The importance of privacy, financial benefits and the effect of the construal level theory in the field of mobile coupons

(1)

The importance of privacy, financial benefits and the effect of

the construal level theory in the field of mobile coupons

Master Thesis

MSc Business Administration – Marketing track

Author: Pauline Molenaar (10871691)

University of Amsterdam - Amsterdam Business School Supervisor: Tina Düdenhoffer

(2)

Statement of orginality

This document is written by Pauline Molenaar, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Mobile marketing is a high potential field for companies to build relationships and reach their consumers. Among others, mobile coupons give them a possibility to offer their consumers digital coupons or electronic tickets, to stimulate their purchase behavior. Consumers can redeem these coupons for an economic benefit when they purchase a product or service in a store or online. These economic benefits are the primary reasons for consumers to use coupons. Multiple researchers researched the importance of privacy of consumers in their online behavior, but the interest of privacy concerns is expected to be higher in the mobile field, due the highly personal and intimate character of the mobile device. Many consumers are anxious and struggle with allowing companies access to their mobile data. Although, multiple studies report that the consumer risk beliefs generally do not correspond with their behavior, which is known as the phenomenon ‘privacy paradox’. Other studies found no proof fort his paradox. The construal level theory, which states that people’s choices are based on a negociation between confliciting values, could provide an explanation for this paradox. They differentiate between two construal levels; concrete and abstract. Events that are likely to happen are associated with a low construal level and are more valued in near-future decisions. In contrast, unlikely events are associated with a high construal level and are valued more in distant-future decisions. The construal level theory has a bi-directional link with

psychological distance, which explains the subjective experience that something is close or far away from the individual’s reference point and can be perceived in different dimensions, e.g. temporal distance.

Since the importance of the mobile field increases, but not enough knowledge is available about the behavior of consumers, concerning their privacy, the following question arose: What is the effect of privacy concerns and delayed or immediate financial benefits on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus the willingness to disclose privacy, and what is

(6)

the moderating role of the construal mindset? To test the five hypotheses, a between-within subject 2 (concrete/abstract construal level) x 2 (immediate/delayed discount) design was used. Participants were manipulated in an abstract or concrete construal mindset and were subsequently manipulated with an immediate or delayed discount. The manipulation check showed that the manipulation was not successful. Despite this result the hypotheses were tested and 4 of the 5 hypotheses showed no significant results. Results show a positive direct relationship between privacy concerns and intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy. The main result of this research is that the different construal mindsets do not significantly moderate the relationship between financial benefits and the consumers’ intention to use mobile coupons. Neither do these moderate the relationship between the consumers’ privacy concerns and their intention to use mobile coupons. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference is found between the two financial benefit conditions, and privacy concerns do not moderate this relationship.

(7)

Introduction

In 2015, the amount spent on mobile ads in the United States was 51.9 percent of total digital spending and thus bigger than desktop spending. Mobile couponing, which is a form of mobile marketing, is used by 40.5 percent of all the companies in the United States in different industries (with more than hundred employees) and a growth of 7.5 percent points was expected in 2017 (eMarketer, 2015). eMarketer also mentioned that in 2015 eight out of ten adult consumers will redeem a coupon or code received through their mobile device and that this amount will increase to nine out of ten in 2017. Furthermore, a research by Marchex and Digiday (2015, as cited by eMarketer, 2015) among marketeers in the United States showed that 62.9 percent of the respondents thought that mobile coupons were the most effective tool for attributing instore purchases to mobile ads. The portable nature of the mobile device gives the advantage of a high mobility and companies can interact with their consumer at any place and any moment (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010). Furthermore, the mobile device has a highly personal character which also makes it an effective way for companies to reach potential consumers (Barwise & Strong, 2002; Shankar & Balasubramania, 2009). Especially in retail, this mobile marketing tool is an interesting way to keep in contact with consumers. Multiple companies in the fast food branche use mobile couponing to respond to the consumers needs for a quick snack or drink when they are near their store. Companies like McDonalds, Subway and La Place use mobile applications through wich they offer mobile coupons to their consumers (e.g., McDonald’s, n.d.; La Place, n.d.; Haire, 2008; Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010).

Consumer information is very valuable for businesses to make interactions, products and services as personalized as possible. For that reason they try to obtain as much data as possible. Consumers may be willing to share personal information in exchange for benefits they may obtain in return, like a discount or rebate (Culnan & Armstrong, (1999). Since mobile

(8)

coupons lower the price of a good, these are an economic benefit (Im & Ha, 2015). According to Im & Ha (2015) economic benefit is the primary reason for consumers to use coupons. However, they would rather give as little information as possible (Lee & Rha, 2016). The advancing digital technology and the increased exchange of electronic information are typical developments that lead to an increasing threat to the privacy of consumers (Garfinkel, 2000). Consumers are afraid of spam and 25 percent is willing to pay for services to protect their personal mobile space (Kearney, 2005; Scharl, Dickinger & Murphy, 2005). As Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid stated: ‘while this mobile lifestyle offers important marketing opportunities for retailers, mobile devices pose some challenges as well. Mobile devices invite intrusion of privacy from unscrupulous marketers.’ (2010, p. 112). As discussed earlier, consumers highly value their privacy. Especially in the mobile environment the internal conflict between the privacy risks and benefits an individual perceives could be intensified (Lee & Rha, 2016).

Despite these privacy concerns, multiple researchers found that the consumer’s risk beliefs do not correspond with their behavior (Taddicken, 2014; Acquisti, Brandimarte & Loewenstein, 2015). This phenomenon can be explained by the privacy paradox (Barnes, 2006; Taddicken, 2014; Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Fournier & Avery, 2011). Some researchers found proof for the privacy paradox, but others found contradicting and imcomplete results (Hallam & Zanella, 2017). There are multiple explanations for the privacy paradox, among which, the social exchange theory. This theory states that people weigh off the costs against the benefits. When the expected rewards outweigh or at least compensate the perceived costs, people are willing to reveal personal information (Chellappa & Sin, 2005).

