead to unpleasant consequences. Others extoll its virtues; they may consider it a product that has unwanted immediate consequences, but delivers future benefits such as improved heart health due to antioxidants. Depending on how people view red wine, we expect them to react differently to time windows. Our setting involves a scenario in which perception of wine coupons serves as a proxy for wine preference. We predict that a shorter time window will decrease preference for those who see red wine as a relative vice, but increase preference for those who see red wine as a relative virtue. Because vice-virtue perceptions are measured rather than manipulated, we cannot conclusively establish that any observed effects are caused by such perceptions, rather than other correlated variables. For instance, virtue perception may be correlated with a high consumption rate that SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA makes one prefer the short (vs. long) time window. Or the cause may be some other unforeseen correlates. Establishing causality requires an experimental vice-virtue manipulation of the type we employ in the two preceding studies and the two that follow. In this study, our goal is simply to capitalize on natural variation in vice-virtue perceptions of a product, and test if such perceptions are associated with different consequences for short versus long time windows. Method We used the Mechanical Turk online panel to solicit adult participants who self-report as wine drinkers. One hundred twenty of them (35% female, Mage ¼ 33) successfully participated in the study. (Four responses were excluded because participants incorrectly answered the attention-filter question, as described in study 1.) A 2 (time window: short vs. long)  2 (product: virtue vs. vice; measured) between-subjects design was employed. Participants in the short-time-window condition were asked to imagine the following scenario: Imagine that an upscale wine store has recently opened within walking distance of your house. The store specializes in red wine. It is offering a free coupon as part of a promotional campaign. With the coupon, you can come into the wine store and have 1 free glass of wine every day for 7 days. To get the coupon, you must first go online to the wine store’s website and take a 1 hour survey on beverages. After the survey is completed, you will be emailed a unique printable coupon in your name. Since it would be in your name, only you can use the coupon. In the long-time-window condition, the scenario was similar to the above, and the number of glasses was identical. However, the seven glasses in a week (i.e., one glass  seven days) were presented as seven glasses in seven weeks (i.e., one glass  seven weeks); that is, the coupon’s recipient would receive one glass of wine every week for seven weeks. Afterward, participants indicated preference for the coupon by answering the following two questions on 100-point scale in the short-time-window condition [long-time-window condition]: a) How likely would you be to take the survey for a coupon which gives you 1 glass of wine every day for 7 days [every week for 7 weeks]? (0 ¼ Very unlikely, 100 ¼ Very likely), and b) How appealing is the coupon, which gives you 1 glass of wine every day for 7 days [every week for 7 weeks]? (0 ¼ Not at all appealing, 100 ¼ Very appealing). Indicating higher numbers would suggest a higher preference for consuming the wine. Next, to measure the extent to which a participant perceives wine as a virtue versus vice, we utilized the question that we used in the pretests of studies 1 and 2, which involved describing a vice as something tempting that may have 939 fewer benefits later on, and a virtue as being not tempting but offering later benefits (0 ¼ vice; 100 ¼ virtue). For all these slider scales, the numerical values were not visible to participants. Finally, participants answered standard demographic questions. Results Our goal was to test whether preference for the wine (i.e., average of the two coupon measures; a ¼ .88) changed differently with time window, depending on vicevirtue perceptions about wine. Therefore, using the dependent variable of preference, we investigated the twoway interaction between time window (Short ¼ –1, Long ¼ 1) and perceived type of good (virtue vs. vice; continuous) using the Johnson-Neyman floodlight analysis technique (Johnson and Neyman 1936; Spiller et al. 2013). The two-way interaction was significant (b ¼ –.33, SE ¼ .13, t(119) ¼ –2.54, 95% CI (–.58, –.07), p ¼ .01, R2 ¼ .06), and the predicted pattern emerged. As is clear from figure 1, when the time window became shorter (i.e., one week instead of seven weeks), there was a preference shift toward wine seen as virtue, and away from wine seen as vice. The preference shift was driven by statistically significant shifts for both virtue and vice. For those who perceive wine as a relative virtue (who were 1.26 SD above the mean—or higher—of the vice-virtue index), preference was higher when the time window was one week rather than seven weeks (bJN ¼ –9.69, SEJN ¼ 4.89, t(119) ¼ – 1.98, 95% CIJN (–19.37, .00), p ¼ .05). In contrast, for those who perceive wine as a relative vice (who were 1.24 SD below the mean—or lower—of the vice-virtue index), preference was higher when the time window was seven weeks rather than one week (BJN ¼ 9.52, SEJN ¼ 4.81, t(119) ¼ 1.98, 95% CIJN (.00, 19.04), p ¼ .05). A similar preference shift was evident for preferences within each time window. When the time window was long (seven weeks), the slope of vice versus virtue perceptions was not significant; that is, the preference for wine did not change when wine was perceived to be more of a virtue than a vice (b ¼ –.26, SE ¼ .184, t(119)¼ –1.42, 95% CI (–.63, .10), p> .1). However, when the time window was short (one week), the slope of vice versus virtue perceptions was positive, such that preference increased when wine was perceived to be more of a virtue (b ¼ .39, SE ¼ .179, t(119)¼ 2.18, 95% CI (.04, .75), p< .05). In other words, while preference was similar for vice versus virtue in the seven-week condition, the preference for virtue was higher in the one-week condition. The shorter window shifted preference toward wine seen as a virtue. Discussion In the current study, we observed the same effect as we did in studies 1 and 2, but for preference rather than choice. 