The Role of Imaginative Visualization in Really New Product Evaluation:
How the process of imaginative visualization influences the perceived benefit.
Bob van der Waarde - 10617655
Master’s Thesis
Master’s program Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
Supervisor: Aart Velthuijsen
2
Abstract
This study is focused at understanding the influence of imaginative visualization on the evaluation of really new products. More specifically, it is aimed at answering the question if imaginative visualization would lead to the generation of so-called additional benefits: benefits that are made up through the visualization process. This research is also focused at understanding if involvement would have an influence on this hypothesized relationship. Several hypotheses are stated in order to guide the research. The findings of this research suggest that there is no relationship between these three variables. However, a significant relationship is found between imaginative visualization and product evaluation. This is in line with previous studies on this topic.
Keywords: imaginative visualization, really new products, additional benefit thoughts, product evaluation, elaboration likelihood
3
Introduction
Marketers have been struggling at advertising really new products in an effective way (Chao et al., 2012; Gourville, 2006). This study is focused at providing an understanding in why the process of imaginative visualization, known as visualization emphasizing the never-experienced uses of a product, leads to a more positive evaluation of these so-called really new products (RNPs) (Zhao et al., 2009). It is thereby hypothesized that this process would lead to benefit thoughts that are made up by the consumer, leading to a more positive
evaluation. It has been stated that the introduction of RNPs, known as highly innovative and novel for the consumer, often leads to a variety of problems (Feiereisen, 2008; Alexander et al., 2008). One of the found problems is the lack of understanding of the consumer in how such a product might add value to the consumer (Alexander et al., 2008, Hoeffler, 2003). Studies have provided results suggesting that stimulating the visualization process might increase one’s understanding of the potential benefit of such a RNP (Dahl & Hoeffler, 2004). Also, it has been implied that imagination-focused visualization provides a good basis for a more positive evaluation of the product (Zhao et al., 2009). However, there is still a lack of understanding in how this visualization process leads to positive evaluations (Zhao et al., 2009). It has been suggested that it would lead to additional benefit thoughts, meaning benefits that are experienced by the consumer but that are not part of the product (Zhao et al., 2009). It is hypothesized that these play a role when evaluating the product, leading to a more positive evaluation.
This study is aimed at providing empirical findings to test this hypothesis to provide a more in depth knowledge on RNPs, imaginative visualization and its merits with product evaluation. Also, recent research provide results that imply that involvement plays a
significant role on the perception of RNPs after a visualization-process (Zhao et al., 2012). The second aim of this research is focused at understanding if product involvement influences
4
the suggested role of imaginative visualization on the generation of additional benefits. The research question is stated below.
Research Question: Do imaginative contexts in advertising provide additional benefit
thoughts for RNP’s in the cognitive responses compared to non-imaginative contexts, and does involvement play a role in this process?
Theoretical framework
The theoretical and empirical implications from previous studies are discussed within this section. A more in depth understanding of really new products is discussed and followed by a conceptualization of imaginative visualization and product involvement. Multiple hypotheses are provided in order to guide the study and to answer the research question.
Really new products
Really new products is a concept widely used in advertising research and coins to a wide variety of products. The term has been defined differently among previous studies, but in most cases it refers to highly innovative properties in either chronological, technological or psychological terms (Alexander et al., 2008). A consumer perspective is used for this study, meaning that a product is considered really new as when this is generally perceived by consumers. Generally, RNPs enable consumers to do things that cannot be easily done with existing ways to solve problems, however these consumption benefits are in many cases unclear for the consumer leading to uncertainty in the cost-benefit trade-off (Alexander et al., 2008, Hoeffler, 2003). A reason for this uncertainty stems from the consumer’s lack of understanding of the attribute-benefit links or practice in understanding its cost-benefit trade-off (Alexander et al., 2008, Hoeffler, 2003). A smartphone might be more expensive than a traditional mobile phone, however it also has its merits with internet connectivity, social
5
contacts and work-organization. Is it worth the money, one might ask. Another difference is that to attain the potential benefits of the RNP, the consumer must make greater changes in their own behaviour, taking into account possible learning costs (Alexander et al., 2008, Hoeffler, 2003). Electronic cars for example, can only be recharged at a limited amount of stations while conventional gasoline vehicles can go to every gas-station. One might need to get accustomed with recharging the car at an electronic station instead of an ordinary gasoline station.
It has been stated that between 40% and 90% of newly introduced products fail after their introduction, even when introduced by well established companies (Chao et al., 2012; Gourville, 2006). The majority of the consumers tend to be slow in adopting RNP’s. As explained, this is due to the learning costs associated with adoption and their underestimation of the value of the new benefits of the product (Zhao et al., 2009; Gourville 2006). The first series of personal computers might have been confusing, expensive machines compared to a cheap traditional typewriter. Another problem with RNPs is identifying the appropriate
representation of the good (Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002). People might have thought of the first microwave as a culinary experience instead of a means of timesaving or comfort.
