Wright, Marketplace Metacognition Intelligence

7/22/2019 Wright, Marketplace Metacognition Intelligence

1/6

677

2002 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 28 March 2002

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2002/2804-0012$10.00

Marketplace Metacognition and SocialIntelligence

PETER WRIGHT*

Consumers develop over their life span a pragmatic expertise in marketplacemetacognition and marketplace interactions. Marketplace metacognition andsocialintelligence refer to peoples beliefs about their own mental states and the mentalstates, strategies, and intentions of others as these pertain directly to the socialdomain of marketplace interactions. Drawing from the recent study of evolutionarypsychology, theory of mind, multiple life-span intelligences, and everyday persua-sion knowledge, I discuss the importance to our field of studying marketplacemetacognition and social intelligence and of research-based consumer educationprograms on those topics.

This is the fourth decade in which I have written for theJournal of Consumer Research, but this feels different.This time I have an editorial mandate to be provocative andfar-reaching about consumer research in the years ahead.The freedom is disorienting. Before, in JCR submissions,the social mind-reading task (how to anticipate and handlethe mental activities of the notorious Masked Reviewer, akaSluggo) became easier with practice and peer consultation(as do, I suppose, many domain-specific social mind-readingtasks). I am now an academic ancient, writing mainly to ayoung generation of scholars with different educational ex-

periences than mine who face a different scholarly zeitgeistthan the one shared by my research cohort. To stretch orexcite those young minds, I must do social mind readingacross generations. Those of you intending to do frontierresearch over the next decade may already have consideredthe implications of evolutionary psychology, theory of mind,and life-span theories of multiple intelligences. If not, readon. It is, in fact, the task of social mind reading acrossgenerations about which I want to talk.

*Peter Wright is the Edwin E. and June Woldt Cone Professor of Mar-

keting, Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon([email protected]). He was a professor at the Stanford Grad-uate School of Business from 1974 to 1997, and was also on the Universityof Illinois faculty and a visiting scholar at the Harvard Business School.He is a fellow in the Institute for Cognitive and Decision Sciences at theUniversity of Oregon and a fellow of the Association for Consumer Re-search (ACR). He has also been president of ACR. He thanks MarianFriestad, research partner, for many ideas embedded throughout this essay.He also thanks Meg Campbell, Amna Kirmani, Eric Koch, KaRin Kri-corian, David Mick, and participants in the evolutionary psychology andtheory of mind workshops of the Institute for Cognitive and DecisionSciences at Oregon for stimulating the thinking presented here.

MARKETPLACE METACOGNITION ANDSOCIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE CORE

CONSUMER RESEARCH TOPIC

The study of marketplace metacognition and social in-telligence is among the most important new research fron-tiers facing adventurous consumer researchers. The study ofmarketplace metacognition and social intelligence will, Ibelieve, come to dominate the field of consumer researchin the next decade or so. If so, that will be a healthy de-velopment, and substantive transformation will elevate the

prominence of consumer research and marketplace studiesamong the social sciences.

Marketplace metacognition refers to everyday individu-als thinking about market-related thinking. This includespeoples beliefs about their own and others mental statesand processes and their beliefs about other peoples beliefson those topics as these beliefs pertain to the specific domainof marketplace cooperation and manipulation. Marketplacesocial intelligence refers to the cognitive routines and con-tents dedicated to achieving marketplace efficacy that areaccessible to individuals by virtue of functionally special-ized evolutionary processes and the development of thisfunctionally specialized expertise over an individuals lifespan.

Metacognition has been a loosely defined term. It wasinitially more closely associated with peoples self-knowl-edge and self-control than with their beliefs about othersmental states, others psychological thinking about socialinfluence, and achieving self-control over others social ef-fects. For example, in Alba and Hutchinsons (2000) inte-grative discussion of consumer knowledge calibration,metacognition is conceived mainly as ones knowledgeabout own knowledge.

