The Experts below are selected from a list of 789459 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Pesch, Anja Maria - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Semiotic landscapes as constructions of multilingualism – a case study of two kindergartens
'Informa UK Limited', 2021Co-Authors: Pesch, Anja MariaAbstract:This article explores the construction of multilingualism in the semiotic landscapes of two kindergartens, one in Norway and one in Germany. Semiotic landscape is here understood as the visual linguistic environment, including various semiotic resources, such as texts, symbols, drawings or pictures. In kindergarten, semiotic landscapes construct and transform views on languages and multilingualism as well as pedagogical aims. The data material for this study was collected during ethnographic fieldwork. Using a nexus analytic approach the paper explores which discourses on multilingualism are constructed in the semiotic landscapes, whose voices are represented and which Interaction Order they involve. While the semiotic landscape in the Norwegian kindergarten constructs the kindergarten as multilingual, the semiotic landscape in the German kindergarten points to a predominance of German. However, a closer analysis also shows practices that erase linguistic diversity and devalue multilingualism in the Norwegian kindergarten and practices that encourage multilingualism in the German kindergarten. An important part of this is the oral communication practice which at times contrasts the overall discourses in the semiotic landscapes
-
Semiotic landscapes as constructions of multilingualism – a case study of two kindergartens
'Informa UK Limited', 2021Co-Authors: Pesch, Anja MariaAbstract:© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any wayThis article explores the construction of multilingualism in the semiotic landscapes of two kindergartens, one in Norway and one in Germany. Semiotic landscape is here understood as the visual linguistic environment, including various semiotic resources, such as texts, symbols, drawings or pictures. In kindergarten, semiotic landscapes construct and transform views on languages and multilingualism as well as pedagogical aims. The data material for this study was collected during ethnographic fieldwork. Using a nexus analytic approach the paper explores which discourses on multilingualism are constructed in the semiotic landscapes, whose voices are represented and which Interaction Order they involve. While the semiotic landscape in the Norwegian kindergarten constructs the kindergarten as multilingual, the semiotic landscape in the German kindergarten points to a predominance of German. However, a closer analysis also shows practices that erase linguistic diversity and devalue multilingualism in the Norwegian kindergarten and practices that encourage multilingualism in the German kindergarten. An important part of this is the oral communication practice which at times contrasts the overall discourses in the semiotic landscapes.publishedVersio
Simona Spedale - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
micro Interaction dynamics in group decision making face games Interaction Order and boundary work
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2011Co-Authors: Gerardo Patriotta, Simona SpedaleAbstract:Summary Drawing on Goffman's face theory, this paper documents and interprets the micro Interaction dynamics underlying group decision making within a consultancy task force. Our analysis suggests that decision making is an instance of strategic face-to-face behavior where individuals seek to influence each other and reach decisions by means of face-work and self-presentation tactics. Moreover, face-to-face behavior generates an ‘Interaction Order’ that frames the decision making situation and constrains further Interactions among decision makers. We discuss the implications that can be drawn from the observed case by relating our findings to the emergent stream of studies on micro-decision making.
