Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.9 No.11 pp.55-66

The Roles of Ambient Pride Type on the Responses to Preference Inconsistent Information

Nak-Hwan Choi**
* This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A2A02068474). This research was supported by “Research Base Construction Fund Support Program” funded by Chonbuk National University in 2018.
** Professor, Department of Business Administration, Chonbuk National University, Korea. Tel: +82-63-270-2998, E-mail:
October 03, 2018 October 30, 2018 November 10, 2018


Purpose - Present research aimed at identifying the effects of ambient pride type on judgement difference between existing preference and final preference formed after being exposed to the preference inconsistent information from others representing a conflict between consumer’s own perspective and the others’ perspective. And this study also explored the roles of empathic concerns and motive type in the ambient pride type’s effects on the judgement difference.
Research design, data, and methodology - 2(information type: consistent versus inconsistent) × 2(pride type: hubristic versus authentic) between-subjects design was employed. Data for empirical analysis were from 252 undergraduate students who participated in questionnaire survey. To verify hypotheses, Anova and regression analysis were used.
Results - First, there was the judgement difference among the experimental groups. The difference was greater at the authentic pride group than at the hubristic pride group. And the difference was greater at the inconsistent information group than at the consistent information group. The interaction effect of pride type and information type was significant. Second, when consumers who had made their preference were exposed to the inconsistent information from other, those of the hubristic pride group showed more defense motive and less empathic concerns than those of the authentic pride group. And there were the mediation roles of the empathic concerns and the interaction roles of the motive type in the effects of pride type on the judgement difference. Third, the self validity did not affect the difference even that become increased by defense motive rather than accuracy motive.
Conclusions - This research could advance the information processing theory related to pride type by exploring the effects of the pride type on judgement difference between existing preference and final preference formed by the inconsistent information from others, and by identifying the mediation roles of the empathic concerns and the interaction roles of the motive type in the effects of the pride type. In view of the results from current study, marketers should make efforts of inducing defense motive and developing and communicating the consistent information to persuade consumers under hubristic pride who have the belief that attributes of their brand are better than those of the competitors’ brand, and they also should conduct marketing acts by using the inconsistent information to persuade consumers under authentic pride who have the belief that attributes of the competitors’ brand are better than those of their brand.

JEL Classifications: C83, L81, M31, P46.

