Marketing experts are always right…aren't they? Disentangling the effects of expertize and decision-making processes

Matteo Montecchi, Andrés Gvirtz, Kirk Plangger, Gerard Prendergast, Douglas West
{"title":"Marketing experts are always right…aren't they? Disentangling the effects of expertize and decision-making processes","authors":"Matteo Montecchi, Andrés Gvirtz, Kirk Plangger, Gerard Prendergast, Douglas West","doi":"10.1002/mar.21988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marketing experts are tasked with making important decisions that influence firms' performance. Some decision tasks are decomposable and can be broken down into smaller parts (e.g., pricing new products). Others are non-decomposable and are challenging to break down (e.g., selecting creative work for advertising campaigns). The literature remains divided on whether expertize aids decision-makers in addressing these different decision tasks, as well as how different decision-making processes (critical analysis, intuition, introspection) improve decision-makers' performance when they face these tasks. Using experiments with comparative samples of senior marketing managers (experts) and general public participants (non-experts), we test whether expertize provides advantages when making decisions. Our results suggest that experts perform better than the general public with decomposable decision tasks, though not with non-decomposable decision tasks. Furthermore, decision-makers who rely on critical analysis perform better compared to intuition when addressing decomposable decision tasks, but the decision process is less important with non-decomposable decision tasks. These findings provide insight into the conceptual boundaries of marketing professionals' expertize. Managers could apply these insights to potentially save resources (e.g., time, finances) by delegating decisions to more junior staff or even by leveraging external counsel through crowdsourcing.","PeriodicalId":501349,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21988","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Marketing experts are tasked with making important decisions that influence firms' performance. Some decision tasks are decomposable and can be broken down into smaller parts (e.g., pricing new products). Others are non-decomposable and are challenging to break down (e.g., selecting creative work for advertising campaigns). The literature remains divided on whether expertize aids decision-makers in addressing these different decision tasks, as well as how different decision-making processes (critical analysis, intuition, introspection) improve decision-makers' performance when they face these tasks. Using experiments with comparative samples of senior marketing managers (experts) and general public participants (non-experts), we test whether expertize provides advantages when making decisions. Our results suggest that experts perform better than the general public with decomposable decision tasks, though not with non-decomposable decision tasks. Furthermore, decision-makers who rely on critical analysis perform better compared to intuition when addressing decomposable decision tasks, but the decision process is less important with non-decomposable decision tasks. These findings provide insight into the conceptual boundaries of marketing professionals' expertize. Managers could apply these insights to potentially save resources (e.g., time, finances) by delegating decisions to more junior staff or even by leveraging external counsel through crowdsourcing.
营销专家总是对的......不是吗?区分专家和决策过程的影响
营销专家的任务是做出影响公司业绩的重要决策。有些决策任务是可分解的,可以分解成更小的部分(如为新产品定价)。另一些则不可分解,难以细分(如为广告活动选择创意作品)。关于专业技能是否能帮助决策者完成这些不同的决策任务,以及不同的决策过程(批判性分析、直觉、自省)如何提高决策者在面对这些任务时的表现,目前的文献仍存在分歧。我们使用高级营销经理(专家)和普通公众参与者(非专家)的比较样本进行实验,检验专家是否能在决策时提供优势。我们的结果表明,在可分解的决策任务中,专家的表现优于普通大众,但在不可分解的决策任务中,专家的表现则不尽相同。此外,与直觉相比,依赖批判性分析的决策者在处理可分解的决策任务时表现更好,但在处理不可分解的决策任务时,决策过程就不那么重要了。这些发现让我们深入了解了营销专业人员的专业概念界限。管理者可以运用这些见解,将决策权下放给更初级的员工,甚至通过众包的方式利用外部顾问,从而节省资源(如时间、资金)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信