Jackie Marsh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
young children s literacy practices in a virtual world establishing an online Interaction Order
Reading Research Quarterly, 2011Co-Authors: Jackie MarshAbstract:This study examined the literacy practices of children ages 5–11 as they engaged in out-of-school use of virtual worlds. The purpose of the study was to explore the nature, purpose, and role of literacy in children's use of a virtual world. In this article, I reflect on how children's use of literacy practices in the virtual world constructed and maintained an online social Order. One hundred seventy-five children in an English primary school completed an online survey from which their use of virtual worlds was examined. Individual and group interviews were then conducted with 26 children across the year. The interviews established that children used the virtual worlds to extend contact with peers they had regular Interaction with in the offline world. Further, three 11-year-old children were filmed at home as they used the virtual world Club Penguin. Additional interviews were conducted with the three children and their parents. Data analysis focused on the ways in which children drew on specific literacy practices to construct and maintain an Interaction Order. A key finding is that literacy operates as a means of developing online social cohesion, but the literacy practices that serve this function are located within the social, material, and cultural structures in which the children operate in the offline world and thus cannot be viewed in isolation from these wider discourses. تناولت هذه الدراسة تطبيقات القراءة و الكتابة لدى الأطفال الذين تتراوح أعمارهم بين 5 و 11 سنة، عندما شاركوا خارج المدرسة في كيفية استخدام العالم الافتراضي. وقد كان الغرض من هذه الدراسة توليد بنيات نظرية ذات أسس قوية عن كيفية استخدام الأطفال لممارسة القراءة والكتابة في بنيات العالم الافتراضي والإبقاء على نظام اجتماعي عبر الإنترنيت. قام 175 طفلا من إحدى المدارس الابتدائية الإنجليزية بالإجابة على أسئلة دراسة عبر الإنترنيت حيث تم بحث استخدامهم للعالم الافتراضي. وأجريت كذلك مقابلات انفرادية وجماعية على ستة وعشرين طفلا طوال السنة. أثبتت المقابلات أن الأطفال قد استخدموا العالم الافتراضي من أجل توسيع الاتصال مع أقرانهم الذين يتفاعلون معهم بصورة منتظمة في العالم الحالي. وعلاوة على ذلك، فقد تم تصوير ثلاثة أطفال في سن الحادية عشرة وهم في بيوتهم عندما استخدموا نادي العالم الافتراضي Penguin™. أجريت مقابلات إضافية مع الأطفال الثلاثة وآباءهم. وركزت التحليلات البيانية على السبل التي اعتمد عليها أثناء ممارسة قراءات وكتابات محددة من أجل بناء و المحافظة على "نظام تفاعلي" (غوفمان، 1983). النتيجة الرئيسية التي تم التوصل إليها هي أن القراءة والكتابة يعملان كوسيلة لتطوير التماسك الاجتماعي عبر الإنترنيت، بيد أن ممارسات القراءة والكتابة التي تقوم بهذه الوظيفة توجد داخل البنيات الاجتماعية والمادية والثقافية التي يعمل فيها الأطفال خلال العالم الحالي، ولذلك لا يمكن النظر إليها بمعزل عن هذه الخطابات الواسعة النطاق. 本研究考查5至11岁儿童在校外使用虚拟世界时所投入的读写文化实践。本研究旨在创建扎根理论建构来解释在虚拟世界中，儿童的读写文化实践使用，如何构建及维持线上的社交秩序。就读于一所英文小学的175名儿童，完成一项考查儿童如何使用虚拟世界的线上调查。在该学年中，26名儿童接受进一步的个别及小组访谈调查。结果证实，儿童利用虚拟世界来扩展他们朋辈间在离线世界中经常交往之联系。此外，三名11岁儿童在家里使用虚拟世界《企鹅俱乐部》的情形均被摄录下来，而该三名儿童及其父母随后也接受进一步的访谈调查。研究资料分析主要集中在儿童如何凭藉着特有的读写文化实践来构建及维持一种「互动秩序」（Goffman, 1983）。一个关键的研究结果就是，读写文化实践的运作，是作为发展线上社会凝聚力的一种手段，但产生这种功能的读写文化实践，却是存在于儿童在离线世界里的社会、物质与文化结构之中，因此，这些读写文化实践的运作，是不能以一个孤立于其较广泛的话语的观点来看待。 Cette recherche porte sur les pratiques de litteratie d'enfants de 5 a 11 ans quand ils vont dans des mondes virtuels en dehors de l'ecole. Cette etude avait pour but d'elaborer des concepts theoriques solides sur la facon dont les enfants se servent des pratiques de litteratie dans le monde des concepts du monde virtuel et conservent un ordre social en ligne. Cent soixante et quinze enfants d'une ecole primaire anglophone ont repondu a une enquete en ligne portant sur leur utilisation des mondes virtuels. Il a ete ensuite procede a des entretiens individuels et de groupes avec 26 enfants tout au long de l'annee. Ces entretiens ont montre que les enfants utilisent les mondes virtuels pour etendre leurs contacts avec les pairs avec lesquels ils sont en Interaction dans le monde hors ligne. De plus, trois enfants de 11 ans ont ete filmes chez eux lorsqu'ils allaient dans le monde virtuel du Club Penguin™. On a egalement realise d'autres entretiens avec ces trois enfants et leurs parents. L'analyse des donnees a