Eline Jansen 11658142 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Research Master’s Communication Science
Amsterdam University Dr. Marieke L. Fransen
28/06/2019 7266 words
From Mindless to Mindful Decision-Making
The Impact of Mindfulness on the Susceptibility to
Advertising Heuristics.
Abstract
This study examined the influence of mindfulness on the susceptibility to advertising heuristics. The first aim was to investigate whether mindfulness could moderate the
relationship between the use of scarcity cues, and their effect on persuasion outcomes. The expectation was that more mindful participants would be less susceptible to the advertising strategy. As a result, this would have a negative effect on persuasion outcomes. The second aim was to establish whether persuasion knowledge could explain this relationship. In that mindfulness would increase an individuals’ persuasion knowledge and, in turn, persuasion knowledge would reduce the susceptibility to the scarcity heuristic. The study was executed among 266 participants using a 2 (scarcity ad/control ad) x 2 (mindfulness audio/control audio) between-subjects online experiment. The results showed that the scarcity cue did not affect ad attitude, brand attitude or purchase intention. Furthermore, no interaction effect was found between scarcity and mindfulness. Additionally, persuasion knowledge did not show a mediating role for mindfulness. As research concerning the impact of mindfulness in the context of advertising has been lacking, this study contributes to the existing literature on this topic. However, further research needs to be done to draw accurate conclusions.
Keywords: advertising, mindfulness, scarcity, heuristic, decision-making, persuasion
Introduction
We are currently living in a society in which we consume continuously. Next to our basic needs, such as food and water, we are consuming an exponentially increasing amount of goods and services (Amadeo, 2019). We are not only buying what we need but instead consuming to feel happy. Even though our economic system depends on our continued and increased consumption, we do not acknowledge the substantial environmental strain it causes (Mayell, 2004). This constant need for consumption is continuously encouraged through advertising, which is everywhere; on the streets, online, in movies and television. On a daily basis, consumers make consumption choices which are influenced by these advertising campaigns. These consumption choices are made more unconsciously than deliberate (Bargh, 2002; Martin & Morich, 2011).
Advertising exploits the automaticity with which we buy things, and our insatiable need for fulfilment (Rosenberg, 2004). Often, consumption is seen as a key to happiness; it provides us with instant gratification and makes us feel good. However, this feeling is not sustainable (Cohen & Vandenbergh, 2008; Hamilton, 2010). “You can never get enough of
what you don’t really want”, seems to be society’s new slogan (Rick Hanson in Minimalism,
2016). Modern marketing tries to build symbolic associations between the products they sell and the psychological states of consumers (Hamilton, 2010). In other words, they try to strengthen this psychological link between stuff and happiness, leading us to chase happiness through consumption.
Like the automaticity of consumption suggests, a significant part of human behaviour is not cognitively motivated, but instead a result of unconscious or semi-unconscious mental processes (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Martin & Morich, 2011). In general, processing advertisements is done automatically, and consumer behaviour is shaped by habits and routines (Chaiken & Eagly, 1989; Fischer et al., 2017). Tapping into the semi-unconscious
decision-making habits of consumers, advertisers use heuristics to persuade them to buy their product, such as the scarcity cue. Advertisements show sentences like “Limited Edition” or
“Limited supply only!”, which make consumers feel pressured to buy a product, due to the
limited availability of a product (Verhallen & Robben, 1994). Heuristics provide an easy route of evaluating a message, without necessarily scrutinizing the content (Eagly & Chaiken, 1984).
As marketers perpetually attempt to sell products, it is crucial for consumers to be able to guard themselves against the use of advertising heuristics. Rosenberg (2004) suggested the idea that mindfulness could work as a persuasion resistance technique by providing consumers with a moment of reflection. Brown and Ryan (2003) define
mindfulness as: “…the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the
present”(p. 822). Mindfulness allows people to act more reflectively rather than impulsively (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009). Even though mindfulness has been a well-studied concept, its application has mostly been in the context of health improvement and not communication (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Chiesa & Serretti, 2009). However, mindfulness and
pro-environmental behaviour, such as sustainable consumption, have been linked before,
suggesting the possible influence of mindfulness to change consumer behaviour (Bahl et al., 2016; Dong & Brunel, 2006; Fischer et al., 2017; Papies et al., 2015).
Specifically, there has been insufficient research on the impact of mindfulness on the effects of advertising heuristics. With mindfulness, one can move from the semi-automatic pilot, which often shapes consumer behaviour, to a more conscious way of decision making, scrutinizing the content (Dong & Brunel, 2006). Thus, resulting in less susceptibility to persuasion attempts (Fischer et al., 2017; Martin & Morich, 2011). Even though individuals differ in the extent to which they are mindful (as a trait), mindfulness could also be activated through a short task or intervention (Dane, 2011; Strick & Papies, 2017).
In general, consumers don’t always want to be susceptible to advertising. Thus, when exposed to a persuasion attempt, consumers are inclined to use what Friestad and Wright (1994) call ‘persuasion knowledge’. This knowledge structure contains beliefs and theories about how persuasion agents, such as marketers will attempt to influence them (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Mindfulness could allow for consumers to activate this persuasion knowledge by being more attentive and aware of the persuasive attempt. Thus, mindfulness could
empower the consumer to guard themselves against the, often conflicting, goals of advertisers by making them less susceptible to advertising tricks and heuristics. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore how mindfulness can be used as a persuasion resistance technique in affecting information processing and add to the current scientific knowledge on mindfulness in relation to advertising effects. With this, the following research question is stated:
RQ Can mindfulness reduce the persuasive effects of heuristic cues in advertising and is
this effect mediated by the activation of persuasion knowledge?
Theoretical Framework
Conscious versus unconscious decision making
Consumption choices seem to be based more on habits and routines than deliberate decision making, making it mindless rather than mindful (Bahl et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2017; Martin & Morich, 2011; Rosenberg, 2004). Problematically, automatization of behaviour can have negative influences on consumers as it leaves them being more
susceptible to the persuasive effects of advertising (Rosenberg, 2004). Since consumers make many consumption choices every day, they are always looking for ways to simplify their decision making in order to minimize cognitive energy use (Bargh, 2002; Martin & Morich, 2011). The conscious mind can only put effort into one thing at a time and therefore tries to unburden itself by moving as many tasks as possible to the unconscious mind (Nilsen, Bourne & Verplanken, 2008).