Eventhough the privacy paradox received a lot attention, so far, they have not provided sufficient empirical proof to support this theory. Nevertheless, consumers are highly concerned about their privacy and these concerns have a high influence on their online behavior, which

(9)

leads to the urging need for companies to gain more knowledge about these privacy concerns and their underlying causes (Luo, 2002). The construal level theory and psychological distance could have an influence on this privacy paradox (Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007). Subsequently, the field of mobile marketing and mobile coupons is an important and promising field for many businesses. Therefore, this research adresses the gap in the literature by answering the following research question:

“What is the effect of privacy concerns and delayed or immediate financial benefits on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus the willingness to disclose privacy, and what is the moderating role of the construal mindset?”

Multiple researchers, e.g. Eastin, Brinson, Doorey & Wilcox (2016) appoint the increasingly negative attitudes of consumers related to data sharing over the past few years. There is a critical need to get a better understanding of this subject and especially in the high potential mobile field (Eastin et al., 2016; Shankar et al., 2010). The importance of mobile marketing is increasing, but the acceptance of mobile marketing remains unclear (Gao, Sultan & Rohm, 2010). The construal level theory and privacy concerns have gained attention in existing literature, although there is still much to explore about the construal level theory in the field of mobile marketing. This research expands the literature about the construal level theory and the privacy paradox. Furthermore, it expands the literature about mobile marketing and specifically the acceptance of mobile coupons.

First of all, this study starts with an overview of the relevant existing literature. Subsequently, the methodology will be discussed with its research design and variables. After this the results will be provided. Finally, the research will provide a discussion on the proposed hypotheses, which will include conclusions, implications and suggestions for future research.

(10)

Theoretical framework

In this literature review an overview of the existing literature on mobile marketing, privacy and construal level theory is provided. First, the field of mobile marketing and mobile coupons will be discussed. Subsequently, the term privacy will be explained and what its role is in the field of mobile marketing. Finally, the construal level theory will be discussed.

Mobile marketing

Nowadays, mobile phones have become a crucial item in people’s everyday lives. In 2012 more than half of the European youth between 16 and 24 had mobile Internet access and this amount is growing (Eurostat, 2014, as stated by Škařupová, Ólafsson & Blinka, 2016).

Due to their small screens, mobile smartphones are especially used by consumers for activities that can be completed quickly and don’t have to be postponed or remembered for a very long time (Fang, Luo, Andrew, Phang, 2014). Consumers use their mobile device for multiple activities, like comparing different businesses, their products and prices, purchasing products and post purchase activities (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010).

Creating an intimate relationship with consumers, and thereby collecting personalized data, is important for a business to influence their consumer through marketing (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010). Due to the growth of the market of mobile devices, a method is found to influence this behavior via this device. This is called mobile marketing (Shankar & Balasubramanian, 2009). Shankar & Balasubramanian define mobile marketing as “the two-way or multi-way communication and promotion of an offer between a firm and its customers using a mobile medium, device, or technology” (Shankar & Balasubramanian, 2009, p. 118). There are different tools for mobile marketing: mobile advertising, mobile customer service, mobile social network management, mobile emailing and messaging, mobile website

(11)

creation and maintenance and mobile couponing (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010).

For every business, the mobile device and mobile marketing is currently seen as the most high potential and interesting appliance for creating an intimate relationship with their consumers. Compared to traditional physical stores, where the retailer can only interact with a customer when he or she is in or around the store, the mobile device is portable. The portable nature gives the advantage of a high mobility and the business can interact with their consumer at any place and any moment (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010). Furthermore, the mobile device has a highly personal character, which also makes it an effective way for companies to reach potential consumers (Barwise & Strong, 2002; Shankar & Balasubramania, 2009). Through mobile marketing, businesses get the possibility to connect with their consumers through location based marketing, interactive applications and videos.

The existing literature about mobile couponing is not as developed compared to other mobile marketing tools, which makes this mobile marketing tool interesting to study (e.g. Gao, Sultan, & Rohm, 2010; Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naid, 2010).

Mobile coupons

The Mobile Marketing Association states that mobile couponing, which is a form of mobile marketing, are digital coupons or electronic tickets a consumer can redeem when they purchase a product or service in a store or online. The mobile coupon can carry messages including text, pictures, audio and videos and can be exchanged for a financial discount or rebate (Mobile Marketing Association, 2007). Mobile coupons are used by retailers for several reasons; attracting new customers, maintaining the current customer base, selectively giving price reductions to deal prone customers, all of them with stimulating sales as the main goal (Chen & Lu, 2011; Im & Ha, 2015). Mobile couponing can have a positive effect on the competition

(12)

between businesses and could lead to more purchases and more loyal customers (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naik, 2010).

Before the mobile coupon existed, other forms of coupons, like paper based coupons, were already used by companies to interact with their consumers. The mobile coupon has a lot of technological benefits, for instance eliminating time and effort to collect coupons, trouble in printing coupons and forgetting to carry coupons (Lee & Rha, 2016). Coupons were redeemed ten times as often after the introduction of the mobile coupon (Business Insider, 2013, as stated by Lee & Rha, 2016). This motivated companies to start doing business in mobile couponing (Lee & Rha, 2016).

In the early stages of mobile couponing, the coupons were sent to the consumer through SMS, MMS, Bluetooth or another way (eMarketer, 2015). The consumer is able to store the coupon until they choose to redeem it (Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008; eMarketer, 2015). Nowadays many companies offer applications, which their consumers can install on their smartphones and show in a store to redeem their coupon to get their discount or cash back. Many applications also have a location based service, which gives consumers the opportunity to obtain coupons nearby stores or services (Im & Ha, 2013; Lee & Rha, 2016). Another frequently used method to offer mobile coupons is by sending an invitation to the consumer by using other media than the mobile device (for instance print media, outdoor media or in store media) to ask the business for a mobile coupon. This method is seen as effective, because the consumer self selects the offering. By doing this the business can expand his consumer database and the effects of the coupon are directly measurable (Shankar, Venkatesh, Hofacker & Naik, 2010).

