Context Effects
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Context Effects

on

  • 1,261 views

The influance of \'Need for Uniqueness\' on defferent context effects

The influance of \'Need for Uniqueness\' on defferent context effects

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,261
Views on SlideShare
1,257
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

3 Embeds 4

http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://www.lmodules.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Context Effects Presentation Transcript

  • 1. The moderating role of consumers’ need for uniqueness on context-dependent choice:
    ‘The high-quality-focus’
  • 2. ‘Need for uniqueness’ (NFU) Context dependent choice
    Simonson and Nowlis (2000):
    The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons
  • 3. ExamplesCNFU-S Dutch version:
    Als het gaat om producten die ik koop en de situaties waarin ik ze gebruik, dan heb ik ongewone gebruiken en regels.
    Hoe gangbaarder een product of merk is onder de bevolking, des te minder geïnteresseerd ik ben in het kopen ervan.
    Ik houd ervan om de heersende smaak van mensen die ik ken uit te dagen/ te prikkelen, door het kopen van dingen die zij niet zouden accepteren.
    Snijder and Fromkin (1977):
    ‘Need for Uniqueness’ (NFU)
    Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001):
    ‘Consumer Need for Uniqueness’ (CNFU)
    Ruvio, Shoham and Brenčič (2008):
    ‘Consumer Need for Uniqueness Short-form’ (CNFU-S)
  • 4.
  • 5.
  • 6. Classico
    ‘Decoy’
    Attraction effect
  • 7. Attraction effect
  • 8. 16%
    68%
    0%
    84%
    32%
    Attraction effect
  • 9. C1
    C2
    Compromise effect
  • 10. (€17,- /month)
    Compromise effect
  • 11. Compromise effect
  • 12. Indifference curve
  • 13. Based on Mourali, Böchenholt and Laroche (2007):
  • 14. The ‘high-quality-focus’
    Interpretation from Simonson and Nowlis (2000)
    Oudenhooven and Willemsen (2009)
  • 15. H1: People with high CNFU prefer ‘quality’ to ‘price’, relative to people with low CNFU.
    H2a: On average, people with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect than people with low CNFU.
    H2b: People with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect after the addition of a high quality alternative (ABC1), than after the addition of a low quality alternative (ABC2).
    H2c: According to the high-quality-focus, the relative difference in choice shares between the high and low quality options of a compromise set is larger for HCNFU than for LCNFU, in favour of the high quality alternative.
    H3: For people with high CNFU the attraction effect is reduced when a decoy targets the low quality alternative.
    H4: People with high CNFU, choosing the high quality option, pay less attention to attribute information than those choosing the low quality option, relative to people with low CNFU.
  • 16.
  • 17. Setup designed with MouselabWEB (Willemsen & Johnson, 2008)
  • 18. Choice set AB
    low quality high quality
    choice
    H1: People with high CNFU prefer ‘quality’ to ‘price’, relative to people with low CNFU.
    Ftime(1,136)= 1,017, ns.
    Ffrequency(1,136) = 3,485, p < 0,1
    tTFT-screen (143) = 3,22, p < 0,05
    χ2 (1)= 0,752, ns.
  • 19. Choice set AB
    Choice set AB
    low quality high quality
    choice
    low qualityhigh quality
    choice
    H2a: On average, people with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect than people with low CNFU.
    Choice set ABC2
    Choice set ABC1
    low quality target high quality
    choice
    low quality target high quality
    choice
    Average ΔPLCNFU = 4,8
    Average ΔPHCNFU = -4,1
  • 20. Choice set AB
    low qualityhigh quality
    choice
    H2b: People with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect after the addition of a high quality alternative (ABC1), than after the addition of a low quality alternative (ABC2).
    Choice set ABC2
    Choice set ABC1
    ΔPLCNFU = 4,7
    ΔPHCNFU = -8,9
    ΔPLCNFU = 4,8
    ΔPHCNFU = 0,7
    low quality target high quality
    choice
    low quality target high quality
    choice
  • 21. H2c: According to the high-quality-focus, the relative difference in choice shares between the high and low quality options of a compromise set is larger for HCNFU than for LCNFU, in favour of the high quality alternative.
    Relative shares high quality alternative ABC1
    LCNFU: 51,2 %
    HCNFU: 52,1%
    Relative shares high quality alternative ABC2
    LCNFU: 61,0 %
    HCNFU: 61,5%
  • 22. Choice set ABD1
    Choice set ABD2
    low qualitytarget decoy
    choice
    decoytarget high quality
    choice
    H3: For people with high CNFU the attraction effect is reduced when a decoy targets the low quality alternative.
    χ2 ABD1(1)= 0,341, ns.
    χ2 ABD2(1)= 0,890, ns.
  • 23. Choice set ABC2
    Choice set ABC1
    H4: People with high CNFU, choosing the high quality option, pay less attention to attribute information than those choosing the low quality option, relative to people with low CNFU.
    Choice set ABC2
    Choice set ABC1
    Ffrequency(1,85) = 1,936, ns.
    Ftime(1,85) = 6,300, p < 0,05
    Ffrequency(1,85)= 0,076, ns.
    Ftime(1,85)= 1,336, ns.
  • 24. For people with high CNFU the context effects are reduced
    The existence high-quality-focus is not confirmed
