Sign In

Mohamed A. Hussein

Assistant Professor of Marketing at Columbia Business School. I study the psychology of persuasion, politics, and their intersection.

Mohamed A. Hussein

Mohamed A. Hussein is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Columbia Business School, where he studies the psychology of persuasion, politics, and their intersection.1346 He earned his PhD from Stanford Graduate School of Business.16

Some key facts about Professor Hussein:

  • He uses survey experiments, conjoint analysis, and natural language processing in his research23
  • His teaching experience includes Marketing Management (Core)5
  • He has given invited talks at UC Berkeley Haas, UCLA Anderson, and other leading institutions7
  • His LinkedIn username is mohamed-hussein-2bb6642348

Professor Hussein is an active researcher and speaker, sharing his insights on topics like consumers' aversion to managing mental health using AI.5 He is making important contributions to the fields of marketing, consumer psychology, and political psychology.

Highlights

Aug 16 · linkedin

New paper out in Journal of Consumer Research.

In the most recent elections, Democrats did something strange. They spent $53 million on ads helping far-right Republicans win Republican primaries.

Their goal? To boost their own chances in the general election by helping candidates who are easier to defeat.

How do consumers react to this novel advertising strategy, which we call meddle ads?

✅Consumers might tolerate, or even support, meddle ads. Polarization is at an all time high. People want to keep the other party out of power.

🚫Consumers might be averse to meddle ads. Meddling feels underhanded. It is also risky—in two different ways.

a. Meddling could backfire. It’s a new and unproved strategy. An extreme candidate could end up winning (outcome risk).

b. Meddling could erode people’s trust in democracy. If people stop believing, our system could unravel (system risk).

So, what did we find?

We consistently find that consumers (N = 7,740) are averse to the use of meddle ads--even from candidates from their own party. Consumers donated smaller amounts to, reported more negative attitudes towards, and spoke more negatively about candidates who used meddle ads.

This aversion is remarkably robust! It emerged across: ‣ different measures of aversion (choice, donations, attitudes, word-of-mouth)

‣ different control conditions (no information, issue ads, attack ads, microtargeting)

‣ different paradigms (conjoint, vignette studies, NLP analysis of online comments)

This aversion is driven by 3 factors:

  1. Concerns about character of the candidate (immoral)
  2. Concerns about outcome risk (losing elections)
  3. Concerns about system risk (losing trust in democracy)

We see the contribution of this work as: (1) Encouraging more work on #political #marketing (2) Contributing to the #advertising literature by highlighting a novel and increasingly prominent type of ads (meddle ads) (3) Identifying a new type of risk perceptions (#system_risk) (4) Offering practical guidance to #marketing #managers on how to navigate the use of meddle ads.

Apr 20 · linkedin

New paper out in JEP:GEN!

How do we react to people who are receptive to opposing political views?

There is a fast-growing literature on receptiveness. It finds that we like people who are receptive to opposing political views. We think of receptive people as smart, thoughtful, and collaborative. But, research from political science finds that Americans dislike out-partisans; they think of them as unintelligent and immoral. How could it be that we like people who receptive, when we think the ideas and the people they are receptive to are repugnant?

Across 16 studies, we find that receptiveness to political opponents has reputational costs, not benefits. When people are receptive to opposing views coming from members of the opposing party, receptiveness backfires.

These costs-of-receptiveness are remarkably robust! They emerge across: ‣ 8 hot-button issues ‣ Weak & strong signals of receptiveness ‣ Different types of out-party sources ‣ Different methods (conjoint analysis, NLP analysis of online comments, vignette studies)

For example, on political subreddits, we find that people reward receptiveness. Except if receptiveness is directed toward political opponents. In such cases, the more receptive a comment is, the fewer likes it receives.

These costs-of-receptiveness occur because observers tend to stereotype out-partisans as immoral (above and beyond incompetent or unfriendly) and hence penalize others who are open to their immoral ideas.

These costs reverse or attenuate when receptive people are receptive to opposing ideas coming from ... ‣ in-party members ‣ someone whose partisan identity is unknown ‣ non-prototypical out-party sources ‣ out-party sources who humanize and individuate themselves

So what? This research suggests that

  1. polarization is, in part, driven by reputational mechanisms. People punish others who are receptive—so people avoid being receptive.

  2. if you're a politician who wants people from the other party to listen to you without reputational costs, change what you post. You want to break away from the immorality stereotype. You can do that by posting pictures and stories that humanize you in the eyes of your audience

Related Questions

What are Mohamed A. Hussein's main research interests?
How does Mohamed A. Hussein's work integrate psychology and politics?
What courses does Mohamed A. Hussein teach at Columbia Business School?
What are some notable publications by Mohamed A. Hussein?
How did Mohamed A. Hussein transition from Stanford to Columbia?
Mohamed A. Hussein
Mohamed A. Hussein, photo 1
Mohamed A. Hussein, photo 2
Add to my network

Location

New York, New York, United States