Haig (2002) makes a distinction between two types of coupons; push and pull coupons. Push coupons, which are also known as impulse coupons, are time sensitive coupons pushed from the company to the consumer to make them aware of their product or service and stimulate

(13)

impulse sales. Pull coupons, also known as pre-selected coupons, are pulled by the consumer. These are related to products and services in which a consumer has shown interest. Mobile push coupons are an interesting tool for marketers to stimulate unplanned purchases, e.g. when they are close to the store. Mobile pull coupons trigger a final push to the planned purchase. To send these coupons and to personalize the offering, companies need some personal information of the consumers (Andrews, Xueming, Fang & Anindya, 2015; Andrews, Goehring, Hui, Pancras & Thornswood, 2016).

Despite of all the benefits described above and the fact that the coupon contains a financial discount or rebate (Mobile Marketing Association, 2007), many consumers have a negative attitude against mobile coupons. Mainly due to privacy issues. The following paragraph will focus on this topic.

Privacy

Privacy is a broad concept and does have different perspectives (Barnes, 2006). According to Garfinkel (2000), privacy is about self-possession, autonomy and integrity. “It is the right of people to control what details about their lives stay inside their own houses and what leaks to the outside” (Garfinkel, 2000, p. 11). The advanced digital technology and the increased exchange of electronic information are typical developments that lead to a higher threat to the privacy of consumers (Garfinkel, 2000). The consumers’ digital information could be collected by companies to sell it to other marketers, who have an interest to sell their products (Luo, 2002).

Privacy concerns mobile marketing

Many marketers use mobile marketing to make interactions with their consumers based on their personal information (Eastin, Brinson, Doorey & Wilcox, 2016). It has been shown that many consumers are anxious and struggle with allowing companies to their mobile device and mobile

(14)

data, like their location and consumption preferences (Eastin, Brinson, Doorey & Wilcox, 2016; Lee & Rha, 2016). According to Tsang, Ho & Liang (2004), the attitude of consumers toward mobile advertising is negative, unless they gave permission for sending them messages to their mobile device. The reason for this averse is the highly personal and intimate nature of these devices. The majority of the customers do not want marketers to intrude into their mobile devices. For instance, consumers have a fear to lose control over the (amount of) companies that disturb them, the amount of offers they send and the moment they send these offers (Barwise and Strong, 2002, Tsang, Ho & Liang, 2004; Dickinger & Kleijnen, 2008).

Eastlick et al., 2006 found a negative effect of a strong reputation on privacy concerns. Which in their turn have a direct and indirect impact on purchase intent through trust in and commitment to the service company. Eastin, Brinson, Doorey & Wilcox (2016) mention that shared information of a person with another person or company comes together with a shared responsibility and knowledge of the rules by disclosure. If the person or company does not take this responsibility or does not understand these rules, boundary turbulence can occur. This loss of privacy of information can lead to a loss of trust. Before an individual makes the decision to share or not to share their information, they weigh of the risks and benefits (Eastin, et al., 2016). Despite these privacy concerns, multiple researchers found that the consumer’s risk beliefs do not correspond with their behavior (Taddicken, 2014; Acquisti, Brandimarte & Loewenstein, 2015). This phenomenon can be explained by the privacy paradox (Barnes, 2006; Taddicken, 2014). This paradox is researched by multiple researchers, whereof few could explain it and some of them found contradicting and imcomplete results (Hallam & Zanella, 2017). Different explanations are found for the existance of the paradox. First of al, the cognitive deficiency theory, which argues that consumers underestimate the risks of disclosing their information online, due to a lack of awareness of these risks and knowledge how to protect their privacy (Acquisti & Gross, 2006, Hallam & Zanella, 2017). Second, other researchers

(15)

blame the design of websites and the limited technology literacy as causes of this paradox (Livingstone, 2008). Furthermore, the social exchange theory is perceived as an explanation for the privacy paradox (Chellappa & Sin, 2005). This theory states that people weigh off the costs against the benefits. When the expected rewards outweigh or at least compensate the perceived costs, people are willing to reveal personal information (Chellappa & Sin, 2005).

Hallam & Zanella researched the effects of construal level theory and the privacy paradox in the field of social media and self-disclosure behavior. They found that privacy breach, which is psychologically distant since it is not yet experienced, has less weight in everyday choices, than social rewards, which are more concrete (2017). Im & Ha (2015) researched the effect of perceived privacy risk, enjoyment and economic benefits on permission granting intent, which is the willingness to grant permission for retailers to use private information. They found that economic benefits are the most important factor that leads to permission-granting intention. Furthermore, privacy concern is an important factor that may hinder the consumer to use mobile coupons, but by highlighting the economic gains, these perceived privacy risk may be alleviated (Im & Ha, 2015). People usually make irrational decisions to maximize financial benefits. When a financial deal is so strong, people would even take things that are unhealthy for them in larger doses (Haws & Winterich, 2013).

As described above, unless the privacy concerns a consumer experiences, the mobile coupon could stimulate the unplanned and planned purchase. Different factors can play a role in this, among others financial discounts or rebates, social- and environmental aspects. Therefore, the construal level theory could be an explanation for this impulse buying. Consumers are more likely to consider more details about a purchase, when the point of purchase is closer in time consumption occurs (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Andrews, Goehring, Hui, Pancras & Thornswood, 2016).

(16)

Construal level theory

The main idea of construal level theory shows that people’s choices are based on a negociation between conflicting values (Hallam & Zanella, 2017). Events that are likely to happen may seem more close compared to unlikely events, and are associated with a low construal level. These are more valued in near-future decisions. In contrast, unlikely events are associated with a high construal level and are valued more in distant-future decisions (Trope, Liberman & Kruglanski, 2000; Hallam & Zanella, 2017; Lermer, Streicher, Sachs, Raue & Frey, 2016; Liberman, Sagristano & Trope, 2002).