It has been stated that consumers notoriously lack foresight as they are not able to imagine something that does not exist (Janssen & Dankbaar, 2008). Previous studies have stated that in such cases, consumers have to be encouraged and stimulated to step out of the box (Janssen & Dankbaar, 2011; Lukas & Ferrell, 2000).
There are several examples of really new products, or products that have previously been perceived as really new. Previous studies have focused at personal digital assistants (Zhao et al., 2009; Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002), Ebooks (van den Hende et al., 2012), video-glasses (Zhao et al., 2012; Feiereisen, 2008), ultrabooks (Zhao et al., 2012) and Intelligent Ovens (Feiereisen, 2008). Other products that have been claimed to once have been a really
6
new product are the following: smartphones, digital photo-frames and digital pens (Chao et al., 2012). These are only a few examples of products that were once perceived as really new (Chao et al., 2012).
Visualization
Visualization will be referred to as a cognitive process through which information is represented in images in the working memory (Zhao, 2012; MacInnis & Price, 1987). This cognitive process enables the interpretation, generation, and manipulation of information through a spatial representation (Langland-Hassan, 2011). It should be stated that there is a difference between the process of visualization and visual perception. Visualization is under the control of the will, while visual perception is not (Langland-Hassan, 2011). Visualization is often caused by memory searches and action-planning routines, while visual perception is a resemblance of the state of the world before one’s eyes (Langland-Hassan, 2011).
Multiple forms of visualization have been identified throughout literature. Two forms of visualization are described within this framework: memory focused visualization and visualization with an imaginative emphasis. This study is focused at the latter one. However, a short elaboration on both forms provide a better understanding of the differences between these two types of visualization, and the relevance of the latter one.
Memory-focused visualization
A more specific memory-focused visualization refers to more spontaneous
visualization processes in which consumers think of readily accessible consumption situations and experiences (Zhao et al., 2009). This refers to already known consumption processes of existing products (Zhao et al., 2009). Such visualization processes are elicited when
7
2009; Dahl & Hoeffler, 2004). It has been stated that such a process only elicits a limited readily-accessible amount of mental imagery (Zhao et al., 2009). Such visualization processes have led to positive results for many new products, but led to mixed results for the evaluation of RNPs (Zhao et al., 2009).
The imaginative emphasis
A second form of visualization is visualization with a so-called imaginative emphasis. This type of visualization stimulates the focus on the new, never-before experienced uses of a product that may otherwise not be acknowledged (Zhao et al., 2009). Imagination, opposed to memory-focused visualization, refers to the deliberate mental generation of a novel images (Ward, 1994; McKellar, 1957; Murray, 1986). It has been implied that compared to memory-focused visualization, imagination-memory-focused visualization increases the perceived value of product benefits for the RNP, enhancing its evaluations (Zhao et al., 2009). A suggested cause is that of the so called additional benefits: The benefits experienced by consumers that are not part of the actual product (Zhao et al., 2009).
The consumer might have a bigger expectation of the product when he or she visually imagines the possibilities of the product. It is therefore hypothesized that messages focused at eliciting imaginative visualization lead to additional benefit thoughts of RNPs.
Hypothesis 1: Imaginative visualization leads to an increase of additional benefits
It is further hypothesized that imaginative visualization leads to an increase of the total benefits that are perceived. This is in accordance to previous studies that have implied a higher evaluation through a higher perceived value after the imaginative visualization process (Zhao et al., 2009).
8
Hypothesis 2: Imaginative visualization leads to an increase of the total benefits
A third hypothesis is stated to study if the process of imaginative visualization leads to a higher product evaluation. Previous studies have found results implying that this is the case (Zhao et al., 2009). However, there is still a lack of research on this matter. Studying this hypothesis, thus might provide a better insight of the implied relationship and may provide a better understanding of the hypothesized mechanisms underlying this process.
Hypothesis 3: Imaginative visualization leads to a higher product evaluation
Involvement through innovation
Product involvement has been defined differently throughout previous literature. However, it is commonly defined as the consumer’s enduring perceptions of the importance of the product based on his or her inherent values, needs and interests (Bian & Moutinho, 2011; de Wulf et al., 2001; Mittal, 1995; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Consumers that are highly involved show more interest, value or need in the product category (Bian & Moutinho, 2011; de Wulf et al., 2001; Mittal, 1995; Zaichkowsky, 1985). It has been stated that these
consumers tend to pay more attention to product information than those that are less involved (Zhao et al., 2012). This has been explained by the Elaboration Likelihood model which states that under high involvement, people rely more on cognitive processing paying more attention to the message, whereas people under low involvement rely more on peripheral processing relying more on peripheral cues (Petty et al., 1991). Also, recent findings have implied that involvement would decrease the difficulty of imaginative elaboration, increasing
9
product evaluation (Zhao et al., 2012). It could therefore be stated that involvement plays an important role in how advertisements and product information are perceived by a consumer.
It should be stated that measuring involvement for a really new product would lead to problems due to the assumption that the consumer is not engaged with the good due to its novelty. It is hard to get involved with a product-category that has only just been introduced to the market. Involvement is therefore perceived as involvement through innovation. It is thereby assumed that a person that is always interested in the most novel gadget is more involved with messages on new products than those that are less interested. Involvement is thus perceived as involvement with novel products from a certain product category. This concept will be described as the consumer’s enduring perceptions of the importance of new products and product innovations based on his or her inherent values, needs and interests.