ete centree sur la facon dont les enfants tirent parti des pratiques specifiques de litteratie pour construire et maintenir un “ordre interactif” (Goffman, 1983). Le principal resultat est que la litteratie agit comme un moyen de developper la cohesion sociale en ligne, mais que les pratiques de litteratie qui servent a cette fonction sont situees dans les structures sociales, materielles et culturelles dans lesquelles les enfants agissent dans le monde hors ligne et ne peuvent donc etre considerees independamment de ces discours plus larges. Авторы исследовали вербальное общение детей 5–11 лет за стенами школы – в виртуальных мирах. Цель исследования состояла в том, чтобы дать теоретические обоснования упорядоченного диалогового поведения детей в Интернете. Сто семьдесят пять учащихся начальной школы в Англии заполнили он-лайн анкету, связанную с использованием ими виртуального пространства. В течение года были проведены индивидуальные и групповые интервью с 26 детьми. Эти беседы показали, что дети используют виртуальное общение для расширения контактов с теми сверстниками, с которыми они регулярно взаимодействуют в реальной жизни. Затем трех одиннадцатилетних детей снимали на видеокамеру, когда они общались с домашних компьютеров с участниками всемирного виртуального игрового Пингвин-Клуба. С этими детьми и их родителями были проведены дополнительные интервью. Данные анализировались, прежде всего, с точки зрения конкретной словесной практики, которая помогает детям выстраивать виртуальное взаимодействие и “соблюдать порядок общения” (Goffman, 1983). Ключевой вывод состоит в том, что навыки грамотности являются средством развития сетевых социальных связей, но сами эти навыки лежат в плоскости социальных, материальных и культурных структур, в которых дети взаимодействуют в реальном мире, и поэтому их нельзя рассматривать изолированно от других видов дискурса. En este estudio se examinaron las practicas de alfabetizacion de ninos desde los 5 hasta los 11 anos en cuanto al uso de mundos virtuales fuera de la escuela. Este estudio se hizo para generar constructos teoricos basicos sobre como el uso de las practicas de alfabetizacion de los ninos en el mundo virtual construyen y apoyan el orden social en linea. Ciento setenta y cinco estudiantes de una escuela primaria inglesa completaron una encuesta en linea en el que se les preguntaba sobre su uso de mundos virtuales. Se entrevistaron a 26 ninos en grupos y por individual por un ano. En estas entrevistas se averiguo que los ninos usaban los mundos virtuales para ampliar el contacto con los mismos coetaneos con los que tenian contacto regular en su tiempo fuera de linea. Ademas, se filmaron tres ninos de 11 anos en sus casas mientras usaban el mundo virtual Club Penguin™. Se hicieron otras entrevistas con estos tres ninos y sus padres. El analisis de los datos se enfoco en la manera en que los ninos se servian de las practicas de alfabetizacion para construir y conservar un ‘orden de interaccion’ (Goffman, 1983). Un hallazgo clave es que la alfabetizacion si funciona como un medio para desarrollar cohesion social en linea, pero las practicas de alfabetizacion que cumplen esta funcion se encuentran dentro de las estructuras sociales, materiales y culturales en las que operan los ninos en el mundo fuera de linea y por lo tanto no pueden ser consideradas fuera de dichos discursos mas amplios.
Gerardo Patriotta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
micro Interaction dynamics in group decision making face games Interaction Order and boundary work
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2011Co-Authors: Gerardo Patriotta, Simona SpedaleAbstract:Summary Drawing on Goffman's face theory, this paper documents and interprets the micro Interaction dynamics underlying group decision making within a consultancy task force. Our analysis suggests that decision making is an instance of strategic face-to-face behavior where individuals seek to influence each other and reach decisions by means of face-work and self-presentation tactics. Moreover, face-to-face behavior generates an ‘Interaction Order’ that frames the decision making situation and constrains further Interactions among decision makers. We discuss the implications that can be drawn from the observed case by relating our findings to the emergent stream of studies on micro-decision making.