Even though consumption choices are predominantly unconscious or
semi-unconscious, most decision-making models focus on conscious decision making. Therefore, Martin and Morich (2011) developed their own model of consumer behaviour. Within this model, they distinguish three types of decision making: the pilot, co-pilot and auto-pilot. The pilot indicates the fully conscious decision making that customers use, often when they are making decisions about new products or ones that require high involvement. Contrarily, the auto-pilot concerns usage and purchase behaviour that is based on habits, which allows a person to complete tasks that are not related to conscious goals, needs or intent (Martin & Morich, 2011). Thirdly, the co-pilot decision making places itself somewhere in-between these two and refers to consumer experiences where there is a relatively narrow range of choices that do not require fully conscious evaluation. Though, these decisions are too complicated to be assigned to habitual choice. Often, for these cases, consumers likely rely on using heuristics (Martin & Morich, 2011; Eagly & Chaiken, 1984).
Overall, the model does not imply that all decision making is done unconsciously. However, the authors posit that there is a constant interplay between conscious and unconscious processing where the consumer mind is ever trying to automate its behaviour (Martin & Morich, 2011; Nilsen, Bourne & Verplanken, 2008).
Advertising heuristics
As the model suggests, consumers often rely on advertising heuristics to make consumption choices. The next paragraph will discuss the impact of these heuristics on the decision-making process. Models such as the Heuristic-Systematic Model or the Elaboration Likelihood Model, have discussed the idea of heuristics before (Eagly & Chaiken, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). They are simple rules of thumb which provide an easy route of evaluating a message without necessarily scrutinizing the semantic content, minimizing cognitive strain (Eagly & Chaiken, 1984; Shah & Oppenheimer, 2008). Additionally, these
knowledge structures are learned through experience and stored in a person’s memory (Chen, Duckworth & Chaiken, 1999).
The use of heuristic cues has been a popular method in advertising. Research has proved the effectiveness of heuristics in advertising, such as celebrity endorsement (Amos, Holmes & Strutton, 2008; Erdogan, 1999), the use of experts (Biswas, Biswas & Das, 2006) or the scarcity heuristic. Specifically, scarcity has been found to increase ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention (Eisend 2008; Roy & Sharma, 2015). The limited availability of a product works as a cue of quality as consumers perceive scarce products as more
valuable than products that are there in abundance (Eisend, 2008; Verhallen & Robben, 1994). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1 Advertisements with a heuristic cue will lead to higher persuasion outcomes (ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention) than advertisements without a
heuristic cue.
Mindfulness as a way to resist heuristic persuasion
The co-pilot mode of decision making that consumers use for consumption behaviour makes them more susceptible to advertising heuristics. Because consumers don’t always want to be persuaded, mindfulness has recently been proposed as a persuasion resistance strategy (Dong & Brunel, 2006; Fischer et al., 2017; Rosenberg, 2004). Therefore, this paragraph will discuss the idea of mindfulness as a persuasion resistance strategy.
Consumers often feel their goals conflict with the goals of the advertisers and aim to resist these strategies (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Mindfulness could provide a way to be less susceptible to heuristic cues used in advertising, by providing a moment of reflection and move individuals from somewhat unconscious to conscious consumption decisions (Fischer et al., 2017; Rosenberg, 2004). We will first start with exploring the meaning of mindfulness, as it is often associated with a more ‘out there’ context. Mindfulness originates from
Buddhism, and it refers to “deliberate, unbiased and open-hearted awareness of perceptible
experience in the present moment” (Fisher et al., 2017, p. 544). It’s a type of awareness
where one is attentive to the present and their surroundings. Contrary to popular belief, one need not be an experienced meditation expert to apply mindfulness in one’s daily life. Furthermore, mindfulness has predominantly been researched in a health context (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Chiesa & Seretti, 2009) and in relation to productivity (Dane, 2011; Weger, Hooper, Meier & Hopthrow, 2012). However, the relationship between mindfulness and advertising or consumer behaviour received little empirical attention. Therefore, this study will focus on the impact of mindfulness as a persuasion resistance strategy in the context of advertising.
Rosenberg (2004) argues that mindfulness can help battle mindless consumption in two ways. First of all, mindfulness can help through self-actualization. As often consumption choices are driven by a need for fulfilment, mindfulness can help replace the temporary feelings of satisfaction that consumption brings. Secondly, mindfulness can enhance one’s awareness of the processes underlying consumption that have become more automatic. Thus, by becoming aware of this automatic behaviour, consumption habits can be changed. Mindful people are more deliberate in the choices they make and therefore less susceptible to the persuasive influence of others (Rosenberg, 2004; Bahl et al., 2016). This paper will focus on the latter, where mindfulness can enhance deliberate decision making by moving away from unconscious processing.
Moreover, the growing sense of awareness that mindfulness provides can be a key to breaking habitual behaviour and can aid consumers in making better choices and limit compulsive buying impulses (Fischer et al., 2017). Additionally, Van Lieren, Calabretta and Schoormans (2018) found that introducing ‘rational overrides’ (e.g. micro-moments of friction) can disrupt mindless automatic interaction prompt moments of reflection and more
deliberate conscious decision making. Just like rational overrides, mindfulness can integrate moments of self-awareness and conscious decision making into consumer behaviour (Van Lieren, Calabretta & Schoormans, 2018). In other words, a mindfulness task will allow consumers to stop and reflect, become aware and then, in turn, make more deliberate decisions. Thus, based on the Consumer Behaviour Model by Martin and Morich (2011), mindfulness can move consumers from the auto- or co-pilot to the pilot mode. Bahl et al. (2016) called mindfulness the “antidote to mindless consumption” (p. 1). Where
mindlessness is a significant determinant of consumption-induced problems, mindfulness can reverse this automaticity (Rosenberg, 2004).
Most studies have observed mindfulness in a long-term intervention, or as a personal characteristic. However, mindfulness could also be induced with a small mindfulness
exercise. Several studies made use of short mindfulness meditation audio tasks that showed to be effective, indicating that mindfulness does not necessarily need a long-term
intervention. In these exercises, participants were guided to induce a state of mindfulness and encouraged to observe sensations in a nonjudgemental way and to strengthen their awareness (Dane, 2011; Strick & Papies, 2017; Weger et al., 2012). Therefore, this study will aim to trigger mindfulness through a short intervention and investigate the impact mindfulness can have on the susceptibility to the heuristic cues.
