The final presentation for Consumer Behavior at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. We explore various consumer behaviorial theories especially with regards to choice sets and consumers' subsequent actions.

1. Multi-Level
Engagement
System
Team Kinetic Synergy:
Anne Bancroft, Joivonnah
Childs, Jack Chu, Adrian Lin,
Thomas Nance & Melissa
Wong

2. Roadmap
Background
Experimental Design
Results & Analyses
Recommendations
Q&A Session

3. Switch2Health Corporation
“Switch2Health believes the Best
Motivation to getting active is a Nice
Reward in the end...don’t you?”
Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis
Background

4. Motivation
Some users hoard points.
Perhaps they derive some sort of
utility or satisfaction from the act
of accumulating points.
– Seth Tropper
Background
Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis

5. Choice Theory
Too much choice can:
Background
Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis
Decrease
Motivation
Impair
Decisions
Lower
Satisfaction
Increase
Choice
Complexity
Increase
Regret
Increase
Indecisions
_______________________________________
Thus, the more items within a
given choice set, the greater the
indecision and the potential for
regret from a wrong choice or
lack thereof.
_______________________________________

6. Hypothesis
 Decreasing the number of items within
a choice set will decrease user’s
potential regret
 This will lead to 4 results:
 Increased likelihood of making a choice
 Increased satisfaction
 Increased motivation
 Increased engagement
Background
Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis

7. Multi-Level Engagement
System
 Creative solution to increase the number
of choice sets while decreasing the
number of items within each choice set
The Big Idea
Current Rewardsr
Foot
Locker
Wii
Amazon
Current Rewards
System
Bronze
Foot
Locker
Silver
Amazon
Gold
Wii
Bronze Level
(600-1,499 Points)
Silver Level
(1,500-2499 Points)
Gold Level
(2,500+ Points)
Value of Rewards

8. Structure
 Structure: Experiment +
Survey
 Background:
 Simulate S2H
experience to achieve
external validity
 Experimental Conditions:
 Control Group (Single
Choice Set)
 Experimental Group
(Multiple Choice Sets)
Structure Participants Variables
Experimental Design
Computer Game: Lint

9. Participants
 Convenience Sample
(N = 32)
 College Students
• Penn students
• Ages 18-22
 Randomization
 Used randomizer in JMP
to assign participants
into experimental
conditions
Experimental Design
Structure Participants Variables
53%
47%
Demographics:
Gender
Females Males
12%
37%38%
13%
Demographics:
Race
African
Asian
White
Other

10. Variables
 Dependent Variables:
 Satisfaction of Redemption Decision (Satisfaction)
 Ease of Redemption Decision (Satisfaction)
 Amount of Point Accumulation (Motivation)
 Point Redemption (Likelihood of Making a Choice)
 Intention to Play Again (Engagement)
 Independent Variable:
 Number of Choice Sets
• Increase number of choice sets to decrease the
number of items within choice sets
Experimental Design
Structure Participants Variables

11. Overview
78%
22%
Point Redemption
Yes No
Overview Hypothesis Testing
Results
Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 =
Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied
Satisfaction Scores (Mean)
Rewards 5.03
Satisfaction Scores (Mean)
Redemption 6.2
Satisfaction Scores (Mean)
No Redemption 7.33

12. Hypothesis Testing: Part 1
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will reduce user’s potential
regret
 Key Dependent Variable to Measure:
Satisfaction of Redemption Decision
Overview Hypothesis Testing
Results
Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied
5.8 6.476.8 8
1
6
Without Levels With Levels
Satisfaction
Scores(Mean)
Satisfaction
Redemption
No Redemption
R2 ≈ 0.061 (r ≈ 0.247)
p-value ≈ 0.5952
R2 ≈ 0.310 (r ≈ 0.557)
p-value ≈ 0.0541

13. Hypothesis Testing: Part 2
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase the likelihood of
making a choice
 Key Dependent Variable to Measure:
Point Redemption
Results
67%
88%
33%
12%
0%
50%
100%
Without Levels With Levels
Percentage of Point Redemption
No Redemption
Redemption
R2 ≈ 0.066 (r ≈ 0.256)
p-value ≈ 0.1371
Overview Hypothesis Testing