Itamar Simonson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mission (Largely) Accomplished: What's Next for Consumer BDT-JDM Researchers? A Marketing Option for Consumer JDM Researchers: The Interaction between the Evolving Information Environment and Consumer JDM
2020Co-Authors: Itamar SimonsonAbstract:ABSTRACT A main objective of Behavioral Decision Theory (BDT) researchdemonstrating that economic theory often fails as a description of decision making as well as gaining insights into systematic influences on judgment and choice -has been largely accomplished. This influential research program, published in psychology, decision making, marketing, and other fields, has had unique characteristics that combined criteria employed in economics and psychology. Now that the prominent portion of the BDT agenda has been largely completed, it is time to consider whether the BDT and greater judgment and decision making (JDM) community in marketing will pursue a new direction or just follow the topics of the day (e.g., current topics in social psychology, public policy applications of previous JDM findings). I propose a broad research area -the Interaction between the evolving information environment and consumer JDM -that raises a wide range of important questions and may fit the skills and interests of BDT researchers. In addition to raising new JDM concepts and problems, the proposed area can lead to major revisions of long established frameworks of consumer behavior and marketing. It is far from obvious, however, that BDT researchers/ marketing professors, who are accustomed to studying general purpose JDM topics and are aligned with the broader JDM and social psychology community, will be receptive to a consumer-centric research program. * Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, itamars@stanford.edu. The article benefitted from the comments of Jim Bettman. This article has three related objectives. First, I argue that a main mission of research related to Behavioral Decision Theory (BDT) -demonstrating that economic theory often fails as a description of decision making and gaining insights into systematic influences on judgment and decision making (JDM) -has been accomplished. Thus, it is an opportune time to review the characteristics of BDT research and its impact within the consumer research and marketing fields. The second objective is to explore new research directions that BDT and, more broadly, JDM researchers who are also marketing professors might pursue now that a key purpose of their main research area has been largely achieved. I also briefly discuss the implications of the dual identity and research priorities of JDM-marketing faculty, who immigrated from psychology, for the selection of a future JDM research direction. My third objective is to propose a specific research area that is more marketing-focused than many BDT-JDM researchers have been accustomed to. In particular, I identify the Interaction between the evolving consumer information environment and decision making as an important and rich area that offers conceptually and practically interesting and important JDM and marketing questions. Sample research topics within this broad area, which can lead to a rewriting of much of the consumer behavior and marketing textbooks, are identified. It is a good time to have this discussion because, as suggested, the arguably most prominent and distinctive objective of BDT research has been largely accomplished. Relatedly, as I see it, today's JDM topics have less to offer than the JDM research of the 1970-1990s. Specifically, although at the present time we witness a growing interest in public policy applications of previous BDT and JDM findings, in my assessment relatively few important, conceptually new JDM topics have been introduced over the past decade or so. The judgment heuristics and biases Before proceeding, two important qualifications need to be stated. First, in the tradition of Kahneman and Tversky, I focus on the portion of BDT field that has used economic theory and, in particular, the assumption of value maximization as a benchmark, such as work pertaining to preference reversals. I devote less attention to BDT research about the process of choice, such as effort-accuracy tradeoffs Second, it should be emphasized that the below discussion of BDT research represents my views and is likely to misrepresent the views of some of the other researchers in this field. Like any large research community, the consumer and general BDT field has consisted of researchers with different views, employing different research methods, and having different tastes in research. The BDT Era: Accomplishments and Characteristics of BDT Research in Marketing and Beyond The Mission and Target Audience The BDT field has evolved in all likelihood following Simon's (e.g., 1956) path-breaking work on bounded rationality and the growing recognition that normative decision models are often violated as descriptive frameworks. A related consumer research topic that received a great deal of attention during the 1970s focused on decision strategies or rules that consumers use or, at least, might use (e.g., When the Huber et al. paper was published, demonstrations of violations of normative theories were not a mainstream consumer behavior topic. In those days, researchers were more interested, for example, in testing various aspects of the Ajzen and Fishbein (e.g., 1977) model