Socially focused and self-focused metacognition about the


2/6

678 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

enduring human problem of cooperative exchange in a mar-ketplace is my topic here. How do consumers come to un-derstand the psychological beliefs, strategies, and intentionsof marketing agents? How do they communicate about theirown or others states of mind or psychological processes?How do they understand how to control own mental states

as these relate to marketplace interactions and activities?How does this differ across generations, cultures, and in-dividual life spans? How does it adapt as significant changesoccur in marketers communication and research technol-ogies? As the future study of marketplace metacognitionand social intelligence progresses, its leaders will draw the-oretical inspiration from research on evolutionary psychol-ogy, theory of mind, folk-theoretic models of intentionalityand social explanation, and the life-span development ofmultiple intelligences, including practical marketplaceintelligence.

The marketplace interaction per se will be treated as thefocal domain of our theoretical analysis more so than inpast research. Perhaps a field of scholarship called behav-ioral marketplace theory will emerge. It will provide anintellectually comfortable shared identity for researcherswho have until now tended to identify themselves as study-ing either consumer behavior or marketing management/tactics/research. Behavioral marketplace theory would parsethe field of study in accordance with a central problem ofhuman evolutioncooperative exchange in a market. Thisaligns the research problem with a theoretical premise aboutfunctionality in human problem solving and humandevelopment.

We will begin by assuming that marketplace-focused so-cial intelligence is a central domain of specialized humanthought, evolved and continually developing to handle the

complexities of cooperative market-based exchanges, andthen wholeheartedly study it as such. The study of consumerbehavior and marketer behavior will converge much morethan in past research and theory, becoming the study ofdynamic interactive reflective marketplace behavior overtime. Research will examine how consumers and marketers,in continual interaction with one another, develop and usetheir metacognitive beliefs about cooperative marketplacemind games to play out variants of those cooperative mar-ketplace mind games.

My central proposal then is that a domain of metacog-nitive marketplace social intelligence or expertise representsthe core of consumer development, consumer education,consumer participation in marketplace social interactions

broadly conceived and, hence, consumer research. Acknowl-edging this will refocus our attention on the marketplacesinherently social nature, and therefore on the necessity ofcapturing social interactive knowledge and thinking in ourstudies of consumers. Acknowledging it will also have aprosocial effect on the field of consumer research. It willenhance consumer researchers awareness of the importanceof the phenomenon they study and of their potential influ-ence in disseminating knowledge on marketplace metacog-nition in an egalitarian fashion throughout society.

My research colleagues and I have been thinking alongthese lines for a while now, but an accumulation of recentwritings has provided added inspiration. These writingsshare in common a strong emphasis on the social foundationof, and deeply social focus of, the human mind. They areeach in their own way about everyday common sense and

folk psychology. They include these four books: InteractiveMinds (Baltes and Staudinger 1996), Machiavellian Intel-ligence II (Whiten and Byrne 1997), The Descent of Mind(Corballis and Lea 1999), and Intentions and Intentionality(Malle, Moses, and Baldwin 2001). As prelude to tellingwhat these writings suggest to me about consumer research,I will briefly summarize what they are about. Each volumeis an edited collection of the writings of a dozen or soimaginative scholars, and so no summary can do justice tothe multitude of good ideas they offer.

Interactive Minds: Life-Span Perspectives on the SocialFoundation of Cognition (Baltes and Staudinger 1996) is acollection of 14 papers edited by Paul Baltes and UrsulaStaudinger of the Max Planck Institute for Human Devel-opment and Education. The papers deal with the biological-evolutionary aspects of cooperation, collaborative peerproblem solving and collaborative memory as a form ofadult human development, the psychology of wisdom inadulthood, cooperative construction of expertise, and otherissues related to mental capabilities and competency overthe life span. Of particular interest is the underlying as-sumption that as adults age they gain enhanced pragmaticintelligence, as opposed to academic intelligence, by fo-cusing on deeply understanding a few high-priority problemdomains.

Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations(Whiten and Byrne 1997) is a fascinating collection of 14

papers edited by Andrew Whiten and Richard Byrne of theUniversity of St. Andrews. These papers further extend thefundamental Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis firstaired in the 1980s by presenting more research on primatesocial strategies and by relating the hypothesis to humanbehavior. These papers collectively assert (a) that social in-telligence is qualitatively different from nonsocial intelli-gence because the social environment is more complex, lesspredictable, and more challenging than the ecological en-vironment; (b) that social intelligence preceded nonsocialintelligence in human evolution (and hence that the abilityto think about other peoples minds is the essence of hu-manity); (c) that social intelligence is therefore generativeof nonsocial intelligence, not vice versa; and (d) that the

prodigious neurological evolution of the human brain is in-deed an outcome of its focus on human social complexities.

The Descent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on

Hominid Evolution (Corballis and Lea 1999) is a collectionof 14 equally fascinating papers on evolutionary psychologyedited by Michael Corballis of Auckland University andStephen Lea of the University of Exeter. Particularly inter-esting here are papers on the evolution in humans of atheory of mind, or metamind, and discussion of how de-velopment of and interactions among deep social minds


3/6

MARKETPLACE METACOGNITION 679

create a cycle throughout history wherein social mind read-ing supports egalitarianism and egalitarianism supports acooperative, shared mind reading.

Finally, Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of So-cial Cognition (Malle et al. 2001) brings us fully into therealm of humans theories of each others mental world and

interpretations of each others strategic behavior in socialinteractions. It is a collection of 18 papers edited by BertramMalle, Louis Moses, and Dare Baldwin, all of the Universityof Oregon. The papers present an exciting and far-rangingpicture of the folk-theoretic approach to studying how peo-ple interpret and explain human behavior. The folk-theoreticapproach, unlike other causal judgment approaches to hu-man explanation, emphasizes and distinguishes peopleseveryday explanations in which a social interactive contextis explicitly considered (i.e., human-human social interac-tions, as opposed to, say, human-object interactions) and inwhich the judgment by one person of anothers intentionalityis paramount.

THE MIND IS DOMAIN SPECIFIC ANDMARKETPLACE METACOGNITION IS A

KEY DOMAIN OF HUMANINTELLIGENCE

One idea I derive from all this concerns the functionalityof the human mind. The human mind has arguably evolvedprimarily to cope with the complexity of controlling thesocial world, not the physical world. The core problem do-main that human minds have evolved to deal with is es-sentially a social one. In this evolutionary process there haveemerged, in addition to domain-general cognitive mecha-nisms, some critical domain-specific mechanisms that are

functionally specialized to solve particular adaptive prob-lems. This contrasts with the traditional assumption in cog-nitive social psychology, and in consumer research for thelast several decades, that we should hope to discover theminds general-purpose cognitive mechanisms, in the nameof parsimony (and to make our research world much easier.)

Suppose we assume instead that the mind develops towarda deep content-saturated understanding of social cooperationand that the common form of cooperative exchange semi-formalized as a marketplace is a key domain (at least, sub-domain) of social intelligence historically. Then we can andshould concentrate consumer studies on that content domain.In so doing, we will intentionally delegate the task of search-ing out grand domain-general cognitive processes to the

thousands and thousands of other researchers who will keepdoing that.

We are few, they are many! We will as a field make acollective bet that the specific domain of social intelligencewe have defined as our field is worthy of focused studyin its own right. Very few, if any, of the consumer research-ers alive today reading this will ever identify a domain-general psychological principle. Why not embrace the do-main-specific perspective wholeheartedly for a while, as afield, and see where it leads?

If we entertain this domain-specificity notion, wheremight it lead our thinking? Some time ago, Marian Friestadand I offered a characterization of a subdomain of socialintelligence we called persuasion knowledge (Friestad andWright 1994). The cornerstone of persuasion knowledge is,we conjectured, an individuals beliefs about the mental

states and psychological change processes that operate asmediators of persuasion or intentional social influence. Ininitial explorations, it became apparent that adults harborrich conceptions of mental states involved in persuasion(Friestad and Wright 1995). Subsequently, it is plausiblyargued that rich content saturation is characteristic of a spe-cialized evolved domain of social intelligence. So, if we letourselves speculatively elaborate a truly saturated domain-specific content of marketplace metacognition, what mightit contain?