선호 불일치 정보에 대한 반응에서 환경적 프라이드 유형의 역할



    National Research Foundation of Korea




    1. Agrawal, N., Han, D., & Duhachek, A. (2013). Emotional agency appraisals influence responses to preference inconsistent information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 87–97.
    2. Ashton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Pride and prejudice: How feelings about the self influencejJudgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 446-476.
    3. Beer, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2004). What is unique about self-conscious emotions?. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 126-129.
    4. Biondo, J., & MacDonald, A. P. (1971). Internal-external locus of control and response to influence attempts. Journal of Personality, 39(3), 406-419.
    5. Brehm, J. W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    6. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Jurors’ distortion of evidence in legal trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(2), 91-103.
    7. Carlson, K. A., Tanner, R. J., Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2014). Catching nonconscious goals in the act of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(1), 65-76.
    8. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In James, S. U. John & A. Bargh(eds.), Unintended Thought(PP. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    9. Chaxel, A.-S. (2016). Why, when, and how personal control impacts information processing: A framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 179-197.
    10. Choi, N.-H., & Dhakal, A. (2017). Roles of power state and message types on restaurant store brand attitude. Journal of Distribution Science, 15(10), 5-14.
    11. Choi, N.-H., Liu, H., & Li, Z. (2018). The effects of Chinese consumers’ self-construal and advertising type on brand attitude. East Asian Journal of Business Management, 8(3), 33-41.
    12. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones, Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed.(PP. 91-115), New York, NY: Guilford.
    13. Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414.
    14. Cutright, K. M. (2011). The beauty of boundaries: When and why we seek structure in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 775-790.
    15. Cutright, K. M., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2013). Putting brands in their place: How a lack of control keeps brands contained. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 365-377.
    16. DeKay, M. L., Stone, E. R., & Miller, S. A. (2011). Leader-driven distortion of probability and payoff information affects choices between risky prospects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(4), 394-411.
    17. DeKay, M. L., Stone, E. R., & Sorenson, C. M. (2012). Sizing up information distortion: Quantifying its effect on the subjective values of choice options. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(2), 349–356.
    18. Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, J. D., Gaertner, S. L., Pearson, A. R., Saguy, T., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). Empathy and intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (eds.), Prosocial Motives, Emotion, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature(PP. 393-408). Washington, DC: APA Press.
    19. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Random House.
    20. Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical Issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer(eds.), Empathy and Its Development(PP. 3-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    21. Escalas, J. E., & Stern, B. B. (2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 566-578.
    22. Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Reducing prejudice: The effects of empathy on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720-1737.
    23. Fischer, P., Kastenmuller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J., Frey, D., & Crelley, D. (2011). Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 140(1), 51-62.
    24. French, D. P., Hevey, D., Sutton, S., Kinmonth, A. L., & Marteau, T. M. (2006). Personal and social comparison information about health risk: Reaction to information and information search. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 497-510.
    25. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 594-604.
    26. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2001). Guilty pleasures and grim necessities: Affective attitudes in dilemmas of self-control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(2), 206.
    27. Glaser, J., Dixit, J., & Green, D. P. (2002). Studying hate crime with the internet: What makes racists advocate racial violence. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 177-193.
    28. Hart, J. (2014). Toward an integrative theory of psychological defense. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 19-39.
    29. Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to Iiformation. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-88.
    30. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, New York, NY: Guilford.
    31. Jain, S. P. (2003). Preference consistency and preference strength: Processing and judgmental issues. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(5), 1088-1109.
    32. Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 358-371.
    33. Joireman, J. A., Parrott, L., & Hammersla, J. (2002). Empathy and the self-absorption paradox: Support for the distinction between self-rumination and self-reflection. Self and Identity, 1(1), 53-65.
    34. Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2003). Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 91(2), 154-168.
    35. Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268.
    36. Kenrick, D. T., & Shiota, M. N. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation(s): An evolutionary perspective. In A. J. Elliot(ed.), Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation(PP. 271-285). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    37. Lee, J. W., & Wang, Z. (2018). Spillover effects of foreign direct investment inflows and exchange rates on the banking industry in China. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(2), 15-24.
    38. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond Valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
    39. Lerner, J. S., Han, S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: Extending the appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 158-168.
    40. Lewis, M. (2016). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, guilt, and hubris. Handbook of emotions, 4, 792-814.
    41. Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). Negative returns on positive emotions: The influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 833-840.
    42. MacInnis, D. J., & Patrick, V. M. (2006). Spotlight on affect: Affect and affective forecasting in impulse control. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 224-231.
    43. McGuire, W. J. (1989). The structure of individual attitudes and attitude systems. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler & A. G. Greenwald(eds.), Attitude Structure and Function(PP. 37-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    44. Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2004). Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 114-128.
    45. Niedernhuber, J., Kastenmueller, A., & Fischer, P. (2014). Chaos and decision making: Contextual disorder reduces confirmatory information processing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 199-208.
    46. Passyn, K., & Sujan, M. (2012). Skill-based versus effort-based task difficulty: A task-analysis approach to the role of specific emotions in motivating difficult actions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 461-468.
    47. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934.
    48. Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(5), 722-741.
    49. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(9), 677-688.
    50. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.
    51. Russo, E. J. (2015). The predecisional distortion of information. In E. A. Wilhelms & V. F. Reyna(eds.), Neuroeconomics, Judgment, and Decision Making(PP. 91-110). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    52. Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspective on empathy. In N. Eisenbreg & J. Strayer(eds.), Empathy and its Development(PP. 218-244). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    53. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125.
    54. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506-525.
    55. Tracy, J., L., & Robins, R. W. (2014). Conceptual and empirical strengths of the authentic/hubristic model of pride. Emotion, 14(1), 33-37.
    56. Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don't). Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 185-201.
    57. Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., & Sen, S. (2010). Indulgence or self-control: A dual process model of the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 151-163.
    58. Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy : To call Forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 314-321.
    59. Zhang, H., Chan, D. K. S., & Guan, Y. (2013). Plans are more helpful when one perseveres: The moderating role of persistence in the relationship between implementation intentions and goal progress. Basic and applied social psychology, 35(2), 231-240.