Psychological distance

Psychological distance is the subjective experience that something is close or far away from the individual’s reference point (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Hallam & Zanella, 2017). This psychological distance influences and is influenced by the level of mental construal, which is abstract (high-level) or concrete (low-level) (Lermer et al., 2016; Hallam & Zanella, 2017). Psychological distance can be perceived in different dimensions: e.g. temporal, spatial, social or hypotheticality (Lermer et al., 2016; Bar-Anan, Liberman, Trope & Algom, 2007). Temporal distance explains how much time is between the present time and the event (Bar-Anan, Liberman, Trope & Algom, 2007). Spatial distance explains the distance in space between the stimulus and the perceiver. Social distance explains how far the social object is from the perceiver (e.g., there is a bigger social distance when the social object is a stranger compared to a friend) and hypothetical distance explains the likelihood that an event will happen (Bar-Anan, Liberman, Trope & Algom, 2007). Trope & Liberman (2010) show that the cues of distance on one dimension affect the perceived distance of objects in other dimensions. A bi-directional relationship between construal level and psychological distance exists, which means that they both influence each other (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007).

(17)

Construal level mindset manipulation

There are multiple ways to manipulate the cognitive processes and test the effects of these different levels. Wakslak & Trope (2009) used different manipulations to let the participants adopt a concrete or abstract mindset. One way of priming was done by letting the participants do a 30-word categorization task (Lermer et al., 2016; Rim, Amit, Fujita, Trope, Halbeisen, & Algom, 2014). This task asks the participants in the high-construal level to name a superordinate for each word and the participants in the low-construal level to name a subordinate for each word (Lermer et al., 2016; Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006). Wakslak & Trope (2009) found that this manipulation affects the participants probability estimates for the occurrence of neutral future events. Participants in the concrete mindset have higher probability estimates than the ones in the abstract mindset (Lermer et al., 2016). Another way to manipulate construal levels is “why” and “how” priming (Freitas, Gollwitzer & Trope, 2004). The abstract mindset can be manipulated with the “why” question, which is focussed on the end states of actions. The concrete mindset can be manipulated with the “how” question, which is focussed on the means by which actions are accomplished (Wakslak & Trope, 2009).

Research question and hypotheses

The goal of this study is to expand the knowledge of the effects of the construal level theory, privacy concerns and the effect of immediate or delayed financial benefits in the field of mobile coupons. This research will test which roles financial benefits and privacy play in the decision of the consumer to disclose privacy and to what extend the construal level where a consumer is in has on their intention to use mobile coupons, and thus willingness to disclose privacy. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. Based on this model, five hypotheses are formulated.

(18)

The research question is as follows: “What is the effect of privacy concerns and delayed

or immediate financial benefits on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus to disclose privacy and what is the moderating role of the construal mindset?”

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Im & Ha (2015) researched the effect of perceived privacy risk, enjoyment and economic benefits on permission granting intent, which is the willingness to grant permission for retailers to use private information. They found that economic benefits are the most important factor that leads to permission-granting intention. Furthermore, privacy concern is an important factor that may hinder the consumer to use mobile coupons, but by highlighting the economic gains, these perceived privacy risk may be alleviated (Im & Ha, 2015).

Hypothesis 1: There is a direct positive relationship between financial benefits and the

intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy. Immediate financial benefit will increase the consumers’ intention to use mobile coupons.

Hypothesis 2: The effect of financial benefits on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus

(19)

Im & Ha (2015) showed evidence for the negative effect of perceived privacy risk on permission granting intent, which is the willingness to grant permission for retailers to use private information (Im & Ha, 2013). As discussed in the theoretical framework, the privacy paradox is researched by multiple researchers, resulting in confliciting outcomes and statements. Many researchers found proof for the fact that privacy concerns do not directly affecting the online self-disclosure behavior of consumers (Hallam & Zanella, 2017; Taddicken, 2014; Lee & Cranage, 2011). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated. Hypothesis 3: There is a no direct positive relationship between privacy concerns and intention

to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy.

According to Taddicken (2014), privacy concerns hardly impact self-disclosure, but this relation is moderated by different variables. Trope, Liberman & Wakslak (2007) state that “research grounded in CLT suggests that events distanced on any of these dimensions are represented in a schematic, abstract manner that emphasizes central and superordinate features (high-level construas), whereas proximal events are represented in a conrete, less schematic manner that includes incidental and subordinate features (low-level construals)” (p. 94). Consumers in a concrete mindset focus on short-term thinking. When they are offered an immediate discount, they will be more likely to focus on the short-term benefit and thus download the application, despite the privacy consequences. On the other hand, consumers in an abstract mindset focus on long-term thinking and think about the consequences of their short-term decisions. They will be more likely to focus on the long-term benefits and thus about the effects of their privacy disclosure (Wakslak & Trope, 2009; Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007). It is expected that the financial discount will be perceived as a low-level construct, and the perceived privacy risks will be perceived as distant and thus as a high level construct. Thererore, it is proposed that participants in the concrete mindset will display a

(20)

higher intention to use the mobile coupon (especially when there is an immediate discount), compared tot the abstract construal level. The participants in the abstract mindset will

probably focus more on the privacy concerns, so they will display a lower intention to use the mobile coupon.

Hypothesis 4: The effect of financial benefits on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus

disclose privacy is moderated by the construal mindset of the consumer. Therefore, they rely on consequences that are congruent with their construal mindset.

Hypothesis 5: The effect of privacy concerns on the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus

disclose privacy is moderated by the construal mindset of the consumer. Therefore, they rely on consequences that are congruent with their construal mindset.

(21)

Method

This chapter describes the methodology of this research. First, the research design will be discussed. Subsequently, the sample and procedure will be described. After that the test variables and control variables will be discussed and finally, the data analysis will be discussed.

Design

An online survey-based experiment with a between-within subject 2 (concrete construal level/abstract construal level) x 2 (immediate discount/delayed discount) design is used to test the hypotheses. This experimental design provides a way to study causal links between the variables (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

Sample and procedure

The data collection technique that is used for this research is an online questionnaire. This questionnaire can be found in appendix I. The respondents are selected through non-probability sampling techniques, like convenience sampling, self selection and snowball sampling. This was diffused through social media, e-mail and WhatsApp. The survey was written in Dutch and is only completed by Dutch-speaking people.