regarding the relations between attitudes and behavior, such as whether the effect of attitudes on behavior is mediated by intentions. The consumer BDT literature expanded rapidly after the introduction of the attraction effect, demonstrating a wide range of context, task, and framing effects (for reviews, see, e.g., Simonson The target audience of consumer BDT research represented a wide range of fields, including marketing, economics, psychology, law, political science, and other fields. These target audiences have largely dictated the BDT research methods and criteria. Thus, BDT researchers in marketing and other fields tended to present empirical evidence that economists might find persuasive. At the same time, consumer BDT researchers had to answer to journal reviewers who relied on criteria that are typically applied in more psychology-oriented journals, demanding insights into processes, mediators, rival accounts, and boundary conditions. This combination of influences has created a unique set of research characteristics. Although there are certainly exceptions, by and large, economists tend not to be particularly interested in, nor do they trust, psychological theories and analyses of psychological processes. By contrast, demonstrations of preference reversals and various "effects" that are robust and are not susceptible to explanations based on existing normative theories receive attention because they can pose a hard to deny challenge to the notion of value maximization and other assumptions of economics. For example, economists went to great lengths to refute the original preference reversal Features of BDT Research As indicated, consumer BDT researchers have tended to conduct research and emphasize the criteria that could influence proponents of normative decision theories, particularly economists. The emphasis has been on "effects," many of which are quite robust whereas others are still debated (e.g., Consumer BDT researchers have tried to offer explanations for their effects, test the explanations, and identify moderators and boundary conditions. Less enthusiastically, but in some cases out of necessity (i.e., the need to get an article published in a journal), they also conducted mediation analyses. The two most influential JDM researchers, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, have not applied mediation analyses (e.g., the Baron and Kenny test); having discussed mediation and path analyses more generally with Amos Tversky, this avoidance was not by accident and reflected his skepticism regarding the value of such analyses in terms of providing insights into mental processes. As a reflection of Mission (Largely) Accomplished: What's Next for Consumer BDT-JDM Researchers? 13 the reluctance to say or assume more about underlying psychological processes than BDT researchers felt comfortable doing, they also tended to avoid "boxesand-arrows" type frameworks, the kind of frameworks that one later tries to support based on various measures (e.g., multiple ratings of construct proxies). BDT researchers, following the economists' research criteria, have had a preference for behavioral measures over ratings. There are, of course, many cases where the use of ratings is appropriate and/or unavoidable, but by and large, BDT researchers have tended to favor choice or other behavioral measures as dependent measures whenever possible. Not all criteria of the BDT target audience have been implemented. In particular, economists place great value on running studies in which respondents have real incentives. Consumer BDT researchers have not applied that rule nearly as much as economists, though possibly more than the typical consumer researcher. Realism in studies has also been an important consideration, though it has been applied inconsistently. There is little doubt that running studies that involve real or at least realistic stimuli and tasks is a major determinant of the impact of published consumer research. Thus, for example, Another (non-universal) tendency of many BDT researchers has been to prefer lower-Order (mostly two-way Interactions or even main effects) over higher-Order (three-way or even four-way) Interactions. Although one should be careful with over-generalizations, higher-Order Interactions often involve predictions and theoretical nuances that go beyond what many BDT researchers feel they can comfortably support regarding the underlying psychological process. Furthermore, I would hypothesize that there is a negative correlation between the Interaction Order and likelihood of replication -that is, higher Order Interactions are less likely to replicate, particularly if one were to vary the method, the specific manipulation, and/or the dependent measures. Consistent with the preference for lower-Order Interactions, BDT research has often involved what might be called minimalist tests. Minimalist tests attempt to capture broad phenomena using a seemingly simple, basic test. For example, showing that the addition of a third option to a two-option set can reverse the preference Order within the core set can offer important insights based on a very basic, simple test (e.g., The simplicity of minimalist studies often allows for tests with high internal validity that establish a cause-and-effect relation using a design that is less 14 Simonson susceptible to rival explanations. At the same time, the assumption is that the minimalist tests apply to a