940 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH FIGURE 1 STUDY 3: PREFERENCE FOR WINE COUPON WHEN WINE IS PERCEIVED TO BE A VIRTUE VERSUS VICE (MEANS AT –/þ 1SD) 100 Preference for W ine Coupon 90 80 70 70.67 67.66 55.3 60 52.29 1 week 50 7 weeks 40 30 20 10 0 Virtue Examining preference helps us delineate how time windows have an effect for both virtues and vices, but in opposite directions. For those who perceive wine as a relative virtue, preference was higher when the time window was shorter; but for those who perceive wine as a relative vice, preference was higher when the time window was longer. Furthermore, we observed these results not for different virtue and vice products, but for a single product. While we forgo causal evidence by not manipulating virtue-vice perceptions (as we manipulate in our other studies), this study is helpful in showing that even naturally occurring variance in virtue-vice perceptions yields an asymmetric influence of time windows. STUDY 4 Having observed the predicted effects for both choice and preference, in the current study we add to the empirical evidence in three ways. First, in our previous studies, we tested how participants responded to different time windows. We now want to test whether people would actively opt for a longer time window over a shorter one. However, because the long time window offers greater consumption flexibility, socially desirable responding (Holtgraves 2004) may arise; all participants may opt for it in order to appear more rational. To get around this issue, we ask participants whether they would like to extend the time window in return for a nominal amount of effort. Thus, extending the time window is portrayed as a benefit in return for a small cost. Our prediction is that those in the vice (vs. virtue) condition are more likely to extend the time window. This is because a longer time window would facilitate the goal Vice of decreasing the vice rate, but hinder the goal of increasing the virtue rate. Second, we further test the extent to which our observed effects are consistent with self-control. In the previous studies, we show an asymmetry for vices and virtues, which is consistent with our ideas about time windows aiding individuals’ self-control efforts in the service of their long-term goals. We now test this implication more directly via mediation. Specifically, we examine whether time windows influence perceptions of achieving good health differently for virtue versus vice products, which in turn leads to differences in the inclination to opt for a longer time window. Finally, instead of using different products (studies 1 and 2), or measuring virtue-vice perceptions (study 3), we manipulate virtue-vice perceptions of a single product, shakes, to further establish causality. We pretested this manipulation. Following the measure used in prior studies, we describe a vice as something tempting that may not offer many benefits, and a virtue as being not tempting but offering benefits later on (0 ¼ vice; 100 ¼ virtue). Participants read scenarios in which the shake was described either as a vice or a virtue (see the Method section below for how the vice-virtue manipulation was incorporated). The pretest with 60 Mechanical Turk participants (48% female, Mage ¼ 35) confirmed that, in a relative sense, the shake described in the virtue condition was seen as a virtue, and the shake described in the vice condition was seen as a vice (MVirtue ¼ 76.79, SD ¼ 29.27, MVice ¼ 11.97, SD ¼ 14.49; F(1, 58) ¼ 120.56, p < .001). Having confirmed this vice-virtue difference, we proceeded to the main study. SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA Method One hundred thirty participants from the Mechanical Turk online panel (41% female, Mage ¼ 34) successfully participated in the study. (Five responses were excluded because participants incorrectly answered the attention-filter question, as described in study 1.) A single factor (product: virtue vs. vice) between-subjects design was employed. All participants were told about a gift certificate for eight shakes with a validity period of one month, which they could extend to four months. Those in the virtue condition read the following: Please imagine that you have received a gift certificate in the mail. This certificate is good for 8 healthy shakes at a new branch of the restaurant “Bob’s Shakes.” This new branch is located just a block away from your home. A quick look at Yelp confirms that Bob’s Shakes are indeed very healthy. For instance, one comment is as follows: “. . . Bob’s Shakes aren’t the tastiest, but they sure are good for you! I’ve been drinking them for a while now. The taste sucks, but I look better in a swimsuit now! That healthy feeling is definitely worth it.” As you look closer at the certificate, you notice the fine print. The fine print lists many things such as how the certificate cannot be shared with others, and how you can redeem only 1 shake on any given day. However, what really catches your attention is the following: “The certificate is valid for 1 month. That is, all 8 healthy shakes must be consumed within 1 month. However, you can increase the validity of the certificate to 4 months by taking the unused certificate to the regional office of Bob’s Shakes.” In the vice condition, the scenario was similar, but the eight healthy shakes were described as eight tasty shakes. Also, the Yelp comment was described differently: A quick look at Yelp confirms that Bob’s Shakes are indeed very tasty. For instance, one comment is as follows: “. . . Bob’s Shakes are the tastiest, but they sure aren’t good for you! I’ve been drinking them for a while now. The taste rocks, but I look worse in a swimsuit now! That delicious taste is definitely worth it.” All participants were then informed that the regional office, where they can extend the validity, is less than a mile away from their home. They indicated whether they would make the trip to extend the validity of the gift certificate (yes/no), and then answered the following question: “To what extent would you better achieve your long-term health goals if you were able to extend the certificate validity period (to 4 months rather than 1 month)?” (0 ¼ Not at all, 100 ¼ A lot). Finally, participants answered standard demographic questions. Results Choice. To test whether participants chose to increase the time window differently depending on the virtue-vice 941 manipulation, we conducted a binary logistic regression with the type of product serving as the independent variable (Virtue ¼ –1, Vice ¼ 1) and the option of increasing the time window as the dependent variable (0 ¼ No, 1 ¼ Yes). More participants chose to increase the time window when the product was a vice rather than a virtue (76% vs. 56%; b ¼ .47, SE ¼ .19, z ¼ 2.45, 95% CI (.10, .84), p < .05, R2 ¼ .06); that is, when we portrayed the opportunity of a longer time window as a benefit in return for a small cost of effort, those in the vice (vs. virtue) condition were more willing to avail themselves of this opportunity. Health Goal Perceptions. We examined whether participants in the virtue versus vice conditions vary in how they perceive a longer time window as helping them achieve their health goals. Specifically, we conducted an ANOVA with product type serving as the independent variable and participants’ perceptions of health goal achievement as the dependent variable. As predicted, participants perceived that they would better achieve their health goals by extending the time window in the vice condition than in the virtue condition (MVice ¼ 66.42, SD ¼ 25.68, MVirtue ¼ 54.41, SD ¼ 33.86, F(1, 128) ¼ 5.23, p < .05, Cohen’s d ¼ .40). In other words, the longer time window appeared more beneficial to vice participants than it did to virtue participants. This, as we discuss next, led to a higher tendency to opt for the longer time window. Mediation. We ran a mediational analysis using the PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 4; Hayes 2013; Preacher and Hayes 2004). In the regression model, the dependent variable was choice, while the independent variables were product type and greater perceived achievement of health goals. The effect of the mediator, greater perceived achievement of health goals, was significant (b ¼ .03, SE ¼ .007, z ¼ 4.51, 95% CI (.02, .05), p < .01), while that of product type was not (b ¼ .33, SE ¼ .21, z ¼ 1.54, 95% CI (–.09, .75), p > .1). Most importantly, a bootstrap analysis confirmed a significant indirect effect (b ¼ .20, SE ¼ .11, 95% CI (.03 to .46)). Collectively, these results provide evidence that perceived achievement of health goals mediates the effect of product type on tendency to increase the time window of consumption. Discussion While the first three studies examined choice or preference when consumers are given a specific time window, the current study focused on whether participants are willing to invest effort in order to extend a time window. We observe that they are more willing to do so for a vice (vs. virtue), thus providing further support for our core effect. We also show that, consistent with self-control, people act in the service of a health goal. Specifically, vices (vs. virtues) make participants perceive that a longer time window would better help them achieve health goals, which makes them opt for a longer time window. 942 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH STUDY 5 The empirical evidence from the first four studies documents that shorter time windows lead to a relative shift toward virtues rather than vices. Our results are consistent with self-control in that individuals try to increase the consumption of virtues and decrease consumption of vices. In this final study, we provide additional support via moderation. As described earlier, just as high impulsives are more prone to relying on quantity in service of their selfcontrol goals (Wertenbroch 1998; Wertenbroch et al. 2001), they should also be more prone to relying on time windows. Thus, we predict that the shift in preference that we observed in our earlier studies would be driven more by those who are high (vs. low) impulsives. The scenario that we employed was broadly similar to the one on shakes, which we used in the previous study. Method Two hundred twenty-eight participants from the Mechanical Turk online panel (34% female, Mage ¼ 32) successfully participated in the study. (Nine responses were excluded because participants incorrectly answered the attention-filter question, as described in study 1.) A 2 (product: virtue vs. vice)  2 (time window: short vs. long)  2 (impulsivity: low vs. high; measured) betweensubjects design was employed. The scenario of Bob’s Shakes was similar to that of study 4. The key difference was that the option to extend the time window for eight shakes was not available. Instead, the time window was simply manipulated to be either one month or four months. Participants were informed that they would have to drive three miles to the corporate office to obtain the free gift certificate, and asked the following question: “How likely are you to make the drive?” They provided their responses on a 0–100 scale with 0 ¼ very unlikely and 100 ¼ very likely. (The numerical values on the slider scale were not visible to participants.) This measure served as a proxy for individuals’ preference to consume the shake. Next, participants completed Puri’s (1996) impulsivity scale (a ¼ .92), which assesses the extent to which certain adjectives (impulsive, self-controlled, etc.) describe an individual. Finally, participants answered standard demographic questions. Results Our goal was to test whether preference for the shakes (i.e., likelihood to drive to get the gift certificate) changed differently with time window, depending on vice-virtue condition and individuals’ impulsivity. Therefore, using the dependent variable of preference, we conducted a regression with type of good (Virtue ¼ –1, Vice ¼ 1), time window (Short ¼ –1, Long ¼ 1), and impulsivity as the independent variables. A significant two-way interaction emerged between type of good and time window (b ¼ 7.16, SE ¼ 2.36, t(227) ¼ 3.04, 95% CI (2.51, 11.80), p < .01) and there was a significant three-way interaction between type of good, time window, and impulsivity (b ¼ 3.50, SE ¼ 1.77, t(227) ¼ 1.97, 95% CI (.01, 7.00), p < .05, R2 ¼ .07). Before exploring the three-way interaction, let us explore the overall two-way interaction, which was as we predicted. Specifically, as is evident from the pattern of results (see figure 2), when the time window was shorter (i.e., one month instead of four months), preference shifted toward virtue, and away from vice. This preference shift was driven by statistically significant shifts for both virtue and vice. For those who view the shake as a relative virtue, preference was higher when the time window was shorter (M1month ¼ 64.15, SD ¼ 33.08 vs. M4months ¼ 49.52, SD ¼ 37.34; F(1, 224) ¼ 4.60, p < .05, Cohen’s d ¼ .41). In contrast, for those who view the shake as a relative vice, preference was higher when the time window was longer (M1month ¼ 56.44. SD ¼ 38.20 vs. M4months ¼ 69.95, SD ¼ 31.87; F(1, 224) ¼ 4.26, p < .05, d ¼ .38). A similar preference shift was evident when we compared preference within each time window. When the time window was long (four months), preference