Therefore, the results of this research are generalizable to Dutch consumers who have a smartphone and use mobile services. This is the group where the sample was conducted from. The survey is filled in by 254 participants, but since not everybody finished the survey completely, this amount narrowed down to 177 participants. Since 97.7 percent (173 respondents) of the respondents owns a smartphone, four participants were excluded since their answers are not relevant for this research. The final sample of this research was 173 participants.

(22)

This amount of respondents makes sure that the sample is representative and allows to make accurate inferences about the Dutch consumer who uses mobile services.

Most of the participants are female (66.5 percent). The average age of the respondents is between 25 and 34 years old. More than half of the participants (57.2 percent) have the education level HBO (28.3 percent) and WO (28.9 percent). MBO is the third largest representation in the sample (15 percent). The other 27.7 percent is almost evenly divided over the education levels VBO, MAVO, VMBO, HAVO and VWO.

Since the participants without a smartphone were excluded, the question was asked how much of their private online time they spend on different devices. With 59.4 percent, the smartphone is the device on which the participant spends the most of their online time. The laptop or computer is on average used 29.2 percent of their time, the tablet for 10.6 percent and the other 0.8 percent on other devices.

After answering some demographic questions, the respondents were asked about the ownership of a smartphone, the amount of time spend online and on what device they spend their most time online. If the consumer did not own a mobile smartphone and thus does not use mobile applications, their participation is not interesting for this research. In that case they were excluded from the research and sent to the end of the survey, where they will be thanked for their willingness to participate. Thereafter, the respondents were randomly divided into four groups; a concrete construal level condition with an immediate discount, a concrete construal level condition with a delayed discount, an abstract construal level condition with an immediate discount and an abstract construal level condition with a delayed discount. After manipulating the respondents in the concrete and abstract mindsets, a manipulation check was conducted to check if the participants were in the right mindset.

Subsequently, an application of a fictitious brand was shown, with a description of their private information that will be collected when they’ll download the app on their mobile

(23)

device, name, adress, e-mail adress, telephonenumber, location, buying behavior en

consumption preferences. Depending on the fact that they were in the immediate or delayed group, the app description told them they get an immediate discount or a delayed discount manipulation. The respondents had to answer five questions about their willingness to

download the app and then use the mobile coupons. Finally, ten questions about their privacy concerns were asked.

The survey was conducted by the use of Qualtrics. The analyses were done with the use of SPSS. The research is conducted according to the code of ethics of the University of Amsterdam. Partly because of this, and privacy reasons, the participants were not asked for their contact details, to rewarded them for their participation in the survey.

Stimulus material

Two versions of a mobile application were created as a stimulus in this study. These applications were designed to look identical to existing mobile applications. The application was of a fictitious brand, named Tornado Coffee. Coffee and tea are Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and as discussed in the theoretical framework, mobile couponing is used by multiple retailers in the fast food branche, therefore, a fictitious coffee company is chosen. One version of the application contained a description about immediate discount and an immediate free coffee, and the other about a delayed discount, which the consumer could get when they save coffee credits. The use of a fictitious brand is prefered, since the participants could know the existing brand and have strong associations with the brand. This could affect the results of the research.

Manipulation and manipulation check

To manipulate the different construal levels, the participants are randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The construal level will be manipulated by using a 30-items categorization priming task (Lermer et al., 2016; Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2016).

(24)

The participants in the abstract construal level condition are asked to name a superordinate by answering the question “an example of … is what?” (e.g. when the word flower is asked, rose). The participants in the concrete construal level condition are asked to name a subordinate category by answering the question “... is an example of what?” (e.g. when the word flower is asked, plant) (Lermer et al., 2016; Rim, Amit, Fujita, Trope, Halbeisen, & Algom, 2014)

The manipulation check confronts the participant with eight actions (e.g. sweeping the floor) followed by an option how this is performed and one why this is performed (e.g. moving a broom and being clean). The participants with the low construal level condition should be more likely to choose the ‘how’ answer and the participants with the high construal level condition should be more likely to choose the ‘why’ answer (Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). The items were conducted from Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi (2006).

The financial benefit is manipulated by exposing the participants to either an immediate discount or a delayed discount. The immediate discount condition gives the participant an immediate free coffee and the delayed discount explains the consumer he or she could save coffee credits and ultimately save for a free coffee (Nussbaum, Trope & Liberman, 2003).

Measured variables

To conduct this research different measures are used. Firstly, the online questionnaire asks for the consumer’s demographic information, like gender (nominal), age (ordinal) and education level (ordinal). After that, the questionnaire will ask if the consumer about the ownership of a mobile smartphone (nominal), the amount of time spent online (ordinal) and on what device they spend their time online (nominal).

The ‘Willingness to disclose privacy’ will be measured by using an adapted version of a measurement scale conducted from Culnan & Armstrong (1999). An example of an item from

(25)

this measurement scale is “How likely would you provide your personal information (including your location) to use the M-Coupon service?”. This measurement scale has a 7-point Likert scale. The scale can be considered as reliable, because the measurement has a Cronbach’s α higher than 0.70 (α= .96).

The privacy concerns are measured with the Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC) instrument of Malhotra, Kim & Agarwal (2004). This is a measurement consisting of multiple items. The measurement instrument contains different topics, e.g. control, awareness, collection and risk beliefs. Hallam & Zanella (2017), Chin (1989) and Jiang, Heng & Choi (2013) measure privacy concern with three first-order factors; control, awareness and collection, which contain ten items in total. This measurement has a 7-point Likert scale and the Cronbach’s Alpha is higher than 0.70 (α = .92).

Data analysis

Before the data analysis was conducted, the variables privacy concerns and intention to disclose privacy were checked on their reliability, which reflects the extent to which data collection techniques or analysis procedures yield consistent findings (Saunders et al. 2013). For all the variables a high degree of internal consistency if found. The Cronbach’s Alpha of privacy concerns was α = .916 and for intention to disclose privacy α = .957. Furthermore, the Corrected Item-Total Correlation are all above .30 and the items in all the three variables have values with a difference lower than .10.