Mindfulness versus attention
Problematically, some scholars argue that mindfulness is not different from attention. Like the previous two definitions of mindfulness both stated, it is “… aware of what is” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 822), and “…openhearted awareness” (Fisher et al., 2017, p. 546), it seems to be closely related. However, Bahl et al. (2016) make a compelling argument and state the following:
“In the context of mindful consumption, attention implies directing a wandering mind
to focus on external stimuli, including objects, people, and the environment, and on
internal stimuli, including bodily sensations, emotions, and thoughts related to the
current consumption situation. Mindful consumption also entails noticing the effects of the stimuli on the consumption process” (p. 7).
Thus, being mindful, is not just paying attention; it also requires an individual to think more reflectively (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Papies et al., 2015). Mindfulness can help individuals move away from habits, routines or behaviour patterns by taking a step back and deliberately reflecting on the situation.Therefore, with the use of mindfulness, one can expect people to be less susceptible to the advertising heuristics used; when they get a short mindfulness task, they will be able to reflect on the advertisement and make more deliberate and conscious consumer choices. Hence, a simple task that requires an individuals’ attention should not have the same effects as it will not provide the reflectiveness that mindfulness does. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2 Exposure to a mindfulness task will reduce the effects of heuristic cues on persuasion outcomes compared to a control task.
Persuasion knowledge as a mediator
As explained above, mindfulness can moderate the effects of advertising heuristics by turning unconscious decision making into a conscious choice. Mindfulness installs a moment of reflection, which takes consumers off the co-pilot for consumer behaviour. As this has not yet been studied, it would be interesting to examine through which mechanism this might work.
Through this moment of reflection, consumers will become more aware of the persuasive techniques of marketers. This idea relates to that of persuasion knowledge. Persuasion knowledge can be seen as a person’s beliefs and theories about how persuasion
agents, such as marketers, will attempt to influence them (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model, this knowledge structure is considered to be an audience characteristic which is highly dependent on the extent to which mental resources are allocated to it (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Jeong, Cho & Hwang, 2012). Over time,
consumers will develop knowledge of agents’ persuasion technique and with that become better to adapt and respond to these attempts in order to achieve their own goals.
When persuasion knowledge is triggered, it seems to play a mediating role between the exposure to the advertisement and the persuasion outcomes (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012). With this, activating a consumers’ knowledge about marketing tactics will negatively affect consumer responses (Boerman, Willemsen & Van der Aa, 2017; Hardesty, Bearden & Carlson, 2007; Wei, Fisher & Main, 2008). The activation of persuasion
knowledge often leads to lower credibility of the advertiser, which makes people feel deceived. Thus, increasing persuasion knowledge will make consumers more aware of the strategy marketers are using in the advertisement, such as heuristic cues. This awareness about the strategy will cause lower scores on ad attitude, brand attitude or willingness to purchase the product (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007). Moreover, Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013) found that general knowledge of the scarcity cues and persuasion knowledge can reduce the success of such a heuristic
Hence, a mindfulness task will provide people with a moment of reflection, which will move an individual to a state of conscious processing. This moment of reflection could make an individual more aware of the situation, reflecting on the advertisement mindfully. Also, through mindful awareness, one will be able to allocate more resources to this
advertising. As such, this moment of reflection will activate a person’s persuasion knowledge in that they will become more aware of the persuasive intent and the strategy used by the advertiser. Through mindful rather than unconscious decision-making, they will become
more resistant towards the persuasive intent, which in turn will negatively affect persuasion outcomes. The conceptual model can be found in Figure 1, and the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3a Mindfulness will increase an individuals’ persuasion knowledge.
H3b Persuasion knowledge will have a moderating effect on the effects of advertising heuristics on the persuasion outcomes.
Figure 1
Schematic representation of the conceptual model
Method
Study design and participantsThe experiment made use of a 2 (scarcity heuristic vs. no scarcity heuristic) x 2 (mindfulness task vs. control task) between-subjects design. The sample consisted of 266 participants that participated in the online experiment. The participants were collected through a self-selection convenience and snowball convenience method. In this sample, 55.2% of the participants were female (44.3% male, 0.5% other/unknown), with ages ranging from 18 to 81 (M = 38, SD = 15.43). Participants from different ethnic backgrounds were
acquired, although the sample was primarily Caucasian (77.8 %). Additionally, participants had different educational backgrounds, but were predominantly highly educated with either a bachelor’s degree (33%) or a master’s degree (29.2%). A high drop-out rate was present, excluding 54 participants from the study. Additionally, 28 participants were excluded
because they failed the attention check (n = 184). Additional demographic information can be found in Table 2-4 in Appendix A.
Procedure
Data were collected over ten days (May 27th till June 5th). Participants were approached through several social media platforms and email. The participants received a request to participate in an online study about ‘decision making’, which would take
approximately fifteen minutes. The message contained a link to the online experiment, which directed them to the study. First, the respondents were required to accept informed consent and were asked to use headphones during this online experiment. When the participant agreed to participate, they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
In each condition, respondents were requested to listen to an audio-fragment of approximately 9 minutes, either the mindfulness condition or the control condition. They were asked to listen to the audio-fragment carefully and were not able to proceed till after 9 minutes. After finishing the fragment, participants were directed to one of the two versions of the advertisement; the scarcity condition or control condition. In both conditions, the
respondents were provided with a scenario about the Swedish clothing company, H&M, who collaborated on a new collection with the French fashion house Balmain. The participants were then informed that the following images were from their new campaign. They were asked to take a careful look at the advertisement and were able to proceed after 20 seconds.
After the advertisement, respondents received a series of questions concerning the behavioural outcomes. These questions were followed by the persuasion knowledge items,
which were then followed by questions concerning product involvement and prior
mindfulness experience. After that, the manipulation and attention check were employed, and the respondents were given several socio-demographic questions. Finally, all participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Stimulus material
Scarcity advertisement
Participants were assigned to two versions of a clothing advertisement. For this study, the heuristic cue was operationalized in the form of a scarcity cue. With scarcity heuristics, a distinction can be made between supply-related and demand-related scarcity appeals, with the latter indicating an increased demand for the product. Supply-related scarcity often indicates a limited supply of a product (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013; Van Herpen, Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2009). Marketers most often use the supply-scarcity principle for promoting their product through lines as “Limited Edition” or “Limited supply only!”. Therefore, a supply-related appeal was used for this study.