Diffusion of innovations theory will be applied in order to provide a better insight in the innovative aspect of the concept involvement through innovation. The theory represents a framework to describe either the adoption or the non-adoption of innovations (MacVaugh & Schiavone, 2010; Rogers, 1962). This adoption process leads to a progressive state of diffusion when new product information and opinions on these goods are communicated among potential consumers (MacVaugh & Schiavone, 2010). The theory refers to five adoption category traits (Rogers, 2010). The first category of consumers are known as the innovators and the second category are known as the early adaptors (Rogers, 2010). These two first categories of consumers might feel more involved with really new products than do the latter categories of consumers: the early majority, the late majority and the laggards.
Zhao et al. (2012) found that involvement has a positive influence on product evaluation, when influenced by imaginative elaboration. Studying the effect of involvement on the hypothesized relation between imaginative visualization and the generation of additional benefits might therefore provide a better insight in the possible underlying
10
processes that would lead to a higher evaluation and the generation of additional benefits. The hypothesis is stated below.
Hypothesis 4: Involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of
additional benefits
It is also hypothesized that involvement moderates the effect of imaginative
visualization to the amount of total benefits. Studies using the elaboration likelihood model have implied that high involvement processing would be more cognitive, increasing the awareness of the benefits of the product (Zhao et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 5: Involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of
total benefits
The last hypothesis refers to involvement as a moderator between imaginative visualization and product evaluation. Testing this hypothesis aids at better understanding the influence of involvement on the hypothesized relationships. Previous research found results implying that involvement decreases the difficulty of imaginative elaboration stimulating a higher product evaluation (Zhao et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 6: Involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to product
11
A conceptual model is constructed as to guide the study and to provide a better
overview on the hypothesises and variables involved. Figure 1 provides and illustration of this model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model representing the main variables and hypothesized relationships.
Methodology
This chapter is focused at providing information on the methods and measurement used for retrieving data for analysis. The research units are discussed first, this is followed by a paragraph on the research design. The third paragraph elaborates more deeply on the
procedure of the study and is followed by the selection procedure. The fifth paragraph elaborates on the operationalization and measurement of these key variables.
Characteristics of research units
The study is focused at young adults living in the Netherlands, from the age of 20 to the age of 30. Students are often used as research units in studies on Really New Products
12
(Zhao et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2009; Hoeffler et al., 2003). Therefore, it can be suggested that choosing this specific young adult age-group would be more in line with previous studies. A second argument for choosing this specific age-group is related to the feasibility of the study. It has been found that people of that age are more likely than older age groups to prefer social media in social interactions and to be feel more valuable when providing feedback about product-use (Bolton et al., 2013). It could therefore be assumed that young adults are relatively easy to reach via online communications such as social-networking websites.
Research design
Three main variables have been identified in order to conduct the study. These are the independent variable imaginative visualization, the dependent variable additional product benefits and the moderator product involvement.
Data has been retrieved through an online experiment. The experiment is a 1(Imaginative visualization vs. no visualization) factor between participants design. Experimental designs have been found as especially appropriate for hypothesis testing
(Babbie, 2008). An online experiment has been conducted to gather data. Online experimental designs are known with its merits regarding feasibility (Dandurand et al., 2008).
The experiment
The experimental design consists of two groups of which one is the experimental group and the other the control-group. Sampling was exercised randomly. Both groups were exposed to a stimulus containing a brief description of a really new product. This description contains a set of benefits on the functionality of the product. The experimental group has been exposed to a second stimulus after exposure to the first stimulus. This last stimulus provides an assignment to visualize the product within an imaginative context. Accordingly, both
13
groups were asked to evaluate the product displayed in the stimulus and to sum up all benefits of the product. Each benefit that could not be identified with the description in the first
stimulus is regarded as an additional benefit.
The participants were also measured in the likeability that they would be involved with the RNP portrayed in the stimulus, measuring the moderator involvement through innovation. Both groups were asked for their knowledge on the product in order to decrease bias. Those participants that were well known with the product are perceived as invalid cases as it is assumed that the units are novel with the product displayed within the stimulus.
Measurements regarding demographics were asked after the measurement of this dependent variable.
Selection of research units
Sampling was done from April 30th till May 11th. A two-week timeframe was sufficient for gathering a valid amount of data for analysis. Non-probability sampling was used for retrieving participants. This method has been widely used in the social sciences (Babbie, 2008). Prospective participants were contacted via social-networking sites and email to ask for their participation to the online experiment.
A total of N=76 persons participated to the experiment. 92.1% of the participants completed the survey. Of the total N=70 of completed surveys 5.7% of the cases reported to be already familiar with the MYO gesture armband. Also, 2.9% of N=70 reported not to live in the Netherlands. 2.9% of N=70 also reported to be not in their twenties.