    Absolute reference point for compromise sets (for people with HCNFU)
    Applying CNFU for adaptive websites
  • 25. Assar, A. & Chakravarti, D. (1984). Attribute range knowledge: Effects on consumers' evaluation of brand attribute information and search patterns in choice. In Belk, R. W. (Ed.), Scientific Methods in Marketing, (pp. 62-67). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
    Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
    Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 111-139.
    Brily, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 157-178.
    Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
    Chang, C. C., & Liu, H. H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 25(9), 881-900.
    Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online Consumer Review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54(3), 477-491.
    Cortina, J. M. (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
    Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analyses of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189-200.
    Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146-160.
    Dobbs, J. L., Sloan, D. M., & Karpinski, A. (2006). A psychometric investigation of two self-report measures of emotional expressivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 693-702.
    Drolet, A., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (2000). Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 199-209.
    Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.
    Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior - theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22-27.
    Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268-284.
    Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
    Huber, J., & Puto, C. P. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-43.
    Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 5-15.
    Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G. (2004). Defaults and donation decisions. Transplantation 78(12), 1713-1716.
    Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004a). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237-257.
    Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004b). Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 262-268.
    Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4, 221-227.
    Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
    Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2005). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107-132). New York: Guilford.
    Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
    Luce, R. D. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 215-233.
    Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (2000). Coping with unfavorable attribute values in choice. Organizational Behavior en Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 274-299.
    Mourali, M. Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 234-247.
    Meyer, R., Johnson, E. (1995). Empirical reneralizations in the modeling of consumer choice. Marketing Science, 14(3), 180-189.
    Oudenhooven, P. G. J., & Willemsen, M. C. (2009) Invloed van ‘need for uniqueness’ op het compromiseffect: Zelfdevraagstelling, andereonderzoeksmethode. unpublished manuscript, Eindhoven University of Technology.
    Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers' need for uniqueness. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 444-464.
    Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Brenčič, M. M. (2008). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. Internationam Marketing Review, 25, 33-53.
    Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision-making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
    Schkade, D. A., & Kleinmuntz, D. N. (1994). Information displays and choice processes: Differential effects of organization, form, and sequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 319-337.
    Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11-36.
    Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 591-609.
    Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
    Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
    Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
    Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518-527.
    Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50-66.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
    Willemsen, M. C., & Bragt van, B. (2006). Vlab: Virtual lab [online application]. From <http://w3.vlab.nl/>
    Willemsen, M. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2008). MouselabWEB: Monitoring information acquisition processes on the web [online application]. From <http://www.mouselabweb.org/>
    Willemsen, M. C., & Keren, G. (2003). The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 342-359.
    Yoon, S. O., & Simonson, I. (2000). Choice set configuration as a determinant of preference attribution and strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 324-336.
    Internet source:
    StichtingiMMovator: Cross Media Network. (2009). Retrieved September 18, 2009, from <http://www.immovator.nl> and <http://www.immovator.nl/bijna-60-huishoudens-met-digitale-televisie>