(†denotes graduate student or postdoctoral scholar)
Trupia, Maria Giulia†, and (in press), “‘No Time to Buy’: Asking Consumers to Spend Time to Save Money is Perceived as Fairer Than Asking Consumers to Spend Money to Save Time,” Journal of Consumer Psychology.
Consumers often spend time to save money (e.g., Lyft’s “Wait & Save”) and spend money to save time (e.g., Uber’s “Priority Pickup”). Spend-time-to-save-money offers are viewed as fairer, even when the trade-offs are normatively equivalent (e.g., spend $5 to save five minutes vs. spend five minutes to save $5).
Dolifka, David†, Katherine L. Christensen†, and (2025), “Highlighting Opportunities (Versus Outcomes) Increases Support for Economic Redistribution,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16 (4), 422-432.
Rude, Eitan†, and (2024), “People Endorse Harsher Policies in Principle Than in Practice: Asymmetric Beliefs About Which Errors to Prevent Versus Fix,” Psychological Science, 35 (3), 529–542.
- Hillel Einhorn New Investigator Award, Society for Judgment and Decision Making (2023)
For punishments, people care more about preventing false negatives (e.g., criminals escaping justice) and fixing false positives (e.g., wrongful convictions); for rewards, people care more about preventing false positives (e.g., welfare fraud) and fixing false negatives (e.g., improperly denied benefits).
, Yanping Tu, and Ayelet Fishbach (2023), “Synchronized Scheduling: Choosing to Experience Different Events in Different Places at the Same Time as Others,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 8 (2), 130–141.
, and Anuj K. Shah (2022), “When to Use Markets, Lines, and Lotteries: How Beliefs About Fairness Depend on Beliefs About Preferences,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (3), 140–156.
- Best Paper Award, SCP Boutique: Numerical Markers Conference (2021)
Consumers are more willing to endorse markets and lines when these allocation systems help facilitate preference sorting (i.e., making sure goods and services go to those with the strongest preferences). This is most feasible when preferences seem heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous).
Roberts, Annabelle†, , and Ayelet Fishbach (2021), “Love is Patient: People Are More Willing to Wait for Things They Like,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150 (7), 1423–1437.
Liking something more can actually boost self-control, by widening the perceived gap between immediate and delayed rewards (e.g., consumers with stronger preferences for Apple products are more willing to wait for the next generation iPhone, because the “payoff” from waiting feels larger).
, Yanping Tu, and Ayelet Fishbach (2021), “Social Hedonic Editing: People Prefer to Experience Events at the Same Time as Others,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12 (7), 1233–1240.
, Ayelet Fishbach, and Itamar Simonson (2021), “Trade-Offs in Choice,” Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 181–206.
, and Leonard Lee (2020), “Price Promotions Cause Impatience,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (1), 118–133.
Price promotions (e.g., sales and discounts) can lead consumers to behave impatiently, by triggering reward seeking. And reward seeking focuses people on immediate (rather than delayed) outcomes.
, and Anuj K. Shah (2018), “Deciding Who Gets What, Fairly,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (4), 833–848.
Consumers believe spending time is a clearer signal of want or need (i.e., preferences) than spending money. So, when goods and services are in short supply, people believe it is fairer to allocate based on willingness to spend time (e.g., queues) than money (e.g., auctions).
, and Ayelet Fishbach (2018), “Eyes on the Prize: The Preference to Invest Resources in Goals Over Means,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115 (4), 624–637.
When goals (e.g., buying a book) are “bundled” with means (e.g., paying for shipping), consumers prefer spending more on goals than on means. For example, $30 with free shipping is more appealing than $20 plus $5 shipping—even though total cost in the latter case is lower.
, and Ayelet Fishbach (2017), “Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (5), 737–751.
When products and services are bundled, consumers view—and, importantly, value—the resulting entity as a unique “whole” that is perceived as greater than the sum of its parts. This systematically increases the value of bundled items, relative to when the same exact products and services are offered separately.
(2023), “Paying for Goals and Means,” In A.W. Kruglanski, A. Fishbach, and C. Kopetz (Eds.), Explorations in Goal Systems (pp. 130–149). Oxford University Press.
Fishbach, Ayelet and (2016), “When Choices Substitute for Versus Reinforce Each Other,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 39–43.
(*denotes equal authorship; †denotes graduate student or postdoctoral scholar)
*, Elizabeth M. S. Friedman*, and Olivier Toubia (under third-round review), “Fairness Perceptions in Demographic Targeting,” Journal of Consumer Research.
When consumers learn or infer that they or others have been targeted based on demographic characteristics, fairness perceptions and brand support suffer. This is because certain forms of demographic targeting are viewed as discriminatory.
, Linda Hagen, and Ryan Hamilton, “When the Rent is Too Damn High: Why People Prefer Demand- Versus Supply-Side Policy Solutions to Scarcity.”
To address high prices resulting from scarcity, policymakers often propose one of two solutions: subsidizing demand (e.g., offering homebuyers assistance) or subsidizing supply (e.g., offering homebuilders incentives). People prefer demand subsidies, despite their potential to lead to even higher prices in the long run.