wide range of real world situations. The generalizability of the minimalist findings to the real world depends on the presence of real world confounding factors. As we have learned, context and details often matter. Thus, if reality is typically different in important ways, the lessons learned through controlled minimalist tests may not apply in many (or any) particular cases. This topic will be discussed further below when examining the implications of the current consumer information environment for research methods and the role of external validity. Considering that some of the things (e.g., mediation analyses) that consumer and other BDT researchers have tended to avoid have become the hallmarks or litmus tests of what many reviewers consider important for theory-based research, some in the consumer research field have referred to such research as "BDP" -Behavioral Decision Phenomena. So be it. As long as the phenomena lead to generalizable explanations (or frameworks) regarding judgment and decision making and are deemed interesting and publishable in their own right, it might be better to practice what you value most and avoid as much as possible what you value less or are skeptical of. Over time, observed effects/phenomena may often lead to theory development whether or not they were originally derived from prior theory (see also, Lynch et al. Moreover, consumer BDT research has had great impact in both marketing and on other fields, as reflected, for example, in the number of citations. Although this observation is not based on a systematic analysis, it appears that the number of citations in journals of other fields and disciplines to BDT work published in marketing journals is high relative to other behavioral research areas published in marketing journals. Furthermore, marketing BDT research has been of more interest and has received more attention from quantitative researchers in marketing than most other behavioral topics. As an indication of this interest, the premiere quantitative marketing journal, Marketing Science, has published over the years a number of influential BDT articles (e.g., The BDT Research Process Beyond research methods, the "debunk normative theory" mentality and the evaluation criteria used by the BDT audience have greatly influenced the skills of BDT researchers. Memorable, counterintuitive findings have had the greatest impact on the BDT audience, both the external audience (e.g., economists) and the internal audience (the BDT community). By contrast, refinements and increments to prior findings tended to be valued less. In other fields, such as social psychology, extending and building on existing theories is highly valued and doing "incremental" research is often seen as Mission (Largely) Accomplished: What's Next for Consumer an important contribution and the proper way to advance knowledge. By contrast, BDT researchers have been more likely to seek new effects, which are not derived from prior findings, and often tried to give the effects memorable names. Lynch et al. (2012) discuss the differences among alternative research styles, including their orientation -theory-driven vs. phenomenon-driven, and their intended contribution -understanding a substantive phenomenon vs. building or expanding theory. BDT research cannot be easily classified along these dimensions, because (a) in some respects it is theory-driven, or, at least, goes against an established theory, but in most respects it is phenomenon-driven, and (b) it often tries to gain insights into a substantive phenomenon while also trying to expand theory. A further, related distinction can be made based on the manner in which the researcher arrives at a topic. If we were to classify research topics on a scale that goes from "building on" (Lynch et al. (2012) theory-driven) at one end to "fishing" at the other end, BDT would be closer to the "fishing" extreme than most other areas of consumer and psychology topics (and I would be close to the extreme fishing edge among consumer BDT researchers). Effective "fishing" can lead to new insights and raise significant questions about existing theories. Arguably, good fishing is more likely to generate new research directions and significant new insights than research that is derived from existing theories. The challenge is to identify interesting questions, in many cases without having a solid basis for forming strong hypotheses or even the direction of an effect. However, to the extent that an interesting question yields a difference or an effect and that result proves to be robust (i.e., it replicates), this can often lead to a worthwhile contribution. To illustrate based on my personal experience, eventual generalizations regarding the effect of making multiple choices simultaneously on variety seeking and the effect of anticipating regret and responsibility on choice started from mere questions with no specific hypotheses in mind It is noteworthy that recognizing the size of a candidate "fish" is often difficult, because what may initially appear like a big fish may turn out later to be an insignificant or nonreplicable finding whereas a small fish may turn out later to represent a much bigger topic than originally thought. To again illustrate from personal experience, while still a student Ravi Dhar conjectured that a person who flies first class or coach at different times and also takes either a taxi or a (cheaper) shuttle bus to the