for the vice significantly exceeded that of the virtue (F(1, 224) ¼ 9.67, p< .01, Cohen’s d ¼ .59). However, when the time window was short (one month), preference was immune to whether the shake was viewed as a virtue or vice (F(1, 224) ¼ 1.28, p> .2, Cohen’s d ¼ .22). Thus, although vice was preferred more than virtue in the long-time-window condition, this difference dissipated in the short-time-window condition because, as stated above, preference for virtue increased while that of vice decreased. Next, to investigate the previously reported significant three-way interaction, we used the Johnson-Neyman floodlight analysis technique (Johnson and Neyman 1936, Spiller et al. 2013). The two-way interaction between type of good and time window was significant only for those who were relatively impulsive—who were at, or higher than, .44 SD below the mean on the impulsivity scale (bJN ¼5.08, SEJN ¼ 2.58, t(227) ¼ 1.97, 95% CIJN (.00, 10.17), p ¼ .05). To further explore our results, we examined the two-way interaction at 1 SD below and above the mean of the impulsivity scale (see figure 3). At 1 SD below the mean of impulsivity (i.e., low impulsives), the two-way interaction was not significant (b ¼ 2.45, SE ¼ 3.35, t(227) ¼ .73, 95% CI (–4.15, 9.06), p > .4; see figure 3, panel A). At 1 SD above the mean of impulsivity (i.e., high impulsives), the two-way interaction was significant (b ¼ 11.86, SE ¼ 3.35, t(227) ¼ 3.54, 95% CI (5.26, 18.47), p < .001; see figure 3, panel B). In line with these results showing that the significant interaction for high impulsives is the driving force, we see that the two-way pattern for high impulsives (figure 3, panel SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA 943 FIGURE 2 STUDY 5: PREFERENCE FOR SHAKE GIFT CERTIFICATE WHEN SHAKE IS MANIPULATED TO BE A VIRTUE VERSUS VICE (OVERALL TWO-WAY PATTERN) Preference for Shake Gift Certificate 100 90 80 70 60 50 69.95 64.15 56.44 49.52 1 month 4 months 40 30 20 10 0 Virtue B) is a stronger version of the overall two-way pattern (figure 2). We further explored this significant interaction for high impulsives. For high impulsives who view the shake as a relative virtue, preference was higher when the time window was one month rather than four months (b ¼ –11.58, SE ¼ 4.89, t(227) ¼ –2.37, 95% CI (–21.21, –1.95), p < .05). But for high impulsives who view the shake as a relative vice, preference was higher when the time window was four months rather than one month (b ¼ 12.15, SE ¼ 4.59, t(227) ¼ 2.64, 95% CI (3.09, 21.20), p< .05). A similar preference shift was evident when we compared preference of virtue to that of vice. When the time window was long (four months), preference for the vice significantly exceeded that of the virtue (b ¼ 12.37, SE ¼ 4.48, t(227) ¼ 2.76, 95% CI (3.54, 21.21), p< .01). But when the time window was short (one month), preference for the virtue significantly exceeded that of the vice (b ¼ –11.35, SE ¼ 4.99, t(227)¼ – 2.28, 95% CI (–21.18, –1.52), p< .05). Thus, higher preference for vice in the four-month condition reversed to higher preference for virtue in the one-month condition because, as explained above, preference for virtue increased but that of vice decreased. Discussion Our earlier effects replicated. For those seeing shakes as a relative virtue, preference was higher when the time window was shorter. However, for those seeing shakes as a relative vice, preference was higher when the time window was longer. Moreover, consistent with self-control, the effect of time windows was stronger for those who need Vice more help in meeting their self-control goals—that is, high, rather than low, impulsives. GENERAL DISCUSSION Consumers often face a consumption time window, a time limit within which to consume multiple units of a good. We argue that time windows have consequences for consumers’ self-control goals of managing virtue and vice consumption in service of their long-term interests. Our key premise is that consumers are focused on controlling not just product quantity in isolation, as previous research has shown, but rather the rate of consumption (i.e., quantity/time window). As the denominator shrinks (i.e., time window becomes shorter), virtues become more attractive because the selfcontrol goal is to elevate the consumption rate of virtues. Conversely, as the denominator increases (i.e., time window becomes longer), vices become more attractive because the self-control goal is to restrict the consumption rate of vices. Consequently, shorter time windows nudge people toward virtue products, and away from vice products. This shift is robust. It emerges in all five studies irrespective of whether the dependent measure is choice or preference, whether consumption is spread out over fixed intervals or not, whether participants are students or adult consumers, whether a product is mentioned as being free or at a price, and whether the choice is real or hypothetical. Additionally, this effect arises regardless of how virtue-vice differences are operationalized: by relying on different products that differ on virtue-vice perceptions, measuring such perceptions for a single product, or manipulating such perceptions for a single product. 944 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH FIGURE 3 STUDY 5: PREFERENCE FOR SHAKE GIFT CERTIFICATE WHEN SHAKE IS MANIPULATED TO BE A VIRTUE VERSUS VICE (PATTERNS FOR LOW VERSUS HIGH IMPULSIVES) Panel A: Low Impulsives (Means at -1 SD of impulsivity) Preference for Shake Gift Certificate 100 90 80 70 60 62.15 60.14 54.97 47.17 50 1 month 4 months 40 30 20 10 0 Virtue Vice Panel B: High Impulsives (Means at +1 SD of impulsivity) Preference for Shake Gift Certificate 100 90 80 76.36 74.77 70 60 51.61 52.07 1 month 50 4 months 40 30 20 10 0 Virtue As we discussed in our theorizing, several mechanisms may be working in conjunction to yield our effects, particularly in the case of vices. Longer time windows may be more attractive because one genuinely wants to reduce the harm from vices (i.e., genuine self-control), one wants to tell oneself that he or she is a good person trying to reduce the harm from vices (i.e., self-signaling), or one uses the reduced harm from vices as a rationale to consume at least some vice (i.e., justification). It is important to distinguish Vice between these mechanisms (as we discuss later under Future Research). However, it is also important to appreciate that, given our focus on the planning stage, these different mechanisms lead to the same effect: individuals prefer vices more when the time window is longer (and virtues