This advertisement was based on the study of Eisend (2008), who used actual images from a collaboration campaign of H&M with a designer. For this study, a different campaign was used, which involved a collaboration between H&M and the French fashion house
Balmain. The advertisement included four images of the campaign to which text was added.
These images were chosen based on the fact that these clothes were not too flashy, so that they could appeal to a larger crowd. Moreover, the images included both male as female models in order to appeal to both genders.
These images were accompanied by a short introduction, stating the following:
“Recently, the Swedish clothing company, H&M, collaborated on a new collection with the
French fashion house Balmain. Their last collaboration was a huge success and the clothing
a careful look before proceeding”. Furthermore, the scarcity condition included a “Limited
Edition” stamp and stated that supply was only available for a limited time. In the control
condition, it stated that supply was available for everyone and that due to the popularity of the last collection, enough stock was made available this time. The images of the
advertisements used in the survey, including text, can be found in Appendix D.
Mindfulness manipulation
At the start of the study, participants were exposed to an audio fragment with the mindfulness manipulation or the control condition. Before the actual experiment, a pretest was conducted among 78 participants (48% female, Mage = 34.00). The aim was to ensure the mindfulness manipulation had the intended effects. The pretest was executed online and disseminated through multiple social media platforms over seven days (May 13th till May 22nd).
Participation was entirely voluntary, a copy of the pretest survey can be found in Appendix B. In the pretest, two mindfulness manipulations were compared; a mindfulness audio fragment and questions to induce mindfulness. Both manipulations were compared to a control condition. The mindfulness audio fragment consisted of a 9-minute mindfulness meditation exercise from The Honest Guys, a duo that writes and creates high quality guided meditation videos that are available freely on YouTube. The control condition included a 9-minute podcast from the BBC. The link to both fragments can be found in Appendix C. Additionally, the other manipulation included mindfulness in the shape of several questions, in which participants were asked to concentrate and write down several awareness questions related to their senses and surroundings. These questions were based on mindfulness audio exercises. The control condition included the same amount of random personal questions. The questions for both conditions can be found in Appendix B.
During the pretest, participants were randomly exposed to one of four conditions. Afterwards, people were asked to fill in a shortened version of the State Mindfulness Scale
(Tanay & Bernstein, 2013), focusing predominantly on mindfulness of the mind rather than the body. This version included 20 items on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale asked the participants to what extent they agree to statements ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Several items were used such as: “I actively explored my experience in the
moment” and “I noticed thoughts come and go”. The scale proved to be reliable, and a mean
score was developed, which was used for further analysis (M = 3.49, SD = 0.77, = .92). An independent samples t-test showed that the participants that listened to the mindfulness audio-fragment (M = 3.80, SD = 0.48) were significantly more mindful compared to the control audio fragment (M = 3.25, SD = 0.94), t(36) = 2.41, p = .021, 95% CI [0.09, 1.02], d = 0.74. No significant difference was found between the mindfulness questions condition and the control questions condition (p = .320). Additional information can be found in Table 5 in Appendix A. As the manipulation was found to be successful, these were used in the actual experiment.
Mediator variable
In the study, a single mediator was examined: persuasion knowledge.
Persuasion knowledge was measured with six items from Bearden, Hardesty and
Rose (2001). Participants were asked to what they agreed with statements such as; “I know
when a marketer is pressuring me to buy” and “I can see through sales gimmicks used to get
consumers to buy”, measured on a seven-point Likert scale going from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”. Reliability analysis showed that the scale was reliable ( = .83). Therefore, a mean score was constructed, with a higher score indicated more persuasion knowledge (M = 5.48, SD = 0.70)
Dependent variables
The dependent variables consisted of several persuasion outcome variables; ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention.
Ad attitude was measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale, with five items
(taken from Spears & Singh, 2004). Participants were asked for their opinion about the advertisement and had to indicate to which extent they thought several attributes applied to this brand, such as “this advertisement is good/bad”, or “likeable/unlikeable”. The scale proved to be highly reliable ( = .94). Hence, a mean score was developed, with a higher score indicated a more positive ad attitude (M = 4.67, SD = 1.23).
Brand attitude was measured with five items, on a seven-point semantic differential
scale (taken from Spears & Singh, 2004). Participants were asked for their opinion about H&M and were asked to what degree they thought several attributes applied to this brand, such as “this brand is pleasant/unpleasant”, or “appealing/unappealing”. The scale proved to be highly reliable ( = .94). Again, a mean score was calculated, with a higher score indicated a more positive brand attitude (M = 4.73, SD = 1.14).
Purchase intention was measured with three items on a seven-point Likert-scale. The
items were modified from the scale of Kim and Lennon (2000) to fit this advertisement. Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with statements such as; “In case I need a
new outfit, I would be willing to buy apparel from the Balmain x H&M collection”, ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The scale proved to be reliable ( = .90). Hence, a mean score was developed with a higher score indicating a higher likelihood of buying an item from the collection (M = 3.05, SD = 1.43).
Control variables
Two additional control variables were included in the survey which could affect the dependent variables; product involvement and trade mindfulness.
Product involvement with the clothing collection of H&M x Balmain was measured
with five items on a seven-point Likert-scale. The scale was taken from Lastovicka and Gardner (1979) using items such as; “This is a product that interests me” and “I rate this
product as being of the highest importance to me personally”. Again, the scale proved to be
reliable, and a mean score was produced, with a higher score indicating high product involvement (M = 2.63, SD = 0.90, = .64).
Prior mindfulness experience was measured to examine people’s general state of
mindfulness. As most trait mindfulness scales consist of at least 20 questions, another scale was constructed for this study, consisting of four questions. Participants had to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with statements such as; “In general, I feel I am mindful
in the things I do” and “Most of the time, I try to make mindful choices”. A principle axis
factor-analysis was conducted on the four items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified that the sampling adequacy of this measure KMO = .71 and showed that items loaded on one factor (EV = 2.49 R2 = 62.16). The scale proved to be reliable; therefore, a mean score was developed with a higher score indicating more mindfulness experience (M = 4.92, SD = 1.12,
= .78).
Manipulation check
For the advertisement, a manipulation check was included. Participants were asked to what extent they thought there was a sufficient or insufficient amount of clothing available from the collection of H&M x Balmain. The aim was to see whether the participants found that the scarcity ad would make the clothing seem more scarce compared to the control condition. For this, one item was used, which was measured on a 7-point semantic
differential scale, with on one end “insufficient” and the other end “sufficient” (M = 3.94, SD = 1.72), with a high score indicating sufficient availability of the clothing from the collection.