A total of N=64 valid cases were used for analysis. An exact 50% n=32 of these cases reported to be female, meaning there is an exact equal amount of men and women that
14
was (M=23.31, SD=1.825) N=64. Also, most of the participants (26.6%) reported to be of that age.
n=32 participants (50%) of the N=64 were part of the experimental group, and
another n=32 participants were part of the control group. The average age in the experimental group was (M=22.97, SD=1.616). The average age in the control condition was (M=23.66, SD=1.977).
43.8% of the participants in the experimental group n=32 reported to be male while 56.3% of the participants to the control group n=32 reported to be of this gender.
Operationalization Demographics
The demographics regarding age and gender were measured in order to provide a better insight in the demographic stratification of the respondents. Also, both were measured to account for bias when data is analysed.
Selection criteria
The experiment also contained measurements that were used to check for the validity of the participants for this study. A measurement of the current residence of the participants was used in order to verify if the participant is currently living in the Netherlands. Participants were also asked if they were already familiar with the RNP displayed in the stimulus before exposure to the stimulus. It could be assumed that familiar participants may provide more knowledge on the RNP while those participants not familiar with the product would lack this knowledge. Participants stating that they were already familiar with the RNP are therefore perceived as invalid for analysis. Age is also an important measurement to ensure the validity of the data. Those participants stating that they are older than 30 or younger than 20 are
15
perceived as invalid for analysis.
Involvement through innovation
Involvement through innovation is measured through a six-item construct using a 7-point bipolar answering scale (1=totally disagree to 7=totally agree) based on the consumer novelty seeking (CNS) scale (Fort-Rioche & Ackermann 2013; Manning et al., 1995; Hirschman, 1980). This scale is focused at measuring the desire to seek out new product information (Fort-Rioche & Ackermann 2013; Manning et al., 1995; Hirschman, 1980). This particular scale has been implied to be most closely associated with the initial stages of the adaption process as discussed in diffusion of innovations theory, when compared to other measurements (Manning et al., 1995). It has also been found that the CNS has a generalized effect on the adoption process across a variety of products (Manning et al., 1995).
The construct used within this study is adjusted as the original measurement did not take into account information-seeking on the internet. The statements that are given within this construct are the following: “I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products”, “I frequently look for new products and services” , “I am continually seeking for new product experiences”, “I like to buy new products before other people do”, “I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product
information” and “I like magazines and/ or websites that introduce new products” (Fort-Rioche & Ackermann 2013).
Really new product in stimuli
Choosing an appropriate product for the stimuli was done through a thorough decision process in which the necessary attributes of the product were evaluated. This process
16
products and innovation in terms of its function. Novelty relates to both the introduction of the product as well as the perceived awareness with the consumer. Another important concern relates to the perceived target of the product. Only those products have been evaluated that are perceived as consumer goods that might functionally contribute to a larger segment. Business products, corporate engineering, and functional products for niches were not considered as appropriate for this study as they would not apply to a broad consumer market.
The product that has been chosen is the Thalmic Labs MYO gesture control armband. It’s an armband aimed at remotely controlling electronics with hand movements (Thalmic Labs, 2013). The product shows some resemblance with the Kinect by Xbox where a camera traces body movements and projects it to a game. It also shows some resemblance with electronic pointers used for presentations and for computer devices. However, the armband could be perceived as really new as it is implemented as a universal remote controller for as well presentations and games as for guiding drones and lawnmowers (Thalmic Labs, 2013). The device traces electronic pulses in the nerve system, precisely detecting hand movements (Thalmic Labs, 2013). In this case the function in remote-control is at the central focus while this is not the case with products that have shown some resemblance. The product, thus, is aimed at functioning as an aid in controlling all kinds of electronic devices, from software to motorized machinery. Such a universal button-less remote may therefore be perceived as a very novel product for consumers and may provide the cost-benefit risk and learning costs associated with really new products.
The following product description is provided: “ The MYO gesture control armband lets you use the electrical activity in your muscles to wirelessly control your computer, phone, and other favorite digital technologies (Thalmic Labs, 2013)”. These also include electronic devices such as drones and electronic lawnmowers. This means that you’re able to control electronic devices and software through merely moving the wrist of your hand or by moving
17
your fingers.” The first sentence stems from the product website. The latter sentences are given to provide the participants with a n elaboration of the utility of the product. The description is accompanied with three pictures displaying the use of the product. These are illustrated in the Appendix. The pictures display a general image of the product, the use of the gesture armband for controlling a drone and one when controlling a laptop while cooking. The pictures are given to stimulate the visualization process and to limit the chance of
misinterpreting the text.
Eliciting imaginative visualization
The experimental group was also asked to do a task that would stimulate the
imaginative-visualization process. Former studies focused at evoking such mental processes used a straight task in which participants are asked to free their imagination to visualize the never before-experienced positive aspects (Zhao et al., 2009). In line with previous studies participants were asked to do this. Using a rather similar task would limit the risk of bias when comparing the results with previous studies. Another advantage is the fact that it is a very straightforward task, limiting the chance of misinterpretation.