more when the window is shorter). Furthermore, the overall evidence is broadly consistent with self-control to the extent that study participants are making efforts to serve long-term goals, as opposed to looking for excuses to cater SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA to their short-term impulses. Three pieces of evidence indicate that our results are consistent with self-control. The first piece of evidence is simply the overarching virtue-vice difference that we observe in all studies. When people are keen to forsake long-term goals and embrace short-term impulses (i.e., be “bad”), they look for excuses to do so. Thus, one may find excuses to prefer virtues with longer time windows (to allow the option to delay consumption) and vices with shorter time windows (to enable earlier consumption). Conversely, when people are keen to engage in self-control (i.e., be “good”), they are likely to prefer the opposite: virtues with shorter time windows (to promote earlier consumption) and vices with longer time windows (to promote delayed consumption). Our results do not reflect the “bad” outcomes associated with excuses but rather the “good” outcomes associated with self-control. Another perspective related to excuses is also countered by our evidence. This perspective is as follows: even though individuals may make plans in line with selfcontrol predictions, they are actually using the time window as just an excuse (e.g., long window as an excuse to opt for vices), while actually intending to cater to shortterm impulses at the consumption stage (i.e., still consume vices earlier). Our theoretical counterargument is that this perspective is insufficient to explain the entire pattern; it may sometimes work for vices (i.e., a long window leaves open the option of consuming vices early), but can never work for virtues (i.e., a short window closes the option of delaying virtue consumption). Moreover, we observed the predicted results even when participants were not free to consume vices early in studies 1 and 3 because fixed intervals were in place; that is, even when the option of early indulgence was closed, vices with long time windows were still preferred. Furthermore, the evidence at the consumption stage does not suggest that individuals are finding excuses to indulge (study 2). The final piece of evidence pertains to our mediation and moderation results, which are consistent with selfcontrol to the extent that individuals are trying to serve long-term goals rather than short-term impulses. Specifically, in study 4, we showed mediation via perception of achieving one’s health goals. In the case of vices (vs. virtues), participants perceived that a longer time window would help achieve health goals and, consequently, they opted for a longer window. Then, in study 5, we showed moderation via impulsivity. Because high (vs. low) impulsives need more help in meeting their self-control goals, they are known to rely more on self-control devices at the planning stage (Wertenbroch 1998; Wertenbroch et al. 2001). Consistent with this self-control perspective, the effect of time windows was stronger for high impulsives. Overall, therefore, the current research reveals a new effect—the asymmetric influence of time windows on virtues versus vices—with our results being broadly consistent 945 with a self-control perspective of pursuing long-term goals over short-term impulses. These results afford interesting implications. Theoretical and Practical Implications People often face a self-control challenge in the intertemporal domain. The planner self wants to maximize utility over the long run, while the doer self wants to maximize utility for just the immediate time period (Benabou and Pycia 2002; Schelling 1984; Thaler and Shefrin 1981). Therefore, the planner often makes advance plans to control the doer’s actions (DellaVigna and Malmendier 2006; Prelec and Loewenstein 1998; Schelling 1992; Trope and Fishbach 2000). In the domain of products, the planner opts for large quantities for virtues and small quantities for vices (Mishra and Mishra 2011; Wertenbroch 1998). Our key insight is that self-control goals for products may be pursued independently of controlling quantity because the final objective is not simply to control quantity. For a comprehensive self-control plan, one needs to control the rate at which future consumption occurs, with the end goal of consuming virtues at a high rate and vices at a low rate. Given our perspective of a self-control consumption rate (i.e., quantity/consumption time window), prior research has focused on just the selfcontrol numerator (i.e., quantity). We demonstrate the influence of the self-control denominator (i.e., time window) on the preferences and choices of virtue versus vice products. Research on quantities (Mishra and Mishra 2011; Wertenbroch 1998) is part of a broader literature on planning consumption, which includes diversification and variety seeking (Read et al. 1999; Simonson 1990). The commonality of this literature is that consumption is planned based on the characteristics of the product, whereas we reveal the role of the consumption time period. This influence of time period adds to the growing literature on the relation of time to selfcontrol. For instance, wait time perception can influence intertemporal preferences, even when the smaller-sooner and larger-later options are held constant (Bilgin and LeBoeuf 2010; Kim and Zauberman 2013; May and Monga 2014; Zauberman et al. 2009). We examine the role of time in a different intertemporal setting in which the costs and benefits are separated in time (costs earlier for virtues, and benefits earlier for vices). We show how time windows can influence preferences, even when the quantity of the product is held constant. Our results add to two streams of research that relate to time windows. The first stream is on how the beginning or end of a time period may have implications for initiating aspirational behaviors, changing mental accounts, and motivating employees to work harder (Dai et al. 2014; Kaur et al. 2010; Soster et al. 2010). A second stream relates to the procrastination of activities that require time to 946 complete, such as visiting museums and completing rebate forms (Ariely and Wertenbroch 2002; Gourville and Soman 2011; O’Donoghue and Rabin 1999; Shu and Gneezy 2010; Soman 1998). We complement this research by focusing on the consumption time periods that are an integral part of several products. We show that time windows have an asymmetric influence on virtue versus vice products