Attention check
An attention check was included in the study for both manipulations, to ensure that participants listened to the audio fragments attentively. A multiple-choice question in each version was included. For the control audio fragment, participants were asked what the audio
fragment was about. For the mindfulness audio, participants were asked what the guy in the audio fragment thought one should do with their thoughts Due to the specificity of the
questions, if the participants did not pay attention, they would answer the question wrong and would be excluded from the data. For both conditions, the second answer was accurate. Both questions can be found in the complete survey in Appendix E.
Results
Randomization check
To ensure that all conditions did not differ in relation to any of the demographic variables or control variables, randomization checks were executed. Cross-tabulations showed that the sample was equally distributed over all four conditions based on ethnicity (χ2 = 29.42, p = .103), education (χ2 = 23.12, p = .338) and gender (χ2 = 2.72, p = .436).
Additionally, a three One-Way ANOVA’s indicated that there were no significant differences between conditions based on product involvement (F(3, 208) = 0.22, p = .605), thus indicating equal distribution. However, a significant difference in age (F(3, 180) = 3.54,
p = .016) and prior mindfulness experience (F(3, 170) = 5.17, p = .002). Further analysis
showed that prior mindfulness experience did correlate with persuasion knowledge (r = .19, p = .012) but not with ad attitude (r = -.08, p = .265), brand attitude (r = -.05, p = .486) or purchase intention (r = -.05, p = .486). However, age did significantly correlate with
persuasion knowledge (r = 0.15, p = .042) but not with ad attitude (r = -.04, p = .638), brand attitude (r = .06, p = .454) or purchase intention (r = -.06, p = .426). Thus, as randomization was not entirely successful, prior mindfulness experience and age were taken as covariates in further analyses.
Manipulation check
An independent samples t-test was performed to assess how participants perceived the availability of clothing in both conditions. The analysis indicated that the participants from
the scarcity condition found that there were significantly less clothing available (M = 3.54 ,
SD = 1.68) than in the control condition (M = 4.18 , SD = 1.77), t(182) = -2.50, p = .013,
95% CI [-1.14, -0.13], d = 0.37. Thus, the manipulation was successful.
Attention check
Several participants did not answer the attention-check multiple choice question right. Therefore, these participants were excluded from further analysis (n = 28).
Manipulation check
An independent samples t-test showed that the participants from the scarcity condition found that there were significantly less clothing available t(182) = -2.50, p = .013, 95% CI [-1.14, -0.13], d = 0.37, (M = 3.54 , SD = 1.68) than in the control condition (M = 4.18 , SD = 1.77 ). Thus, the manipulation was successful.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for all variables per condition
Scarcity ad Control ad Mindfulness audio (n = 32) Control audio (n = 58) Mindfulness audio (n = 53) Control audio (n = 41) Ad attitude 4.37 (1.48) 4.88 (1.05) 4.68 (1.21) 4.63 (1.27) Brand attitude Purchase intention 4.59 (1.22) 2.93 (1.45) 4.84 (1.08) 3.32 (1.44) 4.83 (1.25) 3.06 (1.48) 4.56 (1.03) 2.76 (1.32) Persuasion Knowledge 5.72 (0.56) 5.50 (0.59) 5.30 (0.80) 5.50 (0.77) Hypotheses
In order to test the hypotheses 1, 2, 3a and 3b, a mediated moderation analysis was carried out in PROCESS; a macro analysis for SPSS designed by Hayes (2013). As this study has
three outcome variables, per model, three PROCESS analyses were run for each of the outcome variables. Model 8 was selected to test the mediated moderation model. In every analysis, prior mindfulness experience and age were taken into account as covariates. Furthermore, the model was tested by bootstrapping with bootstrapping samples of 10,000 with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals.
Effects of scarcity cues on persuasion outcomes
Hypotheses 1 indicated that advertisements that included a scarcity cue would lead to higher persuasion outcomes than advertisements without a scarcity cue. In the study, three
persuasion outcomes were used; ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention. Analysis showed that the use of a scarcity cue did not significantly predict ad attitude (b = 0.76, t (176) = 1.21, p = .225), brand attitude (b = 0.79, t(176) = 1.35, p = .177) or purchase intention (b = 0.84, t(176) = 1.15, p = .251). Therefore, no support was found for hypothesis 1.
The moderating effects of mindfulness
Hypothesis 2 stated that exposure to a mindfulness task would reduce the effects of heuristic cues on persuasion outcomes compared to the control task. The moderation analysis showed that there was no interaction effect between scarcity and mindfulness on ad attitude (b = 0.76,
t(176) = 1.21, p = .225), brand attitude (b = -0.55, t(176) = -1.55, p = .124) or purchase
intention (b = -0.68, t(176) = -1.50, p = .135). Thus, based on these findings, no support was found for hypothesis 2.
The mediating effect of persuasion knowledge
Hypothesis 3 expected a mediated moderation with persuasion knowledge. Where
mindfulness increase persuasion knowledge (H3a) and in turn, persuasion knowledge had a moderating effect on the effect of heuristic cues on the persuasion outcomes (H3b). The analysis showed that mindfulness did not affect persuasion knowledge (b = 0.53, t(177) = -1.57, p = .117), meaning that mindfulness did not lead to the activation of persuasion
knowledge. Thus, showing no support for hypothesis 3a. Additionally, there was no
mediating effect of persuasion knowledge on ad attitude (c = 0.02, SE = 0.05, 95% Bca CI [-0.10, 0.13]), brand (c = -0.01, SE = 0.05, 95% Bca CI [-0.13, 0.08]) purchase intention (c = 0.06, SE = 0.07, 95% Bca CI [-0.07, 0.22]). Therefore, no support was found for hypothesis 3b.
In addition, the complete models proved not to be a significant predictor of ad attitude (F(6, 176) = 0.80, p = .567, R2 = 0.03), brand attitude (F(6, 176) = 0.72, p = .635, R2 = 0.02) and purchase intention (F(6, 176) = 0.90, p = .493, R2 = 0.03). A visualization of the models with the results can be found in Figures 2-4 in Appendix B.
