Finally, our novelty incentives can get in the way of original theory building (Wyer & Shavitt, 2005). The shortage of original theories within our field has been widely recognized (see Frazier, 2011; MacInnis, 2004, 2011; Yadav, 2010). Yet, few theories that have a broad impact can be delivered in one paper. Building and testing a theory takes multiple papers reporting a program of re- search that shows generality, boundaries, and convergence around a core insight.
Authors who try may be told, “this is not novel because it is derivable from past work.” But testing an extension of a theory is, by definition, derivable from past work.
What if we changed our incentives, and worried less about whether every paper is different? We would have the scope needed to build and test our own theories. And I think we would do it. In other words, we could greatly enhance originality at the macro level by relaxing the novelty constraint at the paper level.
Reviewers – all of us – play a key role in this. So do editors and other gatekeepers. Some have signaled openness to different types of novelty (e.g., Deighton, et al., 2010; Erdem, 2010), but it would help to be more explicit, to tell reviewers: Don’t just ask, is it new? Ask, what’s the connection? Encourage authors to link their findings to past work, don’t penalize them for it. Seek contributions that inte- grate and connect. Reward systematic extensions that establish new theories in our field.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, let us approach assessments of novelty with cau- tion. They are mental constructions, influenced by the same factors we study: fluency, hindsight, level of construal. And the way we seek novelty reflects deeply held core values.
This means that we can acknowledge the value of novelty in research without imposing one criterion uniformly (Alba, 2012). We need more than one kind of novelty – things that differentiate and things that integrate. It would make our literature more coherent and enable originality in theory building.
Our theme at ACR this year is “Building Connections.” In fact, this is a frequent theme for ACR conferences, along with bridges and confluence. We seem to yearn for a more integrated field. Let’s consider whether our expectations for novelty are getting in the way. We can build more connections when we’re less focused on setting ourselves apart.
CODA
In closing, I want to offer an invitation and some thanks. First, I invite you to a Roundtable Session right after this luncheon. In it, we discuss recommendations by an ACR Task force appointed this year to plan for the growth and globalization of our field. This task force, chaired by Joel Huber and Don Lehmann, made several recommen- dations to enhance the field as it expands, including suggestions for new and existing publication outlets and conference structures. The task force charge and report can be read, and your input provided, on the ACR website at www.acrwebsite.org/ .
Finally, I want to thank several people. First, I am grateful to the present and past officers and board members of ACR, for creating and nurturing such a stimulating association.
Next, thank you to my friends who gave me such generous and helpful input. And to my students who helped with details. I am so grateful.
Last but not least, thank you to my family for all of their pa- tience and encouragement. My parents, for believing in me always. My husband, Steve, who has been supportive and helpful beyond
words. And my daughters, who found their own ways to cope with me being too busy: Arielle who worked alongside me on her home- work so that we kept each other company, and Ellie who cheerfully repaid me by sneaking onto my computer to type nonsense words into this talk. I hope I found them all.
Thank you.
ENDNOTES
1This talk focused on novelty as defined in terms of unexplored topics or areas. Although I did not have time to address it, another important type of novelty is represented by findings that challenge existing beliefs in established areas. In some scientific disciplines, publication incentives reward this type of novelty, emphasizing re- sults that question established ideas or reverse accepted findings. Jo- nah Lehrer (2010) analyzed the cumulative impact of these novelty- seeking publication incentives in several scientific fields. His review shows how these incentives give rise to oscillations in the accepted knowledge base. In short, pursuing this type of novelty can also pro- duce unintended consequences that impact the reliability and cred- ibility of scientific knowledge.
REFERENCES
Alba, J. W. (2012). In defense of bumbling. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, in press.
Arkes, H. R., Wortman, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254.
Bernstein, D. M., Erdfelder, E., Meltzoff, A. N., Peria, W., & Loftus, G. R. (2011). Hindsight bias from 3 to 95 years of age. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 378-391.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta- analysis of research, 1968 –1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 691-705.
Deighton, J., MacInnis, D., McGill, A., & Shiv, B. (2010). Broadening the scope of consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), v-vii.
Erdem, T. (2010). Spanning the Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (1), 1-2.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288 –299.
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Shapira, O. (2009). Preparing for novel versus familiar events: Shifts in global and local processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 383- 399.
Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty Categorization Theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736-755.
Frazier, G. L. (2011). From the incoming editor. Journal of Marketing. 75, (4), 1-2.
Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is
originality in the social sciences and the humanities? American Sociological Review, 69, 190–212.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 39) / 5
Hubbard, R., & Linsay, R. M. (2002), How the emphasis on “original” empirical marketing research impedes knowledge development, Marketing Theory, 2 (4), 381-402.
Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326 –338.
Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. M. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115–125.
Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6 (3), 286-311.
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800. King, L. A. (2010). Editorial. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98 (1), 104 –105.
Knoll, M. A. Z. M. (2010). The effects of expertise on the hindsight bias. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70 (8-B), 5213. (UMI No. AAI3368433)
Koo, M., & Shavitt, S. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior. In Richard P. Bagozzi and Ayalla Ruvio (Eds.), Consumer Behavior, a volume in the Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. New York: John Wiley and Sons. p. 125-133.
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Towards a psychology of memory accuracy, Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 481–37.
Lakshmanan, A., & Krishnan, S. H. (2009). How Does Imagery in Interactive Consumption Lead to False Memory? A Reconstructive Memory Perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 451–62.
Lalwani, A.K., & Shavitt, S. (2009). The “me” I claim to be: Cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 88-102. Lalwani, A., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T.P. (2006). What is the
relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165-178.
Lehrer, J. (2010, December 13). The truth wears off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? The New Yorker. Accessed at: www.newyorker.com/ reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011, June 13). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0023963.
Lutz, R. J. (2011). Marketing Scholarship 2.0. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 225-234.
Lynch, J. G. (1998). Presidential address: Reviewing. In Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 25. Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, p. 1-6.
MacInnis, D. (2004). Where have all the papers gone? Association for Consumer Research Newsletter (Spring), 1–3.
MacInnis, D. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136-154.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253.
McGill, A., Peracchio, L., & Luce, M. F. (2011). Solidarity of purpose: Building an understanding of consumers through a community of scholars, Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), ii-viii.
Mehta, R., Hoegg, J., & Chakravarti, A. (2011). Knowing too much: Expertise induced false recall effects in product comparison. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 535-554. Merton, R. K. (1973 [1942]). The normative structure of science.
In N. W. Storer (Ed), The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 267-278.
Monroe, K. B. (2008). Fellow’s address: ACR and ME. Advances in consumer research, Volume 35. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, p. 13-17.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently ... and why. New York: The Free Press.
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S.W.S. (2008). A situated cognition perspective on culture: Effects of priming cultural syndromes on cognition and motivation. In R. Sorrentino & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition across Cultures. New York: Elsevier. p. 237-265.
Park, C. W. (2011). Editorial email to Journal of Consumer Psychology reviewers.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pohl, R. F., Bender, M., & Lachmann, G. (2002). Hindsight bias around the world. Experimental Psychology, 49, 270 –282. Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2011, May 11). How does
organizational identification form? A consumer behavior perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1086/660699.
Rajagopal, P., & Montgomery, N. (2011). I Imagine, I Experience, I Like: The false experience effect, Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 578-594.
Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should we publish, fund, and reward?: A different perspective, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (4), 435-439. Schlosser, A. E. (2006). Learning through virtual product
experience: The role of imagery on true versus false memories. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 377–83.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403-421.
Wong, L. Y. S. (1995). Research on teaching: Process-product research findings and the feeling of obviousness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 504–511.
Wood, G. (1978). The knew-it-all-along effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 345–353.
Wyer, R. S., & Shavitt, S. (2005). Editorial. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 271-274.
Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1-19.
6 / What’s New? Novelty in Consumer Research
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1–27.
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1985). Theory construction in marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7 Advances in Consumer ResearchVolume 39, ©2011