(26)

Results

The results section will start with a manipulation check of the construal levels. Subsequently, all the five hypotheses will be tested with the correct statistical analysis and their assumptions and results will be discussed.

Manipulation check

A manipulation check is executed to identify the effectiveness of the construal level manipulation. A Chi-Square test through Crosstabs was conducted, since the 2 variables were both categorical. The two variables both consist of 2 or more categorical independent groups, so the assumptions for this test are met. The Chi-Square test led to the following results; manipulation question 1 (x(1)= 2.56, p = .47), manipulation question 2 (x(1)= 6.90, p = .08), manipulation question 3 (x(1)= 10.16, p = <.05), manipulation question 4 (x(1)= 3.36, p = .34), manipulation question 5 (x(1)= 8.77, p = <.05), manipulation question 6 (x(1)= 2.18, p = .54), manipulation question 7 (x(1)= .80, p = .85), manipulation question 8 (x(1)= 3.79, p = .29). Question 3 and 5, which are 2 question out of 8, showed a significant difference between the abstract and the concrete construal levels. This outcome indicates that there is no difference between the construal levels.

Hypotheses testing

One-way Anova is used to test whether there is a difference between the groups with the immediate and delayed discounts in their willingness to disclose privacy. In table 1 the mean utilities are displayed for the four conditions on willingness to disclose privacy. Prior to conduct the analysis, the assumption of normality is examined. The skewness and kurtosis levels of condition 1 are estimated at .47 and -1.16, respectively. The kurtosis level for intention to

(27)

disclose privacy in condition 1 is above 1, so the normal distribution is doubtful. However, George & Mallery (2010) consider values for kurtosis between -2 and +2 are acceptable. The skewness and kurtosis levels of condition 2, 3 and 4 were all between -1 and 1. For condition one, these were estimated at .47 and -.77, respectively. For condition 3 these were are estimated at .55 and -.92, respectively, and for condition 4 at .30 and -.98, respectively. Thus, the assumption is considered satisfied. Furthermore, no significant outliers are found. In table 1 the mean utilities are displayed for the four conditions. Subsequently, the assumption of homogeneity of variances is tested. This assumption is considered satisfied, F(3, 169) = 1.04,

p = .38. Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test is runned to find out where

the differences between the conditions occur. The one-way anova shows that the groups do not significantly differ for intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy, F(3, 169) = .94, p = .42. Altogether, the first hypothesis is not supported.

Attributes N Min Max M SD

Condition 1 43 1.00 6.00 2.75 1.70

Condition 2 44 1.00 7.00 2.80 1.67

Condition 3 42 1.00 7.00 3.23 2.08

Condition 4 44 1.00 7.00 3.25 1.79

173

Table 1. Descriptive statistics intention to use mobile coupons per condition

To test the moderation effect of privacy concerns on the relationship between financial benefits and intention to disclose privacy, a simple moderation analysis is conducted. This analysis is conducted with model 1 of Andrew Hayes (2012). Before conducting this analysis, the variable privacy concern was standardized, since this variable is numerical. The moderation analysis was runned in process. The analysis shows the following results; (169) = .77, p = .44.

(28)

This is not significant, so the moderation of privacy concerns on the relationship between financial benefits and intention to disclose privacy does not take place (as shown in table 2). Hypothesis 2 is rejected.

Variable Coeff SE t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 3.02 .19 15.97 .00 2.64 3.40

Construal level -.22 .27 -.80 .42 -.75 .32

Privacy Concern -.04 .28 -.14 .89 -.59 .51

Int_1 -.34 .45 -.77 .44 -1.23 .54

Table 2. Moderator analysis hypothesis 2

A linear regression analysis is conducted to study the relationship between the variables privacy concerns and intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy. Regression predicts the value of the dependent variable, which is the intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy, based on the value of the independent variable, in this case the privacy concerns. Before conducting the analysis, the assumptions are tested. A linear relationship is shown on a scatterplot. The linear regression analysis shows homoscedasticity. Casewise diagnostics shows no outliers for the two variables. The Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.00 shows that there is no autocorrelation in the sample. Then the skewness and kurtosis of the variables are measured. The skewness and kurtosis levels of ‘intention to use mobile coupons’ are estimated at .47 and -.77, respectively. Although, the skewness and kurtosis levels of ‘privacy concern’ are estimated at -1.99 and 5.45, respectively. These values are below and above -1 and 1, which means that there is no normal distribution. The histogram and P-P Plot also show this non normal distribution. Although, different studies state that a samle of at least 15 participants makes the results reliable, even if the residuals are not normally distributed (Lumley & Emerson, 2002; Minitab, 2014). The linear regression analysis shows that this model is

(29)

statistically significant F (1, 171) = 7.57; p <.05 and explained 4.2 % of variance in job satisfaction. If person’s privacy concerns increases for one, her/his intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy, will decrease for 0.21 (β = -.21, p < .05). This means that the thirth hypothesis is supported.

To test the moderating effect of the construal level on the relationship between financial benefit and the intention to use mobile coupons, two-way Anova is used. Two-way Anova is used to compare the mean differences of the different groups. Before analyzing the data the assumptions are checked. In this model, the dependent variable is measured at the continuous level and the independent variable consists of at least two categorical, independent groups. The Levene’s test does not reject the assumption of equal variances. The assumption of normality is not examined, although, different studies state that a samle of at least 15 participants makes the results reliable, even if the residuals are not normally distributed (Lumley & Emerson, 2002; Minitab, 2014). Before conducting the analysis, dummy variables are created for the variables ‘financial benefit’ and ‘construal level’. The two-way Anova shows that the groups do not significantly differ in their intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy. An interaction effect between the financial benefit and construal levels could not be demonstrated, F(1,169) = .00, p = . 96 (as shown in table 3). Altogether, the fourth hypothesis is not supported.