Conclusion and Discussion
The present study addressed the question of whether mindfulness could influence an individuals’ susceptibility to advertising heuristics. The first aim was to establish whether mindfulness has a moderating impact on the effects of scarcity cues on persuasion outcomes. For this, the effect of a scarcity cue on persuasion outcomes was tested. Secondly, the study examined whether persuasion knowledge could explain this moderation effect of
mindfulness. The conclusion, limitations, implications and suggestions for future research will be further discussed per hypothesis.
Effects of scarcity cues on persuasion outcomes
The first hypothesis stated that the use of a scarcity cue would have a positive effect on persuasion outcomes. Contrarily, the results showed that the scarcity heuristic did not affect ad attitude, brand attitude or purchase intention. Thus, these results are inconsistent with previous findings (Caldini, 2008; Eisend, 2008; Verhallen & Robben, 1994).
The lack of main effect could be due to limitations concerning the combination of the product and sample. Overall, the results indicated a low average of product involvement across all conditions (M = 2.63, SD = 0.90), indicating that this product did not appeal to the
participants at all. Even though the campaign was adapted from Eisend (2008), low product involvement may have had a negative effect on the persuasion outcomes through a floor-effect. Eisend (2008) also stated that when people have a free choice, their reaction depends predominantly on the perceived importance of the issue. When participants are not involved with a product, a heuristic cue is not going to change that. When a consumer’s first response to a message or product is negative, they will scrutinize the message more, and this will most likely result in an even more negative evaluation of the message (Brannon & McCabe, 2011).
Even though clothing is one of the products we purchase most regularly besides food, it is a very personally specific preference (O’Cass, 2002). Thus, a clothing campaign that appeals to everyone is difficult to find. Especially, with the range of ages present in the sample, as H&M mostly appeals to the younger age group. Therefore, it would have been valuable to have included several campaigns in a pretest. This way, the study could have ensured the campaign would appeal to the sample, avoiding the possible effects of product involvement on the effectiveness of the advertisement.
Additionally, the participants displayed high levels of persuasion knowledge (M = 5.48, SD = 0.70). These high levels of persuasion knowledge could have also affected the impact of the heuristic cue. Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013) stated that people with more
persuasion knowledge would be less affected by advertising heuristics. These results were due to widespread persuasion knowledge and consumer familiarity with the use of scarcity cues in advertising as a persuasion strategy (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013; Brannon & McCabe, 2011) Thus, the high scores of persuasion knowledge might have indicated that the
participants were highly knowledgeable of persuasion strategies, and as a result more skeptical of advertising. Thus, these high scores could have possibly led to the lack of persuasiveness of this scarcity cue and the advertisement in general.
The moderating effects of mindfulness
In addition, the results showed no interaction effect of scarcity and mindfulness on any of the persuasion outcomes. In order to find a moderation-effect of mindfulness, a strong main effect was necessary. As this was not the case, no support was found for the impact of mindfulness on the susceptibility to advertising heuristics.
However, even though the differences were small, the pretest did show that mindfulness can be invoked through a short intervention task, thus confirming previous findings (Dane, 2011; Strick & Papies, 2017). Moreover, participants showed moderately high scores of prior experiences with mindfulness (M = 4.92, SD = 1.12). These scores could explain the absence of a main effect as a study by Dong and Brunel (2006) found that an individuals’ general mindfulness increased one’s tendency to scrutinize the content of an advertisement. In other words, the general mindfulness of the participants could have caused them to be more critical towards the advertising and scrutinize its content, minimizing the persuasiveness of the message content and thus the heuristic. Furthermore, Table 5
(Appendix A) indicates that the scores for prior mindfulness experience were even higher in the control compared to the mindfulness condition. Thus, possibly the mindfulness
manipulation might not have had the intended effect, as people were already rather mindful. As the results show no significant effects, no definitive assumptions concerning the role of mindfulness can be made. Due to the lack of a main effect, no significant interaction effects were found. However, mindfulness in the form of prior experience could still have played a role in the lack of an effect of the heuristic cue on persuasion outcomes.
Mindfulness allows people to process information in a more reflective, aware manner (Fischer et al., 2013; Dong & Brunel, 2006). Therefore, future research could investigate the effects of trait rather than state mindfulness as these indicate individuals’ general tendency
for mindfulness rather than just in the moment. Additionally, trait mindfulness might also be more involved when looking at an advertisement as it will be unlikely that people will do a mindfulness exercise before encountering advertising in their daily life. Furthermore, Jordan et al. (2014) found that both trait and state mindfulness played a significant role in changing behaviour.
The mediating effect of persuasion knowledge
Finally, the third hypothesis expected persuasion knowledge to mediate mindfulness in that mindfulness would increase persuasion knowledge (3a), and in turn, persuasion knowledge would moderate the effect of the scarcity cue (3b). However, the results found no support for this hypothesis and thus conflicting with earlier research on persuasion
knowledge (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012; Boerman, Willemsen & Van der Aa, 2017; Kirmani & Campbell, 2009).
However, the absence of this finding could be due to ceiling-effects within the sample. As mentioned before, participants displayed high scores of persuasion knowledge, which could be due to several reasons. First of all, the sample consisted of a highly educated group. Studies show that persuasion knowledge is often related to an increased by education level (Friestad & Wright, 1994), thus indicating that the type of sample could have influenced this result. Secondly, the scale used for this study might have been more focused on
persuasion knowledge as a trait rather than a state. Trait persuasion knowledge can develop over time but often more or less stable and could probably not be influenced directly by a short mindfulness task (Ham, Nelson & Das, 2015).
Thirdly, this advertisement made use of a persuasion technique that was very obvious. As consumers have more persuasion knowledge and are more aware of advertising strategies, these cues will be more apparent to consumers, making them more aware and sceptical of these persuasion strategies. This awareness and scepticism, will make them less susceptible
to advertising tactics This could explain why the use of a simple scarcity heuristic would not affect persuasion outcomes (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Boerman, Willemsen & Van der Aa, 2017). As a result, advertisers are now often trying to integrate persuasive messages into traditionally non-commercial media in the shape of Instagram sponsorships, advertorials, or brand placements (Evans et al., 2017; Van Reijmersdal, Neijens & Smit, 2007). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore the role of mindfulness within a more deceptive advertising context as consumers are increasingly aware of persuasive attempts and as a result, are less susceptible to traditional advertising strategies (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013; Boerman, Willemsen & Van der Aa, 2017).