because consumers’ self-control efforts are aimed at increasing the consumption rate of virtues and decreasing the consumption rate of vices. This reliance on time windows is stronger for those who need more help in meeting their self-control goals—that is, impulsive individuals. Our theory of time windows also opens the door to practical implications. A grocery store manager trying to increase consumers’ preference for a virtue (e.g., pack of salad boxes) would be better off highlighting shelf life when it is short, but not when it is long. To increase consumers’ preference for a vice (e.g., pack of ice cream bars), it would be better to highlight shelf life when it is long, but not when it is short. As another example, managers often invest in product development efforts to extend the time window within which their products may be consumed. The implicit assumption is that a longer time window would make their products more attractive to consumers. Given our results, such an investment may be worthwhile only when they are selling vice products. For virtue products, keeping the time window short may be a win-win situation. It benefits marketers who are motivated to avoid the product development costs of extending a time window, and consumers who are motivated to consume virtues at a high rate. Just as managerial action may be influenced by our results, public policy may be as well. Consider the example of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examining the claimed shelf life of a food product. It may be assumed that a longer shelf life, because it improves consumption flexibility, will enhance consumer welfare. Our results suggest that an unintended consequence, which could reduce consumer welfare, is that a longer shelf life may make virtue products less attractive to consumers, and vice products more attractive. Future Research As discussed in detail earlier, our results are broadly consistent with self-control to the extent that individuals seem to be pursuing long-term goals rather than giving in to short-term impulses. However, we did not disentangle what part of our results could be attributed to genuine selfcontrol attempts, and what part to other mechanisms such as self-signaling and justification. The reason was that our focus was on planners and, regardless of the finer processes involved, we expected and observed the same effect: preference shifting toward virtues when the time window is shorter and toward vices when the time window is longer. For further insights into these mechanisms, more extensive JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH studies comparing planners to doers are required. More conceptual clarity is also required, particularly on justification. If one follows the traditional view of justification, as finding an excuse to engage in “bad” behavior (e.g., find excuses to opt for vices with short time windows), then the justification goal (i.e., consume vice at a high rate) clearly diverges from a self-control goal (i.e., consume vice at a low rate). However, if we adopt a nuanced view of justification, as relying on reduced harm as a reason to engage in bad behavior, albeit to a limited extent (e.g., rely on reduced harm as a reason to opt for vices with long time windows), then justification seems to morph into selfcontrol because the goal is the same (i.e., consume vice at a low rate). It is possible that those relying on genuine selfcontrol see the long window as imposing the constraint of a low vice rate, which helps them become “good.” But those relying on justification see the long window as allowing the opportunity to consume at least some vice, in return for becoming “less bad.” We will defer to other scholars who may unravel the motivational distinctions and moral equivalencies of these processes. Our theory is about a farsighted planner trying to control the myopic doer’s actions (Benabou and Pycia 2002; Schelling 1984; Thaler and Shefrin 1981; Wertenbroch 1998). However, if the doer’s actions are not myopic, but hyperopic, the planner may exhibit a precommitment to indulgence (Keinan and Kivetz 2008; Kivetz and Simonson 2002)—preferring large quantity of vices with short time windows (i.e., high rate of vice consumption) and small quantity of virtues with long time windows (i.e., low rate of virtue consumption). This may also happen when consumption is imminent, because impulsive consumers may want to indulge, and distort perceptions to justify indulgence (Gray 1987; May and Irmak 2014; Sengupta and Zhou 2007); that is, an individual who faces a consumption opportunity without having made any self-control plans may prefer a high consumption rate for vices, and a low rate for virtues. Apart from individual-specific factors (e.g., impulsivity), there may also be product-specific factors (e.g., how tempting a product is) that determine the extent to which doers comply with planners. Future research could also expand on mental accounting using the ideas that we present in the current research. Individuals are known to construct mental budgets (Heath and Soll 1996). Given our perspective of a consumption rate, individuals trying to adopt a healthier lifestyle may construct a mental budget that includes not only the quantity, but also the time period (e.g., “I want to restrict myself to four hamburgers per week”). Would a self-control failure (e.g., eating a fifth hamburger the same week) be construed as a failure to restrict quantity (“I failed to stick to my four-hamburger quota”), or a failure to comply with the time window (“I failed to stick to my one-week quota”)? It would be interesting to examine such mental budgets, and SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA how self-control goals are recalibrated when self-control failure is attributed to quantity versus time window. In this research, we focused on how time windows influence vices versus virtues, but future research could examine related dichotomies, such as hedonic versus utilitarian products. Hedonic products are affective and sought as goals in themselves, whereas utilitarian products are functional and sought as intermediate steps to higher-end goals (Botti and McGill 2011; Khan, Dhar, and Wertenbroch 2005). They need not involve a self-control dilemma of costs and benefits separated in time. For instance, eating juicy strawberries may be a hedonic experience in that consumption yields pleasure, which in itself is the final goal. There is no self-control dilemma because the immediate taste benefits are not countered by any costs in the future, but rather supplemented