The task to which the participants were exposed to is the following one: “Imagining new activities that you have never been able to do before may help you evaluate the MYO gesture control armband. Please free your imagination to visualize these new activities (i.e., think about new ways to control devices and software) as you evaluate the MYO gesture control armband. (Zhao et al, 2009)”.
Referring to additional product benefits
The additional product benefits were measured through an open-ended task in which the participant was asked what the benefits are of the RNP shown in the first stimulus. Those
18
benefits that do not correspond with the description in the first stimulus are considered as additional benefits. The most important advantage of open questions is the fact that such constructs do not cue respondents to think of particular examples (Roberts et al., 2014). It has been stated that open questions can be a valuable mean of measurement as it provides a direct view into a respondent’s own thinking (Roberts et al., 2014).
Total product benefits
The amount of total product benefits were also measured. Benefits that can be derived, directly or indirectly, from the product description provided in the stimulus or the pictures displayed in the stimulus are perceived as ‘actual’ or non-additional. These benefits, together with the additional benefits, are perceived as the total named product benefits.
Product evaluation
Product evaluation was measured through a two-item construct measured on a nine-point bipolar answering scale (1 = “bad, poor,” and 9 = “good, excellent”) (Zhao et al., 2009). These items have also been used in previous research on really new products to indicate the product evaluation (Zhao et al., 2009).
Conditions
The software used for conducting the online experiment enables a randomization in terms of the condition to which the participants belong. A separate dichotomous variable tracks the condition to which the participant belongs. Those participants exposed to the request of imaginatively visualizing the product were given a different value than those who have not been requested.
19
Order of the experiment
The order of the measurement of the variables were constructed in such a way to limit the chance of bias. The stimulus displaying the product description was presented first and followed, depending on the condition, by the task to imaginatively visualize the product. These were followed by the measurements of the product evaluation. Then, participants were requested to describe the product benefits as explained in previous paragraphs. The last measurements were focused at the demographics and are to secure the validity of the cases to the study. The online experiment is displayed in the Appendix.
Results Reliability analysis
A Cronbach’s α was conducted in order to test the internal consistency of the six-item scale measuring the variable involvement. A Cronbach’s α of 0.852 was found. Thus, the scale can be perceived as highly internally consistent and thus as reliable for further analysis (Field, 2009).
A Pearson’s r was retrieved in order to measure the internal consistency of the two-item scale of product evaluation. A Pearson’s r of 0.852 was found, indicating high internal consistency.
Coding procedure
The open ended questions on the benefits of the MYO gesture armband were coded to either 0 (no benefit), 1 (a non-additional benefit) or 2 (additional benefit). Those benefits that were left blank were perceived to be not a benefit and were coded accordingly. The non-additional benefits were perceived as those benefits that could be either directly retrieved or easily perceived from the information displayed in the product description. Those benefits that
20
could not be directly retrieved or easily perceived from the information were perceived as additional and were coded accordingly. The division of additional benefits and non-additional benefits are discussed in more detail below.
The participants that referred to the armband as small or weightless, recall on an element that can easily be assumed by the pictures as it displays a small armband that can be tied to your arm. Also, those responses that claim that the product is fun, cool or good refer to a personal opinion that may very well stem from the images and text. Another aspect that is not perceived as additional are those referring to its technological advancement. It can be assumed that the technology, as described in the description, is technologically advanced, compared to for example, traditional remote controls..
Answers that refer to the wireless element of the product are not perceived as
additional either as the wireless aspect has been discussed in the description. The button-less aspects are not perceived as additional either, as the description clearly elaborates on the hand-moving mechanism as an alternative to traditional controlling, e.g. with buttons. These include those answers referring to hands free use. Those answers that refer to the ease of utility and its comfort are not perceived as additional either. This can easily be suggested when reading “through merely moving the wrist of your hand” which provides some
assumption on the ease and comfort of use. Also, those answer referring to the fact that only one device is needed to control many refers to the description as well. This can be assumed as it elaborates on the fact that many electronic devices can be controlled with the armband. Answers that refer to accessing electronic devices, or refer to specific electronica are not perceived as additional either. This is because the description both refers to specific cases (drones, lawn mowers etc.), as well as electronic devices in general. Those answers referring to efficiency are not perceived as additional as they can be related to “merely moving the wrist of your hand” which assumes more efficient working.
21
Some answers are harder to code. A lot of respondents referred to the fact that they could multitask. This can be assumed easily with the description, however is not suggested or referred to in the description at all. One of the pictures does show a man cooking and
operating a video on a laptop. This could also be perceived as multitasking. Therefore, multitasking is perceived as not additional. Time saving is also assumed a lot by the participants and may also be a benefit that stems logically from the description. It can be related to the ease of use, “merely moving your wrist”. Therefore its perceived as non-additional as well.
Benefits that were related with the armband’s merits with disabled persons and the elderly are perceived as additional. This is similar to those benefits related to improved safety or security measures. Another theme that has been recalled upon is the armband’s merit with hygiene due to the hands free aspect. Improved hygiene is also perceived as additional as it has not been referred to directly or indirectly in the description or the pictures. Another important benefit is the social aspect of the product. Those participants that elaborated on aspects such as “impressing friends” refer to an additional function of the product that has not been referred to in the description. Also, participants have referred to more idyllic or
philosophical attributes, for example “New level of understanding”. Such attributes are perceived additional as well.