The current study specifically examined the role of persuasion knowledge in this model. As mindfulness is a rather new concept within advertising and consumer behaviour, future research should focus on exploring other mechanisms that could explain this
relationship. The study by Dong and Brunel (2006) found that need for cognition, thus a willingness to process information more extensively, was closely related to mindfulness. Future research could explore to what extent consumers scrutinized the content of the advertisement and record how critically they processed it. This could provide more insight into the extent to which consumers move from mindless to mindful decision-making.
In conclusion, with the results of this study, we cannot say whether mindfulness plays a significant role in decision-making. Even though no significant results were found, these findings do not eliminate the possibility of the influence of mindfulness and also persuasion knowledge. Since there is little research about the impact of mindfulness on the susceptibility to advertising heuristics, this study extends the scientific knowledge on this topic. The
findings and the limitations of this study can be used as building blocks for future research. The lack of significant findings could be due to the sample’s high mindfulness and
main effect needs to be created in future research. Additionally, little conclusive practical implications can be made based on these results, as it remains to be seen whether mindfulness plays a significant role in aiding consumers to guard themselves against the persuasive
References
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A. (2013). The effect of consumer persuasion knowledge on scarcity appeal persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 371-379. DOI
10.1080/00913367.2013.803186
Amadeo, K. (2019, June 3rd). Consumer spending trends and current statistics. The Balance. Retrieved from: https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-trends-and-current-statistics-3305916
Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness: A quantitative synthesis of effect size.
International Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209-234. DOI
10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052
Bahl, S., Milne, G. R., Ross, S. M., Mick, D. G., Grier, S. A., Chugani, S. K., ... & Schindler, R. M. (2016). Mindfulness: Its transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 198-210. DOI 10.1509/jppm.15.139
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 462. DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462
Bargh, J. A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 280-285. DOI 10.1086/341577
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence:
Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 121-134. DOI 10.1086/321951
endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of Advertising,
35(2), 17-31. DOI 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639231
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064. DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x
Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van Der Aa, E. P. (2017). “This post is sponsored”: Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82-92. DOI 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002
Brannon, L. A., & McCabe, A. E. (2001). Time-restricted sales appeals: The importance of offering real value. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 47-52. DOI 10.1177/0010880401424004
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822. DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Caldwell K., Harrison, M., Adams M., Quin, R.H., & Greeson, J. (2010). Developing mindfulness in college students through movement-based courses: Effects on self-regulatory self-Efficacy, mood, stress, and sleep quality. Journal of American College
Health, 58(5), 433-442. DOI 10.1080/07448480903540481
Cialdini, R. B. (2008) Influence: Science and Practice (5th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cavanagh, K., Strauss, C., Cicconi, F., Griffiths, N., Wyper, A., & Jones, F. (2013). A randomised controlled trial of a brief online mindfulness-based intervention.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended Thought (Eds. Uleman, J.S., & Bargh, J.A.), 212-252.
Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic
processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44-49. DOI 10.1207/s15327965pli1001_6 Cheung, T. T., Kroese, F. M., Fennis, B. M., & De Ridder, D. T. (2015). Put a limit on it: The
protective effects of scarcity heuristics when self-control is low. Health Psychology
Open, 2(2), 1-11. DOI 10.1177/2055102915615046
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593-600. DOI 10.1089/acm.2008.0495
Cohen, M. A., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2008). Consumption, happiness, and climate change. RFF DP 08-39, Discussion Paper, Resources for the Future, Washington. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1306395
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4), 997-1018. DOI:
10.1177/0149206310367948
Dong, W., & Brunel, F.F. (2006). The role of mindfulness in consumer behavior. Advances
Consumer Response, 33, 276-278. Retrieved from
http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/12484/volumes/v33/NA-33
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 267-359. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60122-7
Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising: The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 33-40. DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367370303
Management, 15(4), 291-314. DOI 10.1362/026725799784870379
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and
behavioral intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(2), 138-149. DOI 10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2017). Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: a systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 544-558. DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.007
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31. DOI
10.1086/209380
Ham, C. D., Nelson, M. R., & Das, S. (2015). How to measure persuasion knowledge.
International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 17-53. DOI
10.1080/02650487.2014.994730
Hamilton, C. (2010). Consumerism, self-creation and prospects for a new ecological consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 571-575. DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.013
Hardesty, D. M., Bearden, W. O., & Carlson, J. P. (2007). Persuasion knowledge and consumer reactions to pricing tactics. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 199-210. DOI 10.1016/j.jretai.2006.06.003
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS [PDF File].
Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis.
Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/specreg/templates.pdf Jacks, J. Z., & Cameron, K. A. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 25(2), 145-161. DOI 10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5
Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454-472. DOI
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Television shopping for apparel in the United States: effects of perceived amount of information on perceived risks and purchase
intentions. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(3), 301-331. DOI 10.1177/1077727X00283002
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2009). Taking the target’s perspective: The persuasion knowledge model. Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, 297-316. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amna_Kirmani/publication/269691520_Taking_ the_Target's_Perspective_The_Persuasion_Knowledge_Model/links/557efbdb08aeb6 1eae261113.pdf
Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688-701. DOI 10.1509/jmkr.44.4.688
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Psychology Press.
Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979). Components of Involvement. In Attitude
Research Plays for High Stakes (Eds. Maloney, J.C., & Silverman, B.). Chicago:
American Marketing Association, 53-73.
Mayell, H. (2004, January 12th). As consumerism spreads, earth suffers, study says. National
Geographic. Retrieved from
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2004/01/consumerism-earth-suffers/
Martin, N., & Morich, K. (2011). Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice: Toward a new model of consumer behavior. Journal of Brand Management, 18(7), 483-505. DOI 10.1057/bm.2011.10
Milburn, J. F., & Nicodemus, R. (2015). Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important
Things (Dir. Matt D'Avella). USA, Catalyst.
Nilsen, P., Bourne, M. and Verplanken, B. (2008) Accounting for the role of habit in behavioural strategies for injury prevention. International Journal of Injury Control
and Safety Promotion, 15(1), 33–40. DOI 10.1080/17457300701794253
O'Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: Antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38. 869-882. DOI 10.1108/03090560410539294.
Papies, E. K., Pronk, T. M., Keesman, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). The benefits of simply observing: Mindful attention modulates the link between motivation and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 148-170. DOI
10.1037/a0038032
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer, New York, NY.
Prazak, M., Critelli, J., Martin, L., Miranda, V., Purdum, M., & Powers, C. (2012).