14. Hypothesis Testing: Part 3
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase satisfaction
 Key Dependent Variables to Measure:
Satisfaction of Redemption Decision &
Ease of Redemption Decision
Results
Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied
5.8 6.476.8 8
1
6
Without Levels With Levels
Satisfaction
Scores(Mean)
Satisfaction
Redemption
No Redemption
Ease of Decision Scores: 1 = Difficult, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Easy
4.8 5.13
8.56
4.5
1
6
Without Levels With Levels
EaseofDecision
Scores(Mean)
Ease of Decision
Redemption
No Redemption
R2 ≈ 0.061 (r ≈ 0.247)
p-value ≈ 0.5952
R2 ≈ 0.310 (r ≈ 0.557)
p-value ≈ 0.0541
R2 ≈ 0.237 (r ≈ 0.487)
p-value ≈ 0.0019
R2 ≈ 0.367 (r ≈ 0.605)
p-value ≈ 0.0430
Overview Hypothesis Testing

15. Hypothesis Testing: Part 4
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase motivation
 Key Dependent Variables to Measure:
Average Points Accumulated & Average
Time Played
Results
1472
1827
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Without Levels With Levels
PointsAccumulated
Average Points Accumulated
12.27
15.22
0
5
10
15
20
Without Levels With Levels
TimePlayed
(Minutes)
Average Time Played
R2 ≈ 0.037 (r ≈ 0.192)
p-value ≈ 0.2932
Overview Hypothesis Testing

16. Hypothesis Testing: Part 5
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase engagement
 Key Dependent Variables to Measure:
Intention to Play Again
Results
26.70%
58.80%
73.30%
41.20%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Without Levels With Levels
Intention to Play Again
No
Yes
R2 ≈ 0.0782 (r ≈ 0.279)
p-value ≈ 0.0641
Overview Hypothesis Testing
7.24
1
3
5
7
9
Leveling
Motivation
Motivation Scores: 1 = Unmotivated, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Motivated
6.9
1
3
5
7
9
Leveling
Satisfaction
Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied

17. Implications
 Increase the number of choice sets to
decrease the number of items within a given
choice set
 Higher Satisfaction & Ease of Decision
Recommendations
Implications
Further
Research
Implementation

18. Areas of Improvement for
Further Research
 Sampling
 Increase sample size
 Make it more representative of customers
 Experimental Design
 Increase number of experimental conditions
(within-participant designs)
 Conduct field experiment with current users on
s2h.com platform
 Better simulate S2H experience (duration of study,
length of experiment, game, and rewards)
Implications
Further
Research
Implementation
Recommendations

19. Implementation Suggestions
 Organization beyond Engagement System
 Segmenting Rewards by Gender
 Product Advertisement by Physical Activities
Recommendations
Implications
Further
Research
Implementation

20. Put Your Hands Up For S2H!
Thank You!
Any Questions?
Q&A Session

21. Appendix
Appendix

22. Other Data Analyses
19%
81%
Familiarity with
Computer Game
(Lint)
Yes
No
Appendix
5.97
1
3
5
7
9
Likeability
LikeabilityScores
(Mean)
Computer Game
(Lint)
Likeability Scores: 1 = Dislike, 5.5 = Indifferent,
10 = Like

23. Other Data Analyses
75%
25%
Helpfulness of a
Hypothetical Leveling
Structure
Yes
No
80%
20%
Control Condition
Yes
No
71%
29%
Experimental Condition
Yes
No

24. Other Data Analyses
 Number of Rewards Attempted
Appendix

25. Other Data Analyses
 Number of Rewards Achieved
Appendix

26. Group 1 Survey Questions
Appendix

27. Appendix

28. Appendix

29. Appendix

30. Appendix

31. Appendix

32. Appendix

33. Appendix

34. Appendix

35. Appendix

36. Group 2 Survey Questions
Appendix

37. Appendix

38. Appendix

39. Appendix

40. Appendix

41. Appendix

42. Appendix

43. Appendix

44. Appendix

45. Appendix

46. Appendix

47. Appendix

48. Appendix

49. Demographics Questions
Appendix

50. Appendix

51. Appendix

52. Appendix

53. Appendix

54. Appendix