Although many sources on the MYO gesture armband refer to its merits with video-gaming and presentations, this is not referred to in the description and the images. Benefits related to these practices are therefore perceived as non-additional as well.
Main analyses
The hypotheses were tested through multiple analyses of variances. These analyses feature the independent variable “imaginative visualization” and the quasi-independent
22
variable “involvement” and the two dependent variables additional benefits and total benefits. The following paragraphs discuss the findings per hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis states that an increased imaginative visualization leads to additional benefits. A total average of (M=0,5781, SD=0,75182) N=64 were found. Those participants exposed to the experimental condition, eliciting imaginative visualization, had a an average of (M=0,5313, SD=0,76134) N=32. The average in the controlled condition, not eliciting imaginative visualization had the following results (M=0,6250, SD=0,75134) n=32. The latter case shows a higher average, this is contrary to what was hypothesized. However, an F-test found the following insignificant results F(1,63)=0,354 p=0,554. It could therefore be stated that there were no significant results found regarding this hypothesis. Therefore, the hypothesis cannot be accepted.
Hypothesis 2
In hypothesis 2 it was stated that an increased imaginative visualization would lead to a higher amount of benefits in general. Those participants that have been exposed to the experimental condition, eliciting imaginative visualization, had a higher average amount (M=3,0625, SD=0,94826) N=32, while the participants who were not asked to elicit their imaginative visualization had a lower average amount (M=2,8437, SD=2,13903) N=32. The F-test led to the following insignificant results F(1,63)=0,975 p =0,327. The hypothesis can thus not be accepted.
23
Hypothesis three states that Imaginative visualization leads to a higher product
evaluation. A total average of (M= 6,5313, SD= 1,46351) N=64 was found. Those participants in the experimental group represented an average of (M=6,9531, SD= 1,34620) n=32. The participants in the control group represented an average of (M= 6,1094, SD= 1,47416) n=32. The results indicate that an increased imaginative visualization leads to a significant increase of the product evaluation, F (1,63) =5,744 p=0,020. Neither gender, F(1, 63)= 0,107, p=0,744, or age, F(1, 63)= 0,849 p=0,361, had a significant effect on this relationship. Therefore, it can be stated that neither age or gender influenced the results. This hypotheses can thus be
accepted.
Hypothesis 4
The hypothesis stating that involvement would moderate the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of called additional benefits led to the following results. The results regarding the means are displayed in Table 1. Those participants lowly involved had a low average of named additional benefits (M=0,4375, SD=0,61892) N=32, when compared to the mean for those participants highly involved (M=0,7188, SD=0,85135) N=32. This
accounts to a total of (M=0,5781, SD= 0,75182) N=64. There were no direct effects found on the hypothesized effect of involvement on the amount of named additional benefits, F(1, 63)=2,106 p=0,152. No significant interaction effects were found when conducting an F-test for the interaction effects, F(1,63)=0,169 p =0,682. Therefore, this hypothesis can’t be accepted.
Table 1.
Means Representing a use of imaginative visualization × Involvement for predicting additional benefits.
24
(IV) Using imaginative visualization
(IV) Involvement Yes No
Lowly involved 0.3333 0.5294
Highly involved 0.7059 0.7333
Hypothesis 5
Results regarding the means of the independent variables are displayed in Table 2. The hypothesis stating that involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of total benefits led to a total average of (M=2,9531, SD=1,04547) N=64. Those participants lowly involved had a relatively low average (M=2,8438, SD=1,19432) N=32, while those highly involved had a higher average (M=3,0625, SD=0,87759) N=32. No direct relation between involvement and the total named benefits have been found, F(1, 63)=0,567 p=0,454. A F-test for the interaction effect led to the following insignificant results
F(1,63)=0,569 p =0,454. This hypothesis can thus not be accepted.
Table 2.
Means Representing a use of imaginative visualization × Involvement for predicting the total named benefits.
(IV) Using imaginative visualization
(IV) Involvement Yes No
Lowly involved 3.0667 2.6471
Highly involved 3.0588 3.0667
25
The last hypothesis states that involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to product evaluation. The results regarding the means are displayed in Table 3. The participants that replied to be lowly involved had a low average product evaluation (M=6,5156, SD= 1,28568) N=32, when compared to those highly involved (M=0,7188, SD= 0,85135) N=32. The total accounts to a (M=6,5313, SD=1,46351). Involvement did not significantly affect product evaluation, F (1, 63) =0,001 p= 0,976. The findings on the interaction effect with imaginative visualization are also insignificant, F (1, 63) =0,099 p= 0,755. This hypotheses can thus not be accepted either..
Table 3.
Means Representing a use of imaginative visualization × Involvement for predicting the Product Evaluation
(IV) Using imaginative visualization
(IV) Involvement Yes No
Lowly involved 7.0333 6.0588
Highly involved 6.8824 6.1667
Discussion
This study is focused at the role of imaginative visualization in the evaluation process of really new products. More specifically, it is focused at answering the question if the process of imaginatively visualizing the product would lead to additional benefit thoughts: benefits that are made up by the consumer. The study is also focused at the hypothesized influence of consumer involvement on this hypothesized relationship, more specifically involvement through innovation.
