Perfectionist tendencies have been on the rise in recent years. In this paper, we conceptualize and define a specific type of this tendency, called “product perfectionism,” and situate it within a broader nomological network that includes trait perfectionism, entitlement, materialism, and maximizing. We construct an eight-item Product Perfectionism Scale, which we use to predict consumption behaviors across the three stages of a typical consumer’s journey: acquisition, consumption, and disposal (studies 1–7). We find that consumers higher (vs. lower) on product perfectionism are more susceptible to set-fit effects (study 1), attracted to brands with personalities associated more (vs. less) with perfection (study 2), and willing to pay more for newer (vs. older) products (study 3). We also find that they derive lower enjoyment from less-than-perfect consumption experiences (study 4), are more attracted to product upgrades (study 5), replace both perishable and non-perishable goods faster for smaller flaws (study 6), and are more likely to dispose of and are reluctant to repair broken possessions (study 7). We conclude the paper with a discussion of the theoretical and substantive implications of our findings.

The Stereotype Content Model finds a robust positive association between perceptions of competence and wealth. Our research challenges this notion and suggests that competence in certain domains, such as repair, is associated with lower, not higher, perceptions of wealth. In 5 pre-registered studies, we find that consumers who are seen as more competent in repair skills are also judged as having lower wealth, and this belief stems from the idea that wealthy individuals can delegate repair work. This perception persists for a range of basic repair skills, such as fixing a button or a leaky pipe, and even when consumers explicitly express a willingness to do the repair. Importantly, across all 7 studies, we do not find an association between competence in repair and objective wealth of participants, suggesting that the perception is unfounded. Our last two studies examine the downstream effects of the negative association of repair and wealth on consumer behavior and marketplace dynamics.

Investments in inclusive design offer firms both the monetary benefits of tapping an underserved segment and the reputational benefits of promoting inclusivity. This research investigates the limits to the reputational benefits associated with offering inclusive products. Specifically, we examine how the process by which firms bring an inclusive product to market (acquisition or in-house development) impacts consumer judgments of firm ethicality and purchase intentions for inclusively-designed products. Results from four studies indicate that when firms offer inclusive products obtained via acquisitions (versus developing them in-house), consumers judge the firm as less ethical and have lower purchase likelihood from the firm. This is because firms that have acquired inclusive products are perceived as less caring and having less pure motives than those that designed inclusive products themselves. We also identify two strategies to mitigate the negative impact of acquisition—shifting consumer focus from social exchange norms and making clear that the acquiring company cares about people with disabilities, even if this care is transmitted in a way that is irrelevant to the product.

Taking advantage of two themes to emerge from past research, namely, that decision-makers tend to evaluate stimuli (products, people, etc.) in a mood-congruent manner (Pham 1998; Schwarz and Clore 1983), and that people seek to behave in a justifiable, “rational” manner (Hsee et al. 2003), we show that people’s preferences—operationalized as attribute-importance ratings—are unstable. We document evidence that this phenomenon, which we call aesthetics-influenced revision of attribute-importance, a) is stronger in contexts in which basing one’s decisions on aesthetic features of choice-options is less (vs. more) justified, and b) occurs even when participants are alerted to differences in the aesthetic quality of choice-options. Our findings also indicate that aesthetics-induced revision in attribute-importance ratings is not cosmetic but rather reflects a relatively deep-seated change in preferences and thus influences future decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for various streams of research, including rationality, motivated-reasoning, attribute-level distortion effects, cognitive dissonance, and halo effects.