Why Marshall
Leadership
Dean Geoffrey Garrett
Dean's Cabinet
Boards
Real-World Learning
Human Leadership
Tech Fluency
Global Opportunities
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Teaching + Innovation
Experiential Learning Center
Open Expression Statement
Programs
Undergraduate Programs
Admissions
Degrees
BS Business Administration (BUAD)
Business Emphases
BS Accounting (ACCT)
World Bachelor in Business (WBB)
BS Business of Cinematic Arts (BCA)
BS Artificial Intelligence for Business (BUAI)
Undergraduate Minors
Graduate Programs
MBA Programs
Full-Time MBA (FTMBA)
Executive MBA (EMBA)
Part-Time MBA (MBA.PM)
International MBA (IBEAR)
Online MBA (OMBA)
Specialized Masters
MS Business Administration (MSBUSAD)
MS Business Analytics (MSBA)
MS Entrepreneurship + Innovation (MSEI)
MS Finance (MSF)
MS Global Supply Chain Management (MSGSCM)
MS Marketing (MSMKT)
MS Social Entrepreneurship (MSSE)
Master of Business for Veterans (MBV)
Master of Management Studies (MMS)
Accounting Masters
Master of Accounting (MAcc)
Master of Business Taxation (MBT)
Master of Business Taxation for Working Professionals (MBT.WP)
PhD Program
Accounting
Data Sciences + Operations
Finance
Management + Organization
Marketing
Graduate Certificates
GC in Business Analytics
GC in Financial Analysis + Valuation
GC in Management Studies
GC in Marketing
GC in Optimization + Supply Chain Management
GC in Strategy + Management Consulting
GC in Sustainability + Business
GC in Technology Commercialization
GC in Library and Information Management – Online
Executive Education Redirect
Departments
Business Communication (BUCO)
Faculty
Data Sciences and Operations (DSO)
Finance + Business Economics (FBE)
Leventhal School of Accounting (ACCT)
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies (BAEP)
Management and Organization (MOR)
Marketing (MKT)
Institutes + Centers
Peter Arkley Institute for Risk Management
Brittingham Social Enterprise Lab
Center for Investment Studies
Initiative on Digital Competition
Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute
Center for Effective Organizations
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
VanEck Digital Assets Initiative
Institute for Outlier Research in Business
Center for Global Innovation
Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making
Trojan Network
Recruiting
Undergraduate
Graduate
Career Services
Giving + Support
Alumni Engagement + Resources
Student Organizations
Commencement
Joe Priester is an expert in the field of Consumer Psychology in which he explores the psychological processes underlying consumer behavior. His research focuses on how evaluative judgments guide thoughts, feelings, and behavior. He has written and edited academic books, as well as having published chapters and papers. His research has appeared in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Consumer Research, and Psychological Science. He is the co-editor of the ``Research Dialogue'' section of Journal of Consumer Psychology.
Areas of Expertise
RESEARCH + PUBLICATIONS
The phenomenon of creativity spans research topics across Marketing and Consumer Behavior. Interest in, and research on, creativity has grown over the past several decades. With this heightened attention comes the question of how best to conceptualize and measure creativity. This question is addressed by reviewing the conceptualizations and measures used in the psychological study of creativity. From this review we build a framework by which to analyze papers from the Journal of Consumer Research and the Journal of Marketing Research. Based upon this analysis, we provide recommendations and best practices for future research. Of particular importance, we recommend the use of convergent problem-solving tasks in combination with ratings of novelty and usefulness reported separately. Such measures allow one to distinguish between instances of effective-creativity (when an idea is both novel and useful) and instances of quasi-creativity (when an idea is novel but lacks usefulness). The importance of the framework to research and analysis beyond the experimental paradigm is discussed.
When,why, and how does interpersonal forgiveness occur? These questions have generated a wealth of findings, from which have emerged two broad theoretical perspectives by which to understand the forgiveness process. One perspective suggests that empathy underlies forgiveness,whereas the other suggests that motivated reasoning underlies forgiveness. Of note is that the two models have not been directly tested against one another. Thislack of comparison between the models represents an important barrier to a fuller and richer understanding of the nature of forgiveness. The present research addresses this gap. To provide a test of the two perspectives, we first synthesize and link prior research associated with motivated reasoning to advance a more general model of motivated reasoning. This model hypothesizes that relationship closeness leads to a desire to maintainthe relationship, this desire leads to motivated reasoning, and this motivation leads to interpersonal forgiveness. We then compare the relative ability of the two perspectives to predict forgiveness when controlling for one another. When estimated simultaneously, the model of motivated interpersonal forgiveness significantly predicts forgiveness, whereas the empathy model does not. The superiority of the model of motivated interpersonal forgivenessreplicates across three studies.
Disagreement exists as to the psychological processes underlying reports of evaluative judgments, with some theorists suggesting that attitudes can be retrieved and used to guide evaluative judgments, and others suggesting that such judgments are the result of construction, wherein evaluative judgments are constructed on the spot, and as needed. We propose the attitude strength moderation model, which predicts that evaluative judgments of an object associated with strong attitudes are often the result of retrieval processes, whereas the evaluative judgments associated with weak attitudes are often the result of construction processes. We examine these hypotheses in three experiments. The first and second experiments compare response latencies to sequential evaluative and attribute judgments. The third experiment uses eye-tracking. All three experiments provide support for the attitude strength moderation model.