26
Several hypotheses were stated, based on the theoretical implications and empirical findings of previous studies in this field of research. The first hypothesis states that
imaginative visualization leads to an increase of additional benefits. The second hypotheses states that imaginative visualization leads to an increase of the total benefits. The third
hypothesis states that imaginative visualization leads to an increase of the product evaluation. A fourth hypothesis states that involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of additional benefits, and the fifth hypotheses states that involvement
moderates the effect of imaginative visualization to the amount of total benefits. A sixth hypothesis states that involvement moderates the relationship between imaginative visualization and product evaluation.
The results suggest that only hypothesis three can be accepted. Participants gave a higher rating when they were asked to imaginatively visualize the product. This significant finding is in line with previous studies (Zhao et al., 2009). The other hypotheses can’t be accepted due to insignificant results. The results of this study can thus not support the
hypothesized relationship between imaginative visualization and additional product benefits, neither as they would lead to a higher amount of perceived benefits. The main research question thus can’t be answered with the current findings.
Previous studies have found results that imply that imagination-focused rather than memory-focused visualization would lead to an increased evaluation (Zhao et al., 2009). It was suggested that this might have been stimulated by what has been coined to as additional benefits, or benefits made up by the consumer through the visualization-process (Zhao et al., 2009). The authors speculated that the imagination process would enable a person to construct visual images that brings to life new, made up, features of an RNP (Zhao et al., 2009; Finke 1990; Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992). A previous study also found results indicating that product involvement moderates the effect of imaginative visualization on product evaluation
27
(Zhao et al., 2012). As stated, significant results regarding the effect of imaginative
visualization and product evaluation were found. However, this does not apply to additional benefit thoughts as well as the perception of total benefits.
Alternative explanations might provide an explanation to the problems that have occurred through the insignificant results. It has been suggested that the imaginative focus on the evaluation of an RNP might simply enable consumers to realize more benefits (Zhao et al., 2009). A second explanation for the insignificant results might be related to the elaboration likelihood model. According to this model not all information is processed through cognitive sense-making (Petty et al., 1991). Some information might be processed through a more heuristic sense, through which participants might be less aware of (Petty et al., 1991). Imaginative visualization might strengthen the perceived value of the product through heuristic processing of the information. Participants might not be able to describe the
additional benefits in a concrete manner as these might be processed through heuristic rather than cognitive processing.
It should be recognized that involvement was operationalized in a different manner than in previous research (Zhao et al., 2012). Previous studies have focused at the
experimental conditions as to involve the participant, whereas this study measured the extent to which the participant was already involved with innovative products. It should therefore be stated that a different paradigm regarding the operationalization of involvement is used, when compared to previous studies.
It might also be stated that the insignificant findings are the results of the methods that have been used in the study. The visualization task, for example, was based on those used in previous studies (Zhao et al., 2009). At the other hand, considerable time and effort was taken when choosing an appropriate RNP for the stimulus material. This is in contrast to many previous studies on RNP’s that considered products that might not be perceived as really new
28
(van den Hende et al., 2012; Chao et al., 2012). Another possible problem might be the sample size, which can be perceived as generally small. However, the dispersion of age and gender was similar among the different conditions, as well as within the entire sample. This means that there was no sampling bias through either age or gender.
Contributions & future research
The findings of this study provide several contributions for the field of research as well as for future studies on really new products and visualization. The main findings of this study confirms the results of previous studies in that imaginative visualization increases the evaluation of really new products (Zhao et al., 2009). The insignificant findings with regards to additional product benefits might suggest that the imaginative visualization strengthens product evaluation in a more heuristic way. Future studies might focus at measuring and analysing heuristics after eliciting imaginative visualization. The study may also be replicated on a bigger scale, using a bigger sample and providing an alternative method for analysing additional product benefits. A problem that might have occurred with measuring additional product benefits is that the open-ended questions have provided the respondents to little of a frame of reference for forming a coherent response (Roberts et al., 2014; Schuman, 1966). This is an acknowledged problem when measuring through open-ended questions (Roberts et al., 2014; Schuman, 1966). Another aspect that differs from previous studies (Zhao t al., 2012) is in how involvement is perceived. Involvement was in previous studies manipulated as to involve the participant, while this study focused at measuring involvement with
innovative products. Further research could be conducted as to compare both paradigms in the field of imaginative visualization.
29
References
Alexander, D. L., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Wang, Q. (2008). As time goes by: Do cold feet follow warm intentions for really new versus incrementally new products? Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 307-319. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.307
Babbie, E. (2008). The basics of social science research. Belmont, CA: Thompson Higher Education.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 191-216.
doi:10.1108/03090561111095658
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y. K., & Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267. doi:10.1108/09564231311326987
Chao, C. W., Reid, M., & Mavondo, F. T. (2012). Consumer innovativeness influence on really new product adoption. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(3), 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.02.001
Dahl, D. W., & Hoeffler, S. (2004). Visualizing the self: Exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks for new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 259-267. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00077.x
Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 428-434.
30
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. & Lacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33-51. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.4.33.18386
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited.
Feiereisen, S., Wong, V., & Broderick, A. J. (2008). Analogies and mental simulations in learning for really new products: The role of visual attention. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 593-607. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00324.x Fort-Rioche, L., & Ackermann, C. L. (2013). Consumer innovativeness, perceived innovation
and attitude towards “neo-retro”-product design. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4), 495-516. doi:10.1108/EJIM-02-2013-0013
Gregan‐Paxton, J., Hibbard, J. D., Brunel, F. F., & Azar, P. (2002). “So that's what that is”: Examining the impact of analogy on consumers' knowledge development for really new products. Psychology & Marketing, 19(6), 533-550. doi:10.1002/mar.10023 Gourville, J.T. (2006). Eager sellers stony buyers: Understanding the psychology of
new-product adoption. Harvard Business Review, 99–106
Hende, E. A., & Schoormans, J. P. (2012). The story is as good as the real thing: Early customer input on product applications of radically new technologies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(4), 655-666.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00931.x
Hirschman, E.C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283-295. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489013
Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406-420. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.4.406.19394
31
Janssen, K. L., & Dankbaar, B. (2008). Proactive involvement of consumers in innovation: Selecting appropriate techniques. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 511-541. doi:10.1142/S1363919608002047
Langland-Hassan, P. (2011). A puzzle about visualization. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 145-173. doi:10.1007/s11097-011-9197-z
Lukas, B. A., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 239-247.
doi:10.1177/0092070300282005
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491. Retrieved at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489369
MacVaugh, J., & Schiavone, F. (2010). Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literature review and integrative model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 197-221. doi:10.1108/14601061011040258
Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. & Madden, T.J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329-345.
doi:0.1207/s15327663jcp0404_02
McKellar, P. (1957). Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis. Oxford, England: Basic Books.
Mittal, B. (1995). Comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 12(7), 663-82. doi:10.1002/mar.4220120708
Murray, E. L. (1986). Imaginative thinking and human experience. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
32
Petty, R. E., Gleicher, F., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Multiple roles for affect in persuasion. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 181- 200). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Inc. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder‐Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K.,
Albertson, B., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses. American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12103
Sirkin, R. M. (Ed.). (2006). Statistics for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thalmic Labs. (2013). Myo. Retrieved from https://www.thalmic.com/en/myo/
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1-40. doi:10.1006/cogp.1994.1010 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer
research, 12(3), 341-352. Retrieved at http://www.jstor.org/stable/254378
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2009). The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 46-55.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.1.46
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). Imagination Difficulty and New Product Evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 76-90.
33
Appendix
Online experiment
Dear respondent, My name is Bob van der Waarde, a student in the Msc. Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam. This small research is part of my Master thesis on
imaginative visualization. It will take no more than 5 minutes to complete the studyYou will be asked to read a product description. This is followed by several questions on the product that has been displayed. There are no wrong answers. Please answer these questions in an honest manner. Thank you for your participation.
I can guarantee that: 1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your answers or data will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express
permission for this. 2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research. 3. Participating in the research will not entail you being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
34
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described before. My questions have been answered satisfactorily. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the study at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done in such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Bob van der Waarde (bob.vanderwaarde@student.uva.nl). Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
I declare that I have read these statements and I agree to take part in this study
Please read the product description carefully before continuing to the next page. Thank you for your particiation.
35
MYO gesture control armband The MYO gesture control armband lets you use the electrical activity in your muscles to wirelessly control your computer, phone, and other favorite digital technologies. These also include electronic devices such as drones and electronic lawnmowers. This means that you’re able to control electronic devices and software through merely moving the wrist of your hand or by moving your fingers.
Imagining new activities that you have never been able to do before may help you evaluate the MYO gesture control armband. Please free your imagination to visualize these new activities (i.e., think about new ways to control devices and software) as you evaluate the MYO gesture control armband. (Zhao et al, 2009)
36
Question 1 How would you rate the Myo gesture control armband on a 9-point scale?
______ From 1 (Bad) to 9 (Good) ______ From 1 (Poor) to 9 (Excellent)
Question 2 Please write down as many benefits of the MYO gesture control armband you can
think of. There is space for ten benefits, but you don't have to fill in all.
Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Benefit 4 Benefit 5 Benefit 6
37 Benefit 7
Benefit 8
Benefit 9
38
Question 3 Do you agree with the following statements?
To tally disagree St rongly disagree Di sagree N either agree nor disagree A gree St rongly agree T otally Agree “I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products” “I frequently look for new
products and services” “I am continually seeking for new product experiences” “I like to buy new products before other people do” “I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product information” “I like magazines and/ or websites that introduce new products”
39
Question 4 Were you already familiar with so-called gesture control armbands, like the Myo?
Yes No
Question 5 What is your gender?
Male Female
Question 6 What is your age?
____
Question 7 Are you currently living in the Netherlands?
Yes No