Mindfulness and its role in physical and psychological health. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well‐Being, 4(1), 91-105. DOI 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01063.x
Rosenberg, E. L. (2004). Mindfulness and consumerism. In Psychology and Consumer
Culture: The Struggle for a Good life in a Materialistic World (Eds. Kasser, T., &
Kanner, A.D.). American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 107–125. Roy. R., & Sharma. P. (2015) Scarcity appeal in advertising: Exploring the
44(4), 349-359. DOI 10.1080/00913367.2015.1018459
Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207-222. DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66. DOI 10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Strick, M., & Papies, E. K. (2017). A brief mindfulness exercise promotes the
correspondence between the implicit affiliation motive and goal setting. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 623-637. DOI 10.1177/0146167217693611
Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1286-1299. DOI 10.1037%2Fa0034044 Van Herpen, E. V., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). How product scarcity impacts on
choice: Snob and bandwagon effects. ACR North American Advances, 32, 623-624. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9165/volumes/v32/NA-32
Van Lieren, A., Calabretta, G., & Schoormans J. (2018). Rational overrides: Influence behavior beyond nudging. DRS, Limerick, June 2018. DOI 10.21606/dma.2018.699 Verhallen, T. M., & Robben, H. S. (1994). Scarcity and preference: An experiment on
unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(2), 315-331. DOI 10.1016/0167-4870(94)90007-8
Weger, U. W., Hooper, N., Meier, B. P., & Hopthrow, T. (2012). Mindful maths: Reducing the impact of stereotype threat through a mindfulness exercise. Consciousness and
Cognition, 21(1), 471-475. DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2011.10.011
persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing.
Appendices Appendix A – Tables Table 2 Gender Scarcity ad Control ad Mindfulness audio (n = 41) Control audio (n = 64) Mindfulness audio (n = 62) Control audio (n = 45) Female (n [%]) 19 (46.3) 37 (57.8) 37 (59.7) 24 (53.3) Male (n [%]) 22 (53.7) 26 (40.6) 25 (40.3) 21 (41.7) Other/I’d rather not say (n [%]) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Table 3 Ethnicity Scarcity ad Control ad Mindfulness audio (n = 41) Control audio (n = 64) Mindfulness audio (n = 62) Control audio (n = 45) Caucasian (n [%]) 33 (80,5) 40 (62.5) 53 (85.5) 39 (86.7) Latino/Hispanic (n [%]) 2 (4,9) 2 (3.1) 2 (3.2) 1 (2.2) Middle Eastern (n [%]) 1 (2,4) 5 (7.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) African (n [%]) 1 (2,4) 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Caribbean (n [%]) 1 (2,4) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) South Asian (n [%]) 0 (0,0) 3 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) East Asian (n [%]) 0 (0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) Mixed (n [%]) 0 (0) 2 (3.1) 2 (3.2) 1 (2.2)
Other/I’d rather not say (n [%])
Table 4 Education Scarcity ad Control ad Mindfulness audio (n = 41) Control audio (n = 64) Mindfulness audio (n = 62) Control audio (n = 45) Less than high school
degree (n [%])
1 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
High school degree or equivalent (n [%])
7 (17.1) 7 (10.9) 7 (11.3) 10 (22.2)
Trade/technical/vocational training (n [%])
5 (12.2) 4 (6.3) 5 (8.1) 7 (15.6)
Applied Science degree (n [%]) 2 (4.9) (8 (12.5) 2 (3.2) 3 (6.7) Bachelor’s degree (university) (n [%]) 14 (34.1) 23 (35.9) 20 (32.3) 13 (28.9) Master’s degree (university) (n [%]) 10 (24.4). 18 (28.1) 25 (40.3) 9 (20.0) Professional degree (n [%]) 2 (4.9) 2 (3.1) 1 (1.6) 3 (6.7) Doctorate degree (n [%]) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.1) 2 (3.2) 0 (0.0) Table 5
Means and standard deviations for control variables per condition
Scarcity ad Control ad Mindfulness audio (n = 41) Control audio (n = 64) Mindfulness audio (n = 62) Control audio (n = 45) Product involvement 2.73 (1.13) 2.79 (0.93) 2.65 (0.93) 2.72 (0.90) Mindfulness experience 4.88 (1.05) 5.08 (0.94) 4.46 (1.19) 5.17 (1.10)
Table 6
State Mindfulness Scale scores per condition pretest
Mindfulness audio (n = 24) Mindfulness questions (n = 19) Control audio (n = 14) Control questions (n = 18) State mindfulness 3.81 (0.48) 3.49 (0.71) 3.25 (0.94) 3.23 (0.87)
Appendix B – Pretest Survey
Dear participant,
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes. During the online survey, you
will be asked to wear a pair of headphones. First, you will be requested to perform a small
task. In addition, several questions will be asked. Any person over 18 is allowed to participate. The goal of this research is to generate insight into decision-making.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information 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 7 days 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 your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact me at any time (eline.jansen@student.uva.nl) Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence. I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Kind regards, Eline Jansen
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study. 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 a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment 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 future, I can contact eline.jansen@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, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study.o
I wish not to participate in the research study.9-Minute mindfulness audio-fragment
Please listen to the following audio fragment. It is important you have enabled the sound on your phone, laptop, desktop or tablet. Please use headphones to listen to this audio fragment. Try and concentrate on the audio recording and complete the 9-minute task.
Mindfulness questions
You will now be asked to execute a small task. Before you execute this task. Take a few moments to settle into a comfortable position. Move into a position so that your back is straight, but not rigid. Place your feet squarely on the ground. Make sure you wear some
headphones to block out any noise.
The task will consist of two stages. First, you will be instructed to focus your attention on your surroundings and yourself. Secondly, you will be asked to answer some questions. Please read the instructions first thoroughly, before starting the task.
Now please try and take in your surroundings. Try and be aware of what is going on around you. Maybe your mind will wander elsewhere. Every time that happens, just gently bring your attention back to yourself. Try and focus on your breathing, just breathing in out. Now, please take a few moments to do this...
When you are done, please continue to the next page.
We will now ask you to answer several questions. Try and answer these questions as precisely as possible. There are no right or wrong answers.
Right now, what are you feeling? What are the sensations that are going through your body? ________________________________________________________________
How is your posture? Are you feeling any pain or discomfort somewhere? ________________________________________________________________
Now pay attention to your breathing. How is your breathing going? Are you breathing, slow, fast, irregular?
