Marketers have a choice of what to tell consumers and consumers must consider what they are told or not told. Across 6 experiments, we show that consumers fail to differentiate between deliberate and nondeliberate missing information (strategic naiveté) and make generous inferences when they do notice missing information is deliberately withheld (charitability). We also show how marketers can take advantage of this by withholding information. We investigate both sides to (a) show the effects of interventions to encourage consumers to consider deliberate nondisclosure in a less naïve and charitable fashion, (b) demonstrate when marketers should disclose (or not) if consumers are naïve and charitable (i.e., breakeven points), and (c) explore the reasons marketers give for (non)disclosure and consumers’ thoughts on why information is missing. Consumers respond differently to distinct but theoretically equivalent framings that increase the salience of nondisclosure. Only when nondisclosure was highly salient, and consumers could compare multiple profiles side by side did consumers believe the nondisclosed information to be the worst possible. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Science communication as a collective intelligence endeavor: A manifesto and examples for implementation.
Journal Publication / By Sunita Sah / April 6, 2023 June 4, 2023
How should the US Federal Government oversee clinicians’ relationships with industry?
Journal Publication / By Sunita Sah / January 8, 2023 June 4, 2023
The Professionalism Paradox: A Sense of Professionalism Increases Vulnerability to Conflicts of Interest
Journal Publication / By Sunita Sah / August 22, 2022 June 4, 2023
Patient responses to physician disclosures of industry conflicts of interest: A randomized field experiment.
Journal Publication / By Sunita Sah / September 1, 2021 April 20, 2023
Amplification of the status quo bias among physicians making medical decisions.
Journal Publication / By Sunita Sah / August 21, 2021 April 20, 2023