@article{ZuernStrack2017,
  author    = {Z{\"u}rn, Michael and Strack, Fritz},
  title     = {When More Is Better - Consumption Priming Decreases Responders' Rejections in the Ultimatum Game},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {2226},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02226},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-189989},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {During the past decades, economic theories of rational choice have been exposed to outcomes that were severe challenges to their claim of universal validity. For example, traditional theories cannot account for refusals to cooperate if cooperation would result in higher payoffs. A prominent illustration are responders' rejections of positive but unequal payoffs in the Ultimatum Game. To accommodate this anomaly in a rational framework one needs to assume both a preference for higher payoffs and a preference for equal payoffs. The current set of studies shows that the relative weight of these preference components depends on external conditions and that consumption priming may decrease responders' rejections of unequal payoffs. Specifically, we demonstrate that increasing the accessibility of consumption-related information accentuates the preference for higher payoffs. Furthermore, consumption priming increased responders' reaction times for unequal payoffs which suggests an increased conflict between both preference components. While these results may also be integrated into existing social preference models, we try to identify some basic psychological processes underlying economic decision making. Going beyond the Ultimatum Game, we propose that a distinction between comparative and deductive evaluations may provide a more general framework to account for various anomalies in behavioral economics.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TopolinskiZuernSchneider2015,
  author    = {Topolinski, Sascha and Z{\"u}rn, Michael and Schneider, Iris K.},
  title     = {What's in and what's out in branding? A novel articulation effect for brand names},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {585},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00585},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-143036},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The present approach exploits the biomechanical connection between articulation and ingestion-related mouth movements to introduce a novel psychological principle of brand name design. We constructed brand names for diverse products with consonantal stricture spots either from the front to the rear of the mouth, thus inwards (e.g., BODIKA), or from the rear to the front, thus outwards (e.g., KODIBA). These muscle dynamics resemble the oral kinematics during either ingestion (inwards), which feels positive, or expectoration (outwards), which feels negative. In 7 experiments (total N = 1261), participants liked products with inward names more than products with outward names (Experiment 1), reported higher purchase intentions (Experiment 2), and higher willingness-to-pay (Experiments 3a-3c, 4, 5), with the price gain amounting to 4-13\% of the average estimated product value. These effects occurred across English and German language, under silent reading, for both edible and non-edible products, and even in the presence of a much stronger price determinant, namely fair-trade production (Experiment 5).},
  language  = {en}
}