Variable F p _η2

Construal level 2.81 .10 .02

Financial benefit .01 .92 .00

Construal level * Financial benefit .00 .96 .00

Table 3. Two-way anova analysis hypothesis 4

Finally, the moderation effect of construal levels on the relationship between privacy concerns and intention to disclose privacy is tested. The moderator analysis of Andrew Hayes

(30)

(2012), with model 1 is used for this analysis. Before conducting the analysis, the variable ‘privacy concerns’ was standardized, since this independent variables is numerical. The moderation analysis was runned in process. The analysis shows the following results; t(169) = 1.68, p = .10. This is not significant, so the moderation of construal levels on the relationship between privacy concerns and intention to disclose privacy does not take place (as shown in table 4). Hypothesis 5 is rejected.

Variable Coeff SE t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 3.25 .20 16.19 .00 2.86 3.65

Construal level -.48 .27 -1.76 .08 -1.02 .06

Privacy Concern -.70 .27 -2.61 .01 -1.23 -.17

Int_1 .60 .35 1.68 .10 -.11 1.29

(31)

Discussion

This final chapter of this thesis provides a general conclusion of the research and its results. Furthermore, the theoretical and practical implications are presented and finally the limitations and future research suggestions will be discussed.

General conclusion and discussion

The purpose of this study was to expand the literature about the privacy, the temporal distance of financial benefits and the effect of the construal level theory in the field of mobile coupons. This research contributes to the existing literature through the findings conducted from the manipulationcheck and the five tested hypotheses.

Participants were manipulated in a an abstract or concrete construal mindset and subsequently, they were manipulated with an immediate or delayed discount. The construal level manipulation did not have the desired result and showed that the two construal levels were not significantly different. This effect is not in line with the results of the construal level manipulation conducted by e.g. Wakslak & Trope (2009), Lermer et al. (2016) and Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi (2006). Neither do these results correspond with the results of the manipulation check conducted by e.g. Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi (2006). Since the manipulation was not effective, there is a high chance that the results of the hypotheses will be affected by this failed manipulation.

The Dutch consumer spend almost 60 percent of their private online time on their smartphone, on average. This finding, which is in line with existing literature, proves that mobile marketing is an interesting and high potential field for companies to communicate with concsumers (eMarketer, 2015). To stimulate purchase behavior companies offer their consumers mobile coupons, which they redeem for a financial discount or rebate when they purchase a product or service (Mobile Marketing Association, 2007). Previous research found

(32)

that this economic benefit is the primary reason to use coupons (Im & Ha, 2015). Unfortunately, this research found no significant difference between the two financial benefit conditions on their intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose their privacy in exchange for a financial benefit. Previous research found that privacy does play a big role in the consumers decision to disclose their privacy, since many consumers are anxious and struggle with allowing companies to their mobile data (Eastin, Brinson, Doorey & Wilcox, 2016; Lee & Rha, 2016). The findings of this study confirm the existance of these privacy concerns, although no statistical significant proof is found for the moderating role of privacy concerns on the relationship between financial benefits and intention to use mobile coupons. The privacy concerns do have a direct positive effect on the consumers intention to use mobile coupons, and thus to disclose privacy. Since the privacy paradox is studied by multiple researchers, whereof few could explain it and some of them found contradicting and imcomplete results (Barnes, 2006; Taddicken, 2014; Hallam & Zanella, 2017), it can be concluded that this result is in line with part of the literature. According to the existing literature, the construal level theory, which states that people’s choices are based on a negociation between confliciting values, could provide an explanation for this paradox. The construal level theory has a bi-directional link with psychological distance, which explains the subjective experience that something is close or far away from the individual’s reference point and can be perceived in different dimensions, e.g. temporal distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007). It was expected that participants in the concrete mindset will display a higher intention to use the mobile coupon, compared tot the abstract construal level, but unfortunately, the study showed that the different construal mindsets do not significantly moderate the relationship between financial benefits and the consumers’ intention to use mobile coupons. Neither do these moderate the relationship between the consumers’ privacy concerns and their intention to use mobile coupons. Liberman & Trope found that cues of distance on one dimension could affect the perceived distance of

(33)

objects on other dimensions. In this case this could mean that the other cues of distance could have had an effect on the perceived distance. This is possible when the participant thinks the situation is not probable, or the chance they will experience it is very small (2010). Danaher et al. (2015) also mention the importance of the other dimensions in the consumers consideration of a mobile offer. They state that the temporal condition and the spatial condition (location) of the consumer both significantly influence the consumer redemption, and that these can not exist apart (Andrews, Goehring, Hui, Pancras & Thornswood, 2016).

This research expands the existing literature concerning privacy, temporal financial benefits and construal mindset on the consumers intention to use mobile coupons and disclose their privacy by downloading the application. This research has not found statistical evidence for the effect of different construal mindsets on their intention to use mobile coupons, but this could be caused by a mistake in the research design, which will be discussed further in the following paragraph. However, otherwise companies can adapt their communication and actions to the consumers current mindset, since they wil probably behave according to the mindset they are in. The study did find proof for the effect of privacy concerns on the intention to use mobile coupons and disclose privacy. This is an interesting finding, since multiple researchers doubted this direct relationship. Privacy concerns are affected by multiple aspects and different cues of psychological distance, e.g. trust in the company and the location of the consumer when he or she receives the mobile coupon offer. Companies should take these different aspects and psychological distance cues into account.

To conclude, results show a positive direct relationship between privacy concerns and intention to use mobile coupons, and thus disclose privacy. The main result of this research is that the manipulation of construal levels did not lead to a clear difference between the abstract and concrete construal level mindset. The manipulated construal mindsets did not significantly moderate the relationship between financial benefits and the consumers’ intention to use mobile

(34)

coupons. Neither do these moderate the relationship between the consumers’ privacy concerns and their intention to use mobile coupons. Furthermore, no significant difference is found between the immediate and delayed financial benefits, and privacy concerns do not significantly moderate this relationship.

Limitations and future research

This research has some limitations that will be discussed in this paragraph. Some limitations create opportunities for future research. These will also be discussed.