Consumers marketplace metacognitive social exper-tise could include developed, or developing, metaknow-ledge of the following as they pertain directly to ownand others marketplace mentalities: metaknowledgeabout (a) attention getting and holding (meta-attention),(b) belief formation (metabelief), (c) remembering (me-tamemory), (d) trust (metatrust), (e) desire (metadesire),(f) emotion (metaemotion), (g) deception (metadecep-tion), and (h) intention (metaintention). It could includea persons metaknowledge about enduring human traitsand about psychological fluidity and change processes.Deep marketplace metacognition could include metabe-liefs contextualized to common knowledge parsings ofthe types of stimuli marketing agents can manipulate orthe contexts in which they operate. For example, an in-dividuals marketplace metamind may parse the externalenvironment such that it can understand and operate its

own minitheory of advertising, minitheory of interper-sonal selling, minitheory of relationship marketing, min-itheory of pricing and bargaining, minitheory of visualdesign and display, and so on.

If we acknowledge the essentially social nature of mar-ketplace-related thought and action, then to me that impliesthat we as a field wholeheartedly study consumers in ex-plicitly social contexts. We would not study people in con-texts where they face choices between inanimate tools, ob-

jects, or devices presented in a socially sterile and apparentlybenign fashion, that is, in contexts where their social sus-picions and expertise are not activated. We should insteadonly study consumer choices made in contexts supersatu-rated with the social game-playing and consequences em-

bedded in and characteristic of the marketplace.One key idea about a domain-specific intelligence or ex-

pertise is that it is highly context sensitive. A domain-spe-cific intelligence is activated when it recognizes that theproblem context it faces demands it, rather than demandingsome other domain-specific intelligence. The implication tome is that the selection by researchers of a stimulus andenvironmental problem context is critical in determiningwhether or not a persons deep marketplace intelligence isactivated as they serve as a subject of study. For example,


4/6


persons presented with a context, stimulus, and problem thatthey construe to be an intellectual mathematical-deductiveword problem akin to an academic exam will activate theirmathematical logical word-problem-solving academic in-telligence. In that situation, their marketplace-related socialintelligence, however deeply developed, will remain un-

tapped, leaving their performance unguided by that domain-specific intelligence and researchers ignorant about whathappens when it is activated.

To give this perspective, consider a spectrum of influence-and-choice problem construals. At one extreme, people (e.g.,consumers, human subjects) choose among inanimate ob-

jects (physical products) presented to them in a contextwhere the presenter is not represented as (nor construedas) a skillful, cunning practitioner of manipulative strategy.At the opposite end of the spectrum, people face choicesthat are highly complex in social terms, for example, wherethe decision alternatives per se are humans (e.g., servicerelationships) or human-object combinations (e.g., mostcontemporary service offerings, many types of product of-ferings) and where those human alternatives are themselvesexplicitly presented by human social strategists well knownto be skillful at and intent on artfully manipulating the choicethat is made. Or, to ratchet up the social realism even further,there are choices where the consumers (or subjects) prob-lem is, in addition to all the above, that the agent makingthe presentation may only be suspected of having manip-ulative intent, and may in fact be a true disciple of Mach-iavelli who knows to display benign cooperation as a guise.The latter is the problem our minds have been developingmetacognitive expertise to deal with; activating that knowl-edge is the only way to examine it.

As I look back on our field, we seem often to settle for

socially impoverished research settings. My line of specu-lation here argues that in the future we all eschew sociallybarren stimulus contexts. Or at least we make the construc-tion of the stimulus research context an explicit one, justifiedin terms of its relationship to the domain of human intel-ligence or expertise a researcher seeks to examine. The dif-ference, as I understand it, between a researcher who be-lieves only in domain-general cognitive mechanisms and ina general intelligence and one who believes, as many moreare coming to, in the likelihood of domain-specific intelli-gences that are functionally specialized is that the formertend to feel that any stimulus context is fine, whereas thelatter believe that choosing the relevant stimulus context iscrucial. For example, the former camp of researchers think

it is irrelevant whether the stimulus-choice options are sim-ple objects presented via word problems or are complexhuman relationships presented by manipulative social strat-egists; the latter believe that difference may matter verymuch.

I realize fully why researchers migrate toward simple so-cially impoverished situations to study; I have sometimesdone so myself. Researchers, like those they study, engagein simplifying behavior if it minimally suffices. Now, how-ever, I advocate grappling with the complexities of highly

social marketplace situations. I do this self-consciously; Iam toward the end of my research career and will not bearthe burden. But, in a research career, better not to understandsomething complex than not to understand something simple(certainly more heroic at least).

CONSUMER EDUCATION ONMARKETPLACE METACOGNITION OVER

THE LIFE SPAN

Consumers can be educated about marketplace metacog-nitive matters, just as prospective or actual marketers can.The expertise or practical intelligence we speak of here isa fluid one that continues to develop over an individualslife span, with individual differences of course. To positionour field to contribute to societal consumer education, how-ever, requires to some degree a reframing of research pri-orities. To do this will make our field more egalitarian thanit has been. In our fields infancy (up until now), consumer

social intelligence has not been treated as a competency inthe same way that other essential life topics are treated. Butit should be. In so doing our field of scholars will gain aprosocial balance that we have not historically achieved.This is both a matter of how we behave as educators andprofessionals and of how we subtly shade our choices ofresearch topics.

Many of us active in consumer research over the lastdecades found academic homes in business schools, wherewe educate prospective marketers on how to think meta-cognitively and strategically about influencing consumers.We may believe our research will ultimately improve con-sumer decision making, negotiation skill, or welfare. But,the actual dissemination of metacognitive knowledge we

achieve most often exclusively benefits those who intend touse it as marketers rather than as consumers. How can ed-ucational interventions on marketplace metacognition andsocial expertise best serve the developmental needs of youngchildren, adolescents, young adults, and mature or elderlylay adults? Pondering this has been a natural extension ofthought among those of us who began contemplating ev-eryday persuasion knowledge.

As an example, in Friestad and Wright (2001) we call onthe consumer research community, in collaboration withscholars from other disciplines, to develop programs forPreadult Education on Marketplace Persuasion Tactics(PREEMPT programs). These may be seen as marketplaceliteracy programs, related to but focused differently than the

media literacy programs introduced worldwide over the lastquarter century. It is enlightening to consider what the cur-riculum for such an educational program might be. Even-tually we would like to be able to postulate a developmentalmodel for the acquisition of knowledge about marketplacepersuasion and influence. While some research exists onhow children acquire a theory of mind, on the changes thatoccur in middle childhood in childrens oral persuasive com-munication practices, and on childrens socialization as con-sumers, we still know little about how youngsters, teens,


5/6

MARKETPLACE METACOGNITION 681

and young adults acquire marketplace expertise with andwithout exposure to formalized instruction on the topic.

Ideally, we would like to customize the curriculum of aPREEMPT program so its pace exploits the natural knowl-edge-acquisition process and anticipates how to direct andexpedite metacognitive marketplace learning to a students

benefit. To do so, we need a consensus about what consti-tutes the path of increased competence or expertise in thedomain of marketplace persuasion knowledge. Second, weneed a conception of developmental change in this type ofknowledge. Does gaining added competence in this domainrequire learning concepts or skills in some sequence? If so,what sequence? What specific contextual domains could behighlighted in a PREEMPT program? For example, does ayoungster need to focus first on one situation (say, TV ad-vertising), then extend to another (say, in-store shopping),and so on? Or do youngsters best acquire an interpretiveframework by concurrent consideration of several market-place contexts for comparison and analysis purposes? Howcan we measure these types of social intelligence? What

levels of knowledge or cognitive performance will we deemas threshold competence? Does marketplace intelligenceconstitute a core domain of adult pragmatic intelligence thatthe vast majority of successfully aging people concentratetheir minds on developing as they mature? Or does it becomea core domain of practical intelligence only among a seg-ment of the adult population?

Finally, thinking in these terms about consumers overtheir life spans leads to some fascinating questions aboutcross-generational matchups in marketplace mind games.Consider the interplay of the generational mismatches inmarketplace mind games. Sometimes a youngster who is atrue novice is matched against a young adult who is perhapsa seminovice marketer. Sometimes a youngster is matched

against mature adult marketers with children of their ownand extensive metacognitive savvy. Sometimes young adultseminovice consumers are matched against more expertadult marketers. Sometimes, however, the matchups favorthe experienced consumer, as when young adult seminovicemarketers (fresh college graduates) are matched againstadult consumers with considerable marketplace expertise.Examining how such matchups get played out, especiallywhen the two players are aware of the expertise disparity,is a wonderful future research activity. By treating market-place metacognition as an evolved potentiality and a fluidpragmatic intelligence that individuals grow and refinesomehow over the life span, research questions we have notbeen curious about crystallize as logical and necessary.

TOWARD A RE-VISION,REVITALIZATION, AND RENAISSANCE

Do my reflections here converge in spirit with intellectualthemes evident recently within the consumer research field?Certainly. The pioneering naturalistic phenomenologicalstudies have played an important role in reawakening in mean appreciation for the marketplaces wonderful richness

and its centrality to human lives. Indeed, within some ofthose inquiries, consumers own marketplace metacognitivethoughts have surfaced (e.g., Belk, Sherry, and Wallendorf1988; Ritson and Elliott 1999; Thompson, Locander, andPollio 1990; Thompson, Pollio, and Locander 1994), al-though uncovering these was not usually the expressed goal.

The impact of those studies is evident in research explicitlyundertaken to examine consumers metacognitive knowl-edge. For example, Moore and Lutz (2000) conducted aninterpretive study to augment their experimental work onchildrens thoughts about advertising, as did Friestad andWright (1995) to augment their structured study of meta-cognitive beliefs about persuasion. More directly, a growingbody of research on everyday persuasion knowledge hasdeveloped, suggestive of a (small) movement. This workdelves into a range of issues on the acquisition, content,accessibility, and measurement of marketplace metacogni-tive expertise (e.g., Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000;Boush, Friestad, and Rose 1994; Campbell 1995, 1999;Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Friestad and Wright 1994,1995, 1999, 2001; Kirmani 1990; Kirmani and Wright 1989;Koch 2001; Kricorian 1999; Obermiller and Spangenberg1999). Also related is work on how people automaticallyaccess social knowledge to interact with machines (e.g.,Moon 2000).

The reflective essays of other recent JCR contributors alsoseem convergent in spirit with the current proposal. Theseinclude discussions of the historical human fascination withpersuasion (McGuire 2000), the mind and consciousness(Zaltman 2000), causal attribution (Weiner 2000), collectiveintentionality grounded in individuals mental states (Ba-gozzi 2000), and fundamental consumer competencies (Baz-erman 2001; Wallendorf 2001).

However, our field needs I believe to consolidate itselfaround a shared vision in order to elevate itself as a socialscience. We are few, very few, spread very thin in terms ofresearch directions and intellectual allegiances, and in dan-ger of becoming so splintered as to remain more ineffectualas a science and a societal presence than we would all like.I have suggested a direction for that consolidationfocusingon the specialized functionally evolved domain of humanknowledge and expertise I call marketplace metacognitionand social intelligence. Let us make the marketplace ourcenterpiece, even to the extent inherent in my presumptuousinvention of a new fieldbehavioral marketplace theory andresearchin which the study of consumers metacognitivesocial worlds is inherently entangled with that of everyday

marketers and vice versa. To me there is an attractive andcompelling logic to this.

What about the consumer education initiative? Does thatfollow logically, or just lead to a further splintering of ourfield? It follows logically, indeed inevitably, if one takes asa binding vision the study of the functionally specializeddomain of thought and expertise. Should individual re-searchers then get directly involved in all the program de-sign, administration, and evaluation issues of consumer ed-ucation? That is a matter of individual choice, obviously.


6/6


But wouldnt it be nice if a decade from now the field wouldbe clearly acknowledged as a primary resource for, partic-ipant in, and even a leader of the creation of egalitarianresearch-based marketplace education programs in society?

[David Glen Mick served as editor for this article.]

