Context Effects

1,694 views

Published on

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

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,694
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Context Effects

  1. 1. The moderating role of consumers’ need for uniqueness on context-dependent choice:<br />‘The high-quality-focus’<br />
  2. 2. ‘Need for uniqueness’ (NFU) Context dependent choice <br />Simonson and Nowlis (2000):<br />The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons<br />
  3. 3. ExamplesCNFU-S Dutch version:<br />Als het gaat om producten die ik koop en de situaties waarin ik ze gebruik, dan heb ik ongewone gebruiken en regels.<br />Hoe gangbaarder een product of merk is onder de bevolking, des te minder geïnteresseerd ik ben in het kopen ervan.<br />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.<br />Snijder and Fromkin (1977):<br />‘Need for Uniqueness’ (NFU)<br />Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001):<br />‘Consumer Need for Uniqueness’ (CNFU)<br />Ruvio, Shoham and Brenčič (2008):<br />‘Consumer Need for Uniqueness Short-form’ (CNFU-S)<br />
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6. Classico<br />‘Decoy’<br />Attraction effect<br />
  7. 7. Attraction effect<br />
  8. 8. 16%<br />68%<br />0%<br />84%<br />32%<br />Attraction effect<br />
  9. 9. C1<br />C2<br />Compromise effect<br />
  10. 10. (€17,- /month)<br />Compromise effect<br />
  11. 11. Compromise effect<br />
  12. 12. Indifference curve<br />
  13. 13. Based on Mourali, Böchenholt and Laroche (2007):<br />
  14. 14. The ‘high-quality-focus’<br />Interpretation from Simonson and Nowlis (2000)<br />Oudenhooven and Willemsen (2009)<br />
  15. 15. H1: People with high CNFU prefer ‘quality’ to ‘price’, relative to people with low CNFU.<br />H2a: On average, people with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect than people with low CNFU.<br />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).<br />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.<br />H3: For people with high CNFU the attraction effect is reduced when a decoy targets the low quality alternative.<br />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.<br />
  16. 16.
  17. 17. Setup designed with MouselabWEB (Willemsen & Johnson, 2008)<br />
  18. 18. Choice set AB<br />low quality high quality<br />choice<br />H1: People with high CNFU prefer ‘quality’ to ‘price’, relative to people with low CNFU.<br />Ftime(1,136)= 1,017, ns.<br />Ffrequency(1,136) = 3,485, p &lt; 0,1<br />tTFT-screen (143) = 3,22, p &lt; 0,05<br />χ2 (1)= 0,752, ns.<br />
  19. 19. Choice set AB<br />Choice set AB<br />low quality high quality<br />choice<br />low qualityhigh quality<br />choice<br />H2a: On average, people with high CNFU show a smaller compromise effect than people with low CNFU.<br />Choice set ABC2<br />Choice set ABC1<br /> low quality target high quality<br /> choice<br /> low quality target high quality<br />choice<br />Average ΔPLCNFU = 4,8<br />Average ΔPHCNFU = -4,1<br />
  20. 20. Choice set AB<br />low qualityhigh quality<br />choice<br />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).<br />Choice set ABC2<br />Choice set ABC1<br />ΔPLCNFU = 4,7<br />ΔPHCNFU = -8,9<br />ΔPLCNFU = 4,8<br />ΔPHCNFU = 0,7<br /> low quality target high quality<br /> choice<br /> low quality target high quality<br />choice<br />
  21. 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.<br />Relative shares high quality alternative ABC1<br /> LCNFU: 51,2 %<br /> HCNFU: 52,1%<br />Relative shares high quality alternative ABC2<br /> LCNFU: 61,0 %<br /> HCNFU: 61,5%<br />
  22. 22. Choice set ABD1<br />Choice set ABD2<br /> low qualitytarget decoy<br />choice<br /> decoytarget high quality<br />choice<br />H3: For people with high CNFU the attraction effect is reduced when a decoy targets the low quality alternative.<br />χ2 ABD1(1)= 0,341, ns.<br />χ2 ABD2(1)= 0,890, ns.<br />
  23. 23. Choice set ABC2<br />Choice set ABC1<br />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.<br />Choice set ABC2<br />Choice set ABC1<br />Ffrequency(1,85) = 1,936, ns.<br />Ftime(1,85) = 6,300, p &lt; 0,05<br />Ffrequency(1,85)= 0,076, ns.<br />Ftime(1,85)= 1,336, ns.<br />
  24. 24. For people with high CNFU the context effects are reduced<br />The existence high-quality-focus is not confirmed<br />Absolute reference point for compromise sets (for people with HCNFU)<br />Applying CNFU for adaptive websites<br />
  25. 25. Assar, A. & Chakravarti, D. (1984). Attribute range knowledge: Effects on consumers&apos; 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.<br />Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.<br />Chang, C. C., & Liu, H. H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 25(9), 881-900.<br />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.<br />Cortina, J. M. (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.<br />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.<br />Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146-160.<br />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.<br />Drolet, A., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (2000). Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 199-209.<br />Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.<br />Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior - theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31, 22-27.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Huber, J., & Puto, C. P. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-43.<br />Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 5-15.<br />Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G. (2004). Defaults and donation decisions. Transplantation 78(12), 1713-1716.<br />Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004a). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237-257.<br />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.<br />Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4, 221-227.<br />Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd edition). London: Routledge.<br />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.<br />Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.<br />Luce, R. D. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 215-233.<br />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.<br />Mourali, M. Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 234-247.<br />Meyer, R., Johnson, E. (1995). Empirical reneralizations in the modeling of consumer choice. Marketing Science, 14(3), 180-189.<br />Oudenhooven, P. G. J., & Willemsen, M. C. (2009) Invloed van ‘need for uniqueness’ op het compromiseffect: Zelfdevraagstelling, andereonderzoeksmethode. unpublished manuscript, Eindhoven University of Technology.<br />Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers&apos; need for uniqueness. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 444-464.<br />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.<br />Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision-making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.<br />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.<br />Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11-36.<br />Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 591-609.<br />Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.<br />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.<br />Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.<br />Willemsen, M. C., & Bragt van, B. (2006). Vlab: Virtual lab [online application]. From &lt;http://w3.vlab.nl/&gt;<br />Willemsen, M. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2008). MouselabWEB: Monitoring information acquisition processes on the web [online application]. From &lt;http://www.mouselabweb.org/&gt;<br />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.<br />Yoon, S. O., & Simonson, I. (2000). Choice set configuration as a determinant of preference attribution and strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 324-336.<br />Internet source:<br />StichtingiMMovator: Cross Media Network. (2009). Retrieved September 18, 2009, from &lt;http://www.immovator.nl&gt; and &lt;http://www.immovator.nl/bijna-60-huishoudens-met-digitale-televisie&gt;<br />

×