airport would probably be more likely to take the taxi when flying first class. At the time we thought that this was a nice curiosity but nothing more. A few years later we recognized that this represented one of many cases in which the attribute values of one choice affect the preferred attribute values of another choice within the same episode 16 Simonson A "fishing" skill, which is likely an acquired and teachable skill, can be applied to almost any research area and is certainly not limited to identifying anomalous, "irrational" phenomena. As discussed below, the newly available secondary sources of information regarding consumer behavior on the Internet (including social media, shopping sites, etc.) offer fertile fishing grounds for potentially interesting research questions, which may then lead to theory development. In conclusion, the mission of showing the deficiencies of normative theory as a descriptive framework has been largely accomplished. This line of research and its target audience have led to the development of research methods and a research community with characteristics that combine criteria and methods from economics and psychology. A question that arises is whether the consumer BDT community would seek a common next mission or assimilate into related fields, studying various current topics in consumer behavior, JDM, and social psychology. Compared to a shared new direction, the latter option, that amounts to "let the chips fall where they may" without setting any agenda or shared goal, is more likely to happen, similar to most other defaults that do not require coordinated action or opting in. Next, I propose a promising new direction for consumer BDT researchers, which is more marketing-focused than previous consumer BDT research but may fit the skills that BDT researchers have acquired while achieving their previous agendas. What's Next for Consumer BDT Researchers? Given the conclusion that a key mission of BDT has largely run its course and reached the end of its lifecycle, a question that arises is whether the consumer BDT community would seek a new area or areas that fit its interests and skills and offer a broader mission, as opposed to assimilating into various current research areas and topics de jour . The consumer JDM community, perhaps more than other consumer behavior areas, consists of researchers with diverse backgrounds. Many researchers who moved to the consumer BDT area from social psychology continue to have strong ties to their original field and may pursue current issues in psychology. These and other researchers in marketing and other JDM-related fields have increasingly focused on topics with public policy implications, such as health and nutrition, nudges, the environment, financial decisions, aging, and a variety of other policy-relevant subjects. Such topics, for the most part, build on already established general principles and observations regarding judgment and choice while demonstrating their implications and value to society and consumers. I propose a direction for BDT and other consumer researchers that is marketing-and consumer behavior-centric. Instead of dealing with topics that have some marketing relevance, the proposed area puts consumer behavior Mission (Largely) Accomplished: What's Next for Consumer and related marketing fundamentals at the forefront. As I argue below, this direction is rich and promising from both conceptual and applied perspectives, and it has implications not just for consumers and marketers but also for public policy. Before I elaborate on this marketing-focused area for BDT and other consumer researchers, it may be useful to address briefly the challenges of getting ex-BDT researchers to place a higher value on marketing-focused research. I asked leading consumer researchers who moved from psychology to marketing decades ago, including Joe Alba, Wes Hutchinson, and John Lynch, what caused them to become full-time consumer researchers almost as soon as they made their move. To paraphrase their responses, they were hired by the University of Florida Marketing Department to study consumer behavior. This was the expectation and understanding, and that is what they did. In the process, they became interested in consumer behavior questions (and went on to make major contributions to the literature and field and receive many awards). Thus, they almost instantly became part of the consumer behavior research community -their new home, with their psychology background being just that. Thirty years later, many things have changed, including the rapid development of the consumer behavior field, with an Order of magnitude more consumer behavior researchers. The current size of the consumer behavior research community has made it easier for "immigrant communities" to maintain their original identities and interests, in some cases keeping consumer behavior research as a lower priority necessity (this broad brush characterization varies of course across individuals). The consumer BDT field has been a particularly hospitable entry point for JDM researchers who joined the consumer behavior field from psychology, because many JDM topics apply to consumers as they do to other decision makers. For example, various framing, task, and context effects have raised issues that marketers, decision analysts, psychologists, political scientists, and economists consider important. Now, as I have proposed, things have changed