Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 207–217 | Cite as

The role of scale-induced round numbers and goal specificity on goal accomplishment perceptions

  • Kunter Gunasti
  • Timucin OzcanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Goal progress can be measured using different scales (e.g., lbs., kg, oz., inches lost in weight loss domain). Despite considerable research on perceived goal progress, little is known about the effects of measurement scales on the mental representation of goal attainment. We present three studies across various domains (e.g., monetary earnings, loyalty rewards, games) which demonstrate that, when the goal is not specific, the expression of progress as a round number on a certain scale leads to a higher sense of accomplishment compared with expression of identical progress as a non-round number on a different scale. We further show that this effect is moderated by goal and whether the level of actual progress made is high or low. When the goal is specific, scale-induced round numbers lead to higher perceived accomplishment at lower progress levels, whereas, when the goal is not specific, they lead to higher perceived accomplishment at higher progress levels.

Keywords

Goals Progress Goal specificity Round numbers Scales Measurement 

Notes

References

  1. Allen, E. J., Dechow, P. M., Pope, D. G., & Wu, G. (2016). Reference-dependent preferences: evidence from marathon runners. Management Science, 63(6), 1657–1672.Google Scholar
  2. Bonezzi, A., Brendl, C. M., & De Angelis, M. (2011). Stuck in the middle: the psychophysics of goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 22(5), 607–612.Google Scholar
  3. Cheema, A., & Bagchi, R. (2011). The effect of goal visualization on goal pursuit: implications for consumers and managers. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 109–123.Google Scholar
  4. Dehaene, S., & Mehler, J. (1992). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  5. Gunasti, K., & Baskin, E. (2018). Is a $200 Nordstrom gift card worth more or less than a $200 GAP gift card? The asymmetric valuations of luxury gift cards. Journal of Retailing, 94(4), 380–392.Google Scholar
  6. Gunasti, K., & Devezer, B. (2016). How competitor brands affect within-brand choice. Marketing Letters, December, 27(4), 715–727.Google Scholar
  7. Gunasti, K., & Ozcan, T. (2016). Consumer reactions to round numbers in brand names. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 309–322.Google Scholar
  8. Gunasti, K., & Ross, W. (2010). How and when alpha-numeric nrands affect consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1177–1192.Google Scholar
  9. Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 79–109.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, S. C., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Motivational consequences of perceived velocity in consumer goal pursuit. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1045–1056.Google Scholar
  11. Huang, S. C., Zhang, Y., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2012). So near and yet so far: the mental representation of goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 225–241.Google Scholar
  12. Hull, C. L. (1932). The goal-gradient hypothesis and maze learning. Psychological Review, 39(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  13. Kara, S., Gunasti, K., & Ross, W. (2015). Is it the ‘alpha’ or the ‘numeric’?: consumers’ evaluation of letter versus number changes alphanumeric brand names. Journal of Brand Management, 22(6), 515–533.Google Scholar
  14. Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
  15. Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2012). The small-area hypothesis: effects of progress monitoring on goal adherence. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 493–509.Google Scholar
  16. Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2007). Dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 174–193.Google Scholar
  17. Lynn, M., Flynn, S. M., & Helion, C. (2013). Do consumers prefer round prices? Evidence from pay-what-you-want decisions and self-pumped gasoline purchases. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 96–102.Google Scholar
  18. Ozcan, T., & Gunasti, K. (2019). How associations between products and numbers in brand names affect consumer attitudes. Journal of Brand Management, 26(2), 176–194.Google Scholar
  19. Pena-Marin, J., & Bhargave, R. (2016). Lasting performance: Round numbers activate associations of stability and increase perceived length of product benefits. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 410–416.Google Scholar
  20. Pope, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). Round numbers as goals: evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and the lab. Psychological Science, 22(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, M., & Nowlis, S. (2013). The effect of goal specificity on consumer goal reengagement. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 444–459.Google Scholar
  22. Soman, D., & Zhao, M. (2011). The fewer the better: number of goals and savings behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 944–957.Google Scholar
  23. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wallace, S. G., & Etkin, J. (2018). How goal specificity shapes motivation: a reference points perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1033–1051.Google Scholar
  25. Wertenbroch, K., Soman, D., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2007). On the perceived value of money: the reference dependence of currency numerosity effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and International BusinessWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.College of Business – MarketingJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations