Mary Frances Luce

• Lisa A. Cavanaugh, Keisha M. Cutright, Mary Frances Luce, James R. Bettman (2011), Hope, Pride, and Processing During Optimal and Non-Optimal TImes of Day, Emotion (2011). Abstract

  We examine the conditions under which the distinct positive emotions of hope versus pride facilitate more or less fluid cognitive processing. Using individuals’ naturally occurring time of day preferences (i.e., morning vs. evening hours), we show that specific positive emotions can differentially influence processing resources. We argue that specific positive emotions are more likely to influence processing and behavior during nonoptimal times of day, when association-based processing is more likely. We show in three experiments that hope, pride, and a neutral state differentially influence fluid processing on cognitive tasks. Incidental hope facilitates fluid processing during nonoptimal times of day (compared with pride and neutral), improving performance on tasks requiring fluid intelligence (Experiment 1) and increasing valuation estimates on tasks requiring that preferences be constructed on the spot (Experiments 2 and 3). We also provide evidence that these differences in preference and valuation occur through a process of increased imagination (Experiment 3). We contribute to emotion theory by showing that different positive emotions have different implications for processing during nonoptimal times of day.

• Miller, Elizabeth Gelfand, Mary Frances Luce, Barbara E. Kahn, Emily F. Conant (2009), Understanding Emotional Reactions for Negative Services: The Impact of Efficacy Beliefs and Stage in Process, Journal of Services Research.
• Barbara E. Kahn, Mary Frances Luce, Stephen M. Nowlis (2006), De-biasing Insights from Process Tests, Journel of Consumer Research, (June), 131-138. Abstract

  Most of the articles appearing in JCR that are characterized as behavioral decision theory (BDT) address some kind of bias or deviation from normative decision making. In addition to pointing out biases, these articles often examine underlying decision processes. We leverage approaches that researchers have used to understand process for insights into when and how biases can be corrected. We argue that some of these biases can be corrected by directly altering the decision maker’s conscious processes, while other biases can be corrected more indirectly by altering the decision environment.

• Mary Frances Luce and Barbara E. Kahn (2006), Repeated-Adherence Protection Model (RAP) ‘I’m OK and It’s a Hassel, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25 (Spring), 79-89. Abstract

  The article discusses the fact that adherence to preventive health measures is influenced by prior usage. Typically, when individuals consider using preventive measures, two outcomes weaken their resolve to be proactive: the concept that these measures are a “hassle” and a false sense of security derived from not using the measure and still being relatively healthy. The article provides suggestions for public policy interventions that can encourage individuals to use preventive measures repeatedly.

• Mary Frances Luce and Barbara E. Kahn (2003), Understanding High-Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False Alarm Test Results, Marketing Science, 22 (3), 393-410. Abstract

  Consumers often have to decide whether to acquire information in high-stakes decision domains. We study women in mammography waiting rooms to test how a “false-alarm” result (i.e., an indication that a malady is present when a “more accurate” follow-up test reveals it is not) affects willingness to get retested. In Study 1 we show that, given a false-alarm result, life-threatening test consequences are associated with more disutility for future testing than when test consequences are less significant; this does not hold for normal test results. In Study 2 in the mammography context, we show that patients receiving a false-alarm result experienced more stress, were less likely to believe that a positive mammography result indicated cancer, and more likely to delay mammography than patients receiving normal results unless they were also told that they may be vulnerable to breast cancer in the future. We show that delays in planned adherence following a false-alarm result can be mitigated by an information intervention. Finally, we have preliminary evidence that a previous history of false-positive results can cause a consumer to both react more negatively to emotional stress and respond more positively to coping information.

• Howard Kunreuther, Robert Meyer, Richard Zeckhauser, Paul Slovic, Barry Schwartz, Christian Schade, Mary Frances Luce, Steven Lippman, David Krantz, Barbara E. Kahn, Robin Hogarth (2002), High Stakes Decision Making: Normative, Descriptive and Prescriptive Considerations, Marketing Letters, 13 (3), 259-268. Abstract

  This paper reviews the state of the art of research on individual decision-making in high-stakes, low-probability settings. A central theme of the discussion is that optimally resolving high-stakes decisions poses a formidable challenge not only to naïve decision makers, but also to users of more sophisticated tools such as decision analysis. Such problems are difficult to resolve because precise information about probabilities is not available, and the dynamics of the decision are complex. When faced with such problems, naïve decision-makers fall prey to a wide range of potentially harmful biases, such as not recognizing a high-stakes problem, ignoring the information about probabilities that does exist, and responding to complexity by accepting the status quo. We offer an agenda for future research focusing on how the process and outcomes of high-stakes decision making might be improved.

Knowledge @ Wharton

• Why Companies Need to Address Caregiver Burnout, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/30/2024
• Slow Burn | Jisung Park, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/30/2024
• How to Improve Work-life Balance for Caregiving Employees, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/30/2024
• Why ETFs Are Scoring Over Mutual Funds, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/29/2024
• The AI-Savvy Leader: Building the Leadership Skills to Make AI Work, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/29/2024
• Summer Reading: Wharton Faculty Picks, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/23/2024
• What Does Your Writing Style Say About You?, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/23/2024
• How to Align Private Equity Motives with Nursing Home Outcomes, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/22/2024
• Baby Bust | Stewart Friedman, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/16/2024
• Why Are Private Equity Firms Buying Mental Health Clinics?, Knowledge @ Wharton - 07/15/2024