by future health benefits. Given no need for self-control, time windows may not have an influence via the process that we put forth. But they may still have an influence via other processes, such as diversification and variety seeking (Read et al. 1999; Simonson 1990). For instance, one may prefer a long window for strawberries (i.e., low consumption rate) if diversifying with other juicy fruits offers more value than consuming strawberries alone. Another interesting research avenue relates to temporal construal (Trope and Liberman 2010). Because distant (vs. near) future events are viewed more abstractly, could long (vs. short) time windows evoke a more abstract construal? This is an intriguing possibility, but one that we suspect is unlikely. If long (vs. short) windows evoked a more abstract construal, then that should have led to greater selfcontrol. This is because abstract thinking reduces evaluations of immediate temptations and increases self-control (Fujita et al. 2006; Pyone and Isen 2012). In other words, a longer window ought to have shifted preference toward virtue rather than vice. However, we find the opposite, suggesting that abstract thinking is not at play. Perhaps this is because a long (vs. short) window is not really seen as being in the distant (vs. near) future. After all, both time windows start immediately, with one window just being longer than the other. That said, more research is needed on whether different time windows elicit different construals, or evoke any other meanings that go beyond what we propose. Finally, future research could address whether the size of the time window has linear effects. While we find that a longer time window increases preference for vices, taking this to an extreme could have the opposite effect. For example, two chiropractors in Michigan have put on display in their office an opened McDonald’s cheeseburger, which has not decomposed in even two years (Hughes 2015). If a consumer were aware that a McDonald’s cheeseburger can last this long, her preference may go down because she may draw negative inferences regarding the nature of the ingredients. Thus, while a long time window may increase 947 preference for vices, an inordinately long window may decrease preference. Conversely, extremely short time windows for virtues may lead to positive inferences regarding the ingredients (e.g., “fresh ingredients that spoil easily”), and further strengthen the preference for virtues when the time window is short. Conclusion Offering the perspective of a self-control consumption rate (i.e., quantity/consumption time window), we delineate the influence of the denominator. Shorter windows increase preference for virtues, but longer windows increase preference for vices. Our findings yield important theoretical and managerial implications. Furthermore, by showing that closing a time window shifts preferences, we open the door to new research possibilities. DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION The data in this manuscript were collected on Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk website (studies 3, 4, and 5; study 1’s first pretest; study 4’s pretest) at the Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina (study 1, study 1’s second pretest), and at the Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech (study 2, study 2’s pretest) by research assistants and the authors of the manuscript between January 2014 and March 2016. The data were analyzed by the first two authors under the guidance of the third author. REFERENCES Ariely, Dan and Klaus Wertenbroch (2002), “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment,” Psychological Science, 13 (3), 219–24. Benabou, Roland and Marek Pycia (2002), “Dynamic Inconsistency and Self-Control: A Planner–Doer Interpretation,” Economics Letters, 77 (3), 419–24. Benabou, Roland and Jean Tirole (2004), “Willpower and Personal Rules,” Journal of Political Economy, 112 (4), 848–86. Bilgin, Baler and Robyn LeBoeuf (2010), “Looming Losses in Future Time Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 520–30. Bodner, Ronit and Drazen Prelec (2003), “Self-Signaling and Diagnostic Utility in Everyday Decision Making,” Psychology of Economic Decisions, 1, 105–26. Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), “When Choosing Is Not Deciding: The Effect of Perceived Responsibility on Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 211–19. Dai, Hengchen, Katherine L. Milkman, and Jason Riis (2014), “The Fresh Start Effect: Temporal Landmarks Motivate Aspirational Behavior,” Management Science, 60 (10), 2563–82. DellaVigna, Stefano and Ulrike Malmendier (2004), “Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (2), 353–402. 948 ——— (2006), “Paying Not to Go to the Gym,” American Economic Review, 96 (3), 694–719. Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2012), “Self-Signaling and the Costs and Benefits of Temptation in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 15–25. Fujita, Kentaro, Yaacov Trope, Nira Liberman, and Maya LevinSagi (2006), “Construal Levels and Self-Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351–67. Gourville, John T. and Dilip Soman (1998), “Payment Depreciation: The Behavioral Effects of Temporally Separating Payments from Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (2), 160–74. ——— (2011), “The Consumer Psychology of Mail-in Rebates,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20 (2), 147–57. Gray, Jeffrey A. (1987), “Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity: A Commentary,” Journal of Research in Personality, 21 (December), 493–509. Hayes, Andrew (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, New York: Guilford Press. Heath, Chip and Jack Soll (1996), “Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (1), 40–52. Hoch, Stephen and George Loewenstein (1991), “TimeInconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 492–507. Holtgraves, Thomas (2004), “Social Desirability and SelfReports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable Responding,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (2), 161–72. Hughes, Ian (2015), “McDonald’s Cheeseburger Left in Doctors’ Surgery for Two Years; Can You Guess What Happens to It?” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mcdonaldscheeseburger-left-doctors-surgery-4940927. Inman, J. Jeffrey and Leigh McAlister (1994), “Do Coupon Expiration Dates Affect Consumer Behavior?” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (3), 423–28. Johnson, Palmer O. and Jerzy Neyman (1936), “Tests of Certain Linear Hypotheses and Their Application to Some Educational Problems,” Statistical Research Memoirs, 1 (January), 57–93. Kaur, Supreet, Michael Kremer, and Sendhil Mullainathan (2010), “Self-Control and the Development of Work Arrangements,” American Economic Review, 100 (2), 624–28. Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2008), “Remedying Hyperopia: The Effects of Self-Control Regret on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 676–89. Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 259–66. ——— (2007), “Where There Is a Way, Is There a Will? The Effect of Future Choices on Self-Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (2), 277–88. Khan, Uzma, Dhar Ravi, and Wertenbroch Klaus (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed. S. (Ratti) Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick, London: Routledge, 144–65. Kim, B. Kyu and Gal Zauberman (2013), “Can Victoria’s Secret Change the Future? A Subjective Time Perception Account of Sexual-Cue Effects on Impatience,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 (2), 328–35. Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 273–82. Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 199–217. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Kivetz, Ran and Yuhuang Zheng (2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self-Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (4), 572–87. Krishna, Aradhna and Z. John Zhang (1999), “Short- or LongDuration Coupons: The Effect of the Expiration Date on the Profitability of Coupon Promotions,” Management Science, 48 (8), 1041–56. May, Frank and Caglar Irmak (2014), “Licensing Indulgence in the Present by Distorting Memories of Past Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 624–41. May, Frank and Ashwani Monga (2014), “When Time Has a Will of Its Own, the Powerless Don’t Have the Will to Wait: Anthropomorphism of Time Can Decrease Patience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 924–42. Mishra, Arul and Himanshu Mishra (2011), “The Influence of Price Discount Versus Bonus Pack on the Preference for Virtue and Vice Foods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (1), 196–206. O’Donoghue, Ted and Matthew Rabin (1999), “Doing It Now or Later,” American Economic Review, 89 (1), 103–24. Oster, Sharon and Fiona Morton (2005), “Behavioral Biases Meet the Market: The Case of Magazine Subscription Prices,” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 5 (1), 1–30. Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 717–31. Prelec, Drazen and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4–28. Puri, Radhika (1996), “Measuring and Modifying Consumer Impulsiveness: A Cost-Benefit Accessibility Framework,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (2), 87–113. Pyone, Jin Seok and Alice M. Isen (2012), “Positive Affect, Intertemporal Choice, and Levels of Thinking: Increasing Consumers’ Willingness to Wait,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 532–43. Read, Daniel, George Loewenstein, and Shobana Kalyanaraman (1999), “Mixing Virtue and Vice: Combining the Immediacy Effect and the Diversification Heuristic,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12 (4), 257–73. Schelling, Thomas (1984), “Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice,” American Economic Review, 74 (2), 1–11. ——— (1992), “Self-Command: A New Discipline,” in Choice over Time, ed. George Loewenstein and Jon Elster, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 167–76. Sengupta, Jaideep and Rongrong Zhou (2007), “Understanding Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The Motivational Influences of Regulatory Focus,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 297–308. Shu, Suzanne and Ayelet Gneezy (2010), “Procrastination of Enjoyable Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 933–44. Simonson, Itamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (2), 150–62. Soman, Dilip (1998), “The Illusion of Delayed Incentives: Evaluating Future Effort-Money Transactions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 427–37. Soster, Robin, Ashwani Monga, and William Bearden (2010), “Tracking Costs of Time and Money: How Accounting SIDDIQUI, MAY, AND MONGA Periods Affect Mental Accounting,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 712–21. Spiller, Stephen, Gavan Fitzsimons, John Lynch Jr., and Gary McClelland (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88. Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1 (March), 39–60. ——— (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214. Thaler, Richard and Hersh M. Shefrin (1981), “An Economic Theory of Self-Control,” Journal of Political Economy, 392–406. Trope, Yaacov and Ayelet Fishbach (2000), “Counteractive SelfControl in Overcoming Temptation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (4), 493–506. 949 Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63. Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtues and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317–37. Wertenbroch, Klaus, Dilip Soman, and Joseph Nunes (2001), “Debt Aversion as Self-Control: Consumer SelfManagement of Liquidity Constraints,” Working Papers— INSEAD R & D, Fontainebleau, France. Zauberman, Gal, B. Kyu Kim, Selin Malkoc, and James Bettman (2009), “Discounting Time and Time Discounting: Subjective Time Perception and Intertemporal Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (4), 543–56. Zauberman, Gal and John G. Lynch Jr. (2005), “Resource Slack and Propensity to Discount Delayed Investments of Time versus Money,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134 (1), 23–37. Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: TIME WINDOW AS A SELF-CONTROL DENOMINATOR

Time Window as A Self-Control Denominator
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

TIME WINDOW AS A SELF-CONTROL DENOMINATOR

2

Time Window as A Self-Control Denominator
Summary
Consumers are known to control their consumption of unwanted commodities through
time window or the product. For instance, products with a longer time period of consumption are
preferred to products with a shorter time window. The article “Time Window as A Self-Control
Denominator: Shorter Windows Shift Preference Towards Virtues and Longer Windows
Towards Vices” by Siddiqui (2017) examines the characteristics of goods as either vices or
virtues, and shows that the effect of the time window of consumer consumption depends on
whether the good is a vice or a virtue. For exam...


Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags