As a comprehensive embodiment of human laziness and bounded rationality on cognition, cognitive miserliness denotes that the brain tends to adopt the principle of the least effort during the decision-making process. It reflects that individuals are reluctant to deliberate on various problems they face owing to limited resources, for instance, time, knowledge and attention. In current studies, the dual-process theory, need for the cognition theory and the elaboration likelihood model are regularly used to explain the internal mechanism of cognitive miserliness. In light of these theories, cognitive miserliness is elicited by the lack of intrinsic cognitive motivations, as well as the attempt to reduce information processing. Its most direct manifestation refers to the adoption of sensation and intuitive heuristics to process information. However, the explicit theoretical framework on specific behaviors of cognitive miserliness has not yet constructed in these theories, which causes the particular applications of cognitive miserliness in specific fields to remain unclear. In order to fix the problem aforementioned, the cue utilization theory is used to expound specific behaviors of cognitive miserliness. Previous works on the cue utilization theory indicate that individuals would cut down cue searching and processing when they make decisions, which is consistent with issues the cognitive miserliness theory concentrates on. In line with the cue utilization theory, individuals with cognitive miserliness would collect and evaluate specific cues on sensation and intuitive heuristics, thus making judgments and decisions based on few cues. In the domain of marketing, the fact that consumer cognitive miserliness is prevalent makes it valuable to explore how consumer cognitive miserliness can be utilized or avoided. What’s more, the gap in consumer behavior performance of cognitive miserliness calls for more exploration and discussion in this issue. Therefore, the research can start with the specific cue searching behaviors led by cognitive miserliness. On the one hand, utilizing consumer cognitive miserliness mainly proceeds from designing attractive cues according to the fast decision-making needs of consumers. Specifically, pricing and price presentation should not only lay stress on the impacts of internal reference prices, such as historical prices and expected prices, to reduce consumers’ expectations for future lower prices, but also set up external reference prices reasonably to guide consumers’ choices effectively. In order to enhance consumers’ attention and favorability, sensory cues that can enforce perceptional experience and accessible information like package should be highlighted in the product design. With regards to the brand management, it is essential to build representative attributes such as the famous brand and high quality, and cultivate consumers’ long-term loyalty by underlining the brands’ emotional ownership consistently. Marketers should pay attention to word-of-mouth management and fully display emotional cues to promote consumers’ emotional experience in mass communication. When it comes to the sales promotion, marketers should design exquisite verbal tricks to induce consumers’ final purchase. On the other hand, avoiding consumer cognitive miserliness is mostly realized through helping consumers to reduce the cognitive bias caused by sensation and intuitive heuristics. Thus, corporations can help consumers to make rational decisions and put their corporate social responsibility （CSR） in business ethics into practice. Specifically, enterprises should fully demonstrate cues that are easily overlooked by consumers and present critical cues in a clear way, making these cues unavoidable for consumers. In addition, in order to enhance consumers’ post purchase satisfaction and loyalty, firms need to guide consumers to consider the decision-making weight of different cues and offer them more cues that can promote rational thinking. In a comprehensive view, the research of carrying out or avoiding consumer cognitive miserliness according to its behavioral characteristics can not only conduce to the realization of the operationalization of cognitive miserliness, but also lay a solid theoretical foundation for marketing practice.
A Literature Review of the Consumer Cognitive Miserliness Behavior and Its Marketing Implications: Based on the Framework of the Cue Utilization Theory
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 40, Issue 08, pp. 58 - 70 (2018) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2018.08.005
 Knhneman D. Thinking, fast and slow[M]. Beijing: China CTTIC Press, 2012.
 Lu C B. Research on sales promotion intensity and effectiveness[M]. Changchun: Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2004.
 Lu C B, Huang C F. Application and prospect of dual-systems theory in consumer decision-making of sales promotion[J]. Journal of Beijing Technology and Business University(Social Sciences), 2012, 27(4): 51-58.
 Lu C B, Wang C S. A research on interval calculation of complex discount and cognitive mechanism of discount illusion[J]. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics, 2016, 36(11): 104-113.
 Luo D J, Zhao W. Consumers’ cognition of country-of-origin and its application in brand marketing[J]. Marketing Herald, 2009, 16(5): 55-60.
 Song H F, Ran L, Chu H R, Zhang W S. Dynamic pricing and inventory control with anchoring effect[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(4): 123-128.
 Stanovich K E. What intelligence tests miss[M]. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2015.
 Wang T, Zhang Q, Zhang H, Zhou L, Liu H S. Reducing the country-of-origin effects: The presentation of products information activates the analytic process[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(6): 841-852.
 Yao Q, Chen R, Zhao P. The influence of self-construals on the imagery advertising strategy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2011, 43(6): 674-683.
 Bayraktar A, Uslay C, Ndubisi N O. The role of mindfulness in response to product cues and marketing communications[J]. International Journal of Business Environment, 2015, 7(4): 347-372.
 Burman B, Biswas A. Reference prices in retail advertisements: Moderating effects of market price dispersion and need for cognition on consumer value perception and shopping intention[J]. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2004, 13(6): 379-389.
 Cacioppo J T, Petty R E, Feinstein J A, et al. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1996, 119(1): 197-253.
 Chandrashekaran R, Grewal D. Anchoring effects of advertised reference price and sale price: The moderating role of saving presentation format[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2006, 59(10-11): 1063-1071.
 Chen Y F. Herd behavior in purchasing books online[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, 24(5): 1977-1992.
 Corcoran K, Mussweiler T. The cognitive miser’s perspective: Social comparison as a heuristic in self-judgements[J]. European Review of Social Psychology, 2010, 21(1): 78-113.
 Easterbrook J A. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior[J]. Psychological Review, 1959, 66(3): 183-201.
 Erfgen C, Sattler H, Schnittka O. How celebrity endorsers enhance parent brand extendibility to low similarity brand extensions[J]. Journal of Business Economics, 2015, 85(5): 479-504.
 Evans J S B T. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(10): 454-459.
 Fiske S T, Taylor S E. Social cognition: From brains to culture[M]. New Jersey: Addison Wesley, 1984.
 Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2005, 19(4): 25-42.
 Goodman J K, Irmak C. Having versus consuming: Failure to estimate usage frequency makes consumers prefer multi-feature products[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2013, 50(1): 44-54.
 Ilie G, Thompson W F. A comparison of acoustic cues in music and speech for three dimensions of affect[J]. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2006, 23(4): 319-330.
 Illingworth D A, Thomas R P. Price as information: Incidental search costs affect decisions to terminate information search and valuations of information sources[A]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting[C]. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2015: 225-229.
 Ingemansson M, Bastholm-Rahmner P, Kiessling A. Practice guidelines in the context of primary care, learning and usability in the physicians’ decision-making process–a qualitative study[J]. BMC Family Practice, 2014, 15: 141.
 Juslin P N. Cue utilization in communication of emotion in music performance: Relating performance to perception[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000, 26(6): 1797-1812.
 Kohli C, Suri R, Kapoor A. Will social media kill branding?[J]. Business Horizons, 2015, 58(1): 35-44.
 Koriat A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997, 126(4): 349-370.
 Krishna A. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2012, 22(3): 332-351.
 Lehtola K, Luomala H T, Kauppinen-Räisänen H, et al. Consumers’ experience of food products: Effects of value activation and price cues[J]. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 2008, 7(1): 19-29.
 Lieberman M D, Jarcho J M, Satpute A B. Evidence-based and intuition-based self-knowledge: An FMRI study[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 87(4): 421-435.
 Macrae C N, Bodenhausen G V. Social cognition: Categorical person perception[J]. British Journal of Psychology, 2001, 92(1): 239-255.
 Mai R, Symmank C, Seeberg-Elverfeldt B. Light and pale colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness?[J]. Journal of Retailing, 2016, 92(4): 426-444.
 Michael A K. An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep[J]. Journal of Advertising, 2013, 19(1): 4-13.
 Nakhata C, Kuo H C. Non-price cues utilization during social coupon purchasing-decision[J]. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2014, 23(6): 439-451.
 Pacheco B G, Rahman A. Effects of sales promotion type and promotion depth on consumer perceptions: The moderating role of retailer reputation[J]. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 2015, 25(1): 72-86.
 Pang J, Bi S. Effects of congruency between advertising appeal and country-of-origin stereotype on brand attitude[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(3): 406-416.
 Park J W, Hastak M. Memory-based product judgments: Effects of involvement at encoding and retrieval[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994, 21(3): 534-547.
 Petty R E, Cacioppo J T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion[J]. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1986, 19: 123-205.
 Pezoldt K, Michaelis A, Roschk H, et al. The differential effects of extrinsic and intrinsic cue-utilization in hedonic product consumption-an empirical investigation[J]. Journal of Business and Economics, 2014, 5(8): 1282-1293.
 Puccinelli N M, Wilcox K, Grewal D. Consumers’ response to commercials: When the energy level in the commercial conflicts with the media context[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2015, 79(2): 1-18.
 Purohit D, Srivastava J. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue diagnosticity framework[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2001, 10(3): 123-134.
 Rao A R, Sieben W A. The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptability and the type of information examined[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1992, 19(2): 256-270.
 Slovic P, Finucane M L, Peters E, et al. The affect heuristic[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, 177(3): 1333-1352.
 Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 6(6): 649-744.
 Solomon M R. Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being[M]. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2014.
 Stanley S M, Elrod C C. Assessing perceived quality through package design: An eye tracking study[J]. Issues in Information Systems, 2014, 15(2): 375-382.
 Surowiecki J. Feature presentation[J]. New Yorker, 2007, 83(6): 215-221.
 Taylor S E. The interface of cognitive and social psychology[A]. Harvey J H. Cognition, social behavior, and the environment[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982: 189-211.
 Tong X. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation and seller reputation in China’s online shopping market[J]. MIS Review An International Journal, 2011, 17(1): 1-17.
 Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases[J]. Science, 1974, 185(4157): 1124-1131.
 Völckner F, Sattler H. Drivers of brand extension success[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2006, 70(2): 18-34.
 Wang Q Z, Cui X L, Huang L Q, et al. Seller reputation or product presentation? An empirical investigation from cue utilization perspective[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2016, 36(3): 271-283.
 Wansink B, Kent R J, Hoch S J. An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998, 35(1): 71-81.
 Watchravesringkan K, Yurchisin J, Yan R. Use of care labels: Linking need for cognition with consumer confidence and perceived risk[J]. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 2008, 12(4): 532-544.
 Woodside A G. Consumer evaluations of competing brands: Perceptual versus predictive validity[J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2012, 29(6): 458-466.
 Wu P C S, Wang Y C. The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 2011, 23(4): 448-472.
Cite this article
Lu Changbao, Hu Peishan. A Literature Review of the Consumer Cognitive Miserliness Behavior and Its Marketing Implications: Based on the Framework of the Cue Utilization Theory[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2018, 40(8): 58-70.
Previous: A Literature Review of the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Team Heterogeneity and Entrepreneurial Performance