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L., Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya A. Grier(2000), Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: TheImpact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes, Jour-nal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 127140.

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (2000), KnowledgeCalibration: What Consumers Know and What They ThinkThey Know,Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September),123156.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (2000), On the Concept of Intentional SocialAction in Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Re-search, 27 (December), 388396.

Baltes, Paul B. and Ursula M. Staudinger, eds. (1996), Interactive

Minds: Life-Span Perspectives on the Social Foundation ofCognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bazerman, Max H. (2001), Consumer Research for Consumers,Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 499504.

Belk, Russell W., John F. Sherry, Jr., and Melanie Wallendorf(1988), A Naturalistic Inquiry into Buyer and Seller Behav-ior at a Swap Meet, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(March), 449470.

Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994),Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowl-edge of Advertiser Tactics, Journal of Consumer Research,21 (June), 165175.

Campbell, Margaret C. (1995), When Attention-Getting Adver-tising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences of Manipulative In-tent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments,

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (June), 1727. (1999), Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents andConsequences, Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May),187199.

Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), ConsumersUse of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibilityand Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an InfluenceAgent, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 6983.

Corballis, Michael C. and Stephen E. G. Lea, eds. (1999), TheDescent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Ev-

olution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), The Persuasion Knowl-

edge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 131.

(1995), Persuasion Knowledge: Lay Peoples and Re-searchers Beliefs about the Psychology of Persuasion, Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 6274.

(1999), Everyday Persuasion Knowledge, Psychologyand Marketing, 16 (March), 185194.

(2001), Pre-adult Education on Marketplace PersuasionTactics, working paper, Department of Marketing, Universityof Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

Kirmani, Amna (1990), The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costson Brand Perceptions, Journal of Consumer Research, 17(September), 160171.

Kirmani, Amna and Peter Wright (1989), Money Talks: PerceivedAdvertising Expense and Expected Product Quality, Journalof Consumer Research, 16 (December), 344353.

Koch, Eric Charles (2001), The Use of Persuasion Expertise toInterpret Marketers Persuasion Attempts, unpublished dis-sertation, Department of Marketing, University of Oregon,Eugene, OR 97403.

Kricorian, Karin Turner (1999), The Judgment and Memory Ef-fects of the Activation of General Knowledge Structures Re-lated to Persuasion and Information, unpublished disserta-tion, Department of Marketing, Stanford University, Stanford,CA 94305.

Malle, Bertram F., Louis J. Moses, and Dare A. Baldwin, eds.(2001), Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of SocialCognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McGuire, William J. (2000), Standing on the Shoulders of An-

cients: Consumer Research, Persuasion, and Figurative Lan-guage, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 109114.

Moon, Youngme (2000), Intimate Exchanges: Using Computersto Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 26 (March), 323339.

Moore, Elizabeth S. and Richard J. Lutz (2000), Children, Ad-vertising, and Product Experiences: A Multimethod Inquiry,

Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 3148.Obermiller, Carl and Eric R. Spangenberg (1999), Development

of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism of Advertising,Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159186.

Ritson, Mark and Richard Elliott (1999), The Social Uses ofAdvertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December),260277.

Thompson, Craig J., William B. Locander, and Howard R. Pollio

(1990), The Lived Meaning of Free Choice: An Existential-Phenomenological Description of Everyday Consumer Ex-periences of Contemporary Married Women,Journal of Con-sumer Research, 17 (December), 346361.

Thompson, Craig J., Howard R. Pollio, and William B. Locander(1994), The Spoken and the Unspoken: A Hermeneutic Ap-proach to Understanding the Cultural Viewpoints That Un-derlie Consumers Expressed Meanings, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 21 (December), 432452.

Wallendorf, Melanie (2001), Literally Literacy, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 27 (March), 505512

Weiner, Bernard (2000), Attributional Thoughts about ConsumerBehavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December),382387.

Whiten, Andrew and Richard W. Byrne, eds. (1997),MachiavellianIntelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Zaltman, Gerald (2000), Consumer Researchers: Take a Hike!Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 423428.

Documents

Wright, Marketplace Metacognition Intelligence