First of all, the main limitation of this research is the unsuccessful manipulation. The manipulation check showed no significant difference between the consumer with the concrete construal mindset and the consumer with the abstract construal mindset. The unsuccessful manipulation could be explained by the amount of questions used in the manipulation of the construal level mindset. The amount of words that had to be categorized by naming a superordinate or subordinate, differed in previous literature. While some researchers showed proof for a successful manipulation with thirty words, others used forty words. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the translation of the description and questions of the manipulation check was unclear, although this is executed carefully and with the help of two independent persons. Therefore, future research should focus on the the underlying reasons why this manipulation did not work out as planned.

Second, this research used the non-probability sampling frame convenience sampling to gather participants for the survey. This could have an influence on the representativeness and generalizability of this research.

Third, the intention to use the mobile coupon is measured with the use of an application of a fictitious brand called Tornado coffee. Coffee and tea are Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and consumers may be less motivated to download an application for a free coffee or

(35)

small discount. Therefore, future research could test these effects with other, maybe durable goods and higher discounts. Furthermore, the use of a fictitious brand has a lot of advantages, but conducting research with the use of a fictitious brand also has disadvantages. The brand does not have associations, which they do have with a real brand. In normal circumstances, the brand does have these associations and these will most likely have an effect on the results of this research.

(36)

References

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L. & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347, 509-514.

Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36–58). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Andrews, M., Goehring, J., Hui, S., Pancras, J. & Thornswood, L. (2016). Mobile

Promotions: A Framework and Research Priorities. Journal of Interactive Marketing

34, p. 15-24

Andrews, M., Xueming, L., Fang, Z., & Anindya G. (2015), Mobile Ad Effectiveness: Hyper-contextual Targeting with Crowdedness, Marketing Science

Azjen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Barnes, S.B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First

Monday, volume 11, number 9

Barwise, P., & Strong, C. (2002). Permission based mobile advertising. Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 16(1), 14–24.

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Trust. Retrieved from

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust

Chellappa, R.K. & Sin, R.G. (2005). Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. Information Technology and Management 6, 181-202

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.

Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.

(37)

and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 104-115

Danaher, P.J., Smith, M.S., Ranasinghe, K. & Danaher, T.S. (2015). Where, When and How Long: Factors that influence the Redemption of Mobile Phone Coupons. Journal of

Marketing Research, 52, 5, 710-725

Dickinger, A. & Kleijnen, M. (2008). Coupons going wireless: determinants of consumer intentions to redeem mobile coupons. Journal of Interactive Marketing, volume 22, number 3, pp 23-39

Eastin, M. S., Brinson, N. H., Doorey, A., & Wilcox, G. (2016). Living in a big data world: Predicting mobile commerce activity through privacy concerns. Computers in Human

Behavior, 58, 214–220.

Eastlick, M. A., Lotz, S. L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Understanding online BtoC relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment.

Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 877–886.

eMarketer (2007a), “Mobile Brand Advertising Report," New York, NY: eMarketer (October).

eMarketer (2007b), “Mobile Message Marketing Report," New York, NY: eMarketer (November).

eMarketer (2015), “Mobile Advertising and Marketing Trends Roundup,” New York, NY: eMarketer

Fang, Z., Luo, X., Andrew, M., & Phang, C. W. (2014). Mobile Discounts: A Matter of Distance and Time. Harvard Business Review, 92(5), 30–30.

Freitas, A.L., Gollwitzer, P. & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.40(6), 739-752

(38)

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N. & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3):351–367. Gao, T. (Tony), Sultan, F., & Rohm, A. J. (2010). Factors influencing Chinese youth

consumers’ acceptance of mobile marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(7), 574–583.

Garfinkel, S. (2000). Privacy and the New Technology: What They Do Know Can Hurt You.

The Nation, Vol.270(8), pp 11-15

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson

Haig, M. (2002). Mobile marketing: The message revolution. London: Kogan Page. Haire, T. (2008). Subway Goes Mobile. (cover story). Response, 16(6), 3038.

Hallam, C. & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human

Behavior 68, 217-227

Haws, K. & Winterich, K.P. (2013). When Value Trumps Health in a Supersized World.

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 Issue 3, 48-64

Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [Whitepaper]. Retrieved

from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Im, H. & Ha, Y. (2013). Enablers and inhibitors of permission-based marketing: a case of mobile coupons, Journal of Retailing in Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 5, 495-503. Im, H. & Ha, Y. (2015). Is this mobile coupon worth my private information?: Consumer

evaluation of acquisition and transaction utility in a mobile coupon shopping context.

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 Iss 2, 92 – 109

(39)

protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems

Research, 24(3), 579-595.

Kearney, A. T. . (2005). Mobinet Index. ATKearney and Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge University, http://www.atkearney.com/.

La Place. (n.d.). La Place extra’s! Retrieved at https://www.laplace.com/nl/page/extras/ Lee, C.H. & Cranage, D.A. (2011). Personalization-privacy paradox: The effects of

personalization and privacy assurance on customer responses to travel Websites.

Tourism Management 32, pp 987-994

Lee, J.M., & Rha, J.Y. (2016). Personalization–privacy paradox and consumer conflict with the use of location based mobile commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 453– 462.

Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Sachs, R., Raue, M. & Frey, D. (2016). Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation. Society for risk analysis, Vol. 36, Issue 3, pp 623-637

Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New media &

society, 10(3), 393–411.

Lumley, T. & Emerson, S. (2002). The Importance of the Normality Assumption in Large Public Health Data Sets. Annual Review of Public Health. 23:151–69

Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the Internet A framework based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Industrial Marketing Management 31, p. 111-118

Marchex and Digiday, "State of the Industry: How Mobile Is Changing Marketing," Oct 27, 2015

(40)

http://www.mcdonalds.nl/overmcdonalds/mcdonaldsapp

Minitab. (2014). Simple Regression. Minitab assistant white paper. Conducted from: http://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/17/Assistant_Simple_Regression.pdf

Mobile Marketing Association. (2007). Introduction To Mobile Coupons. Education, Denver Version 97

Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 485.

Rim, S., Amit, E., Fujita, K., Trope, Y, Halbeisen, G. & Algom, D. (2014). How Words Transcend and Pictures Immerse: On the Association Between Medium and Level of Construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science 1-8

Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management: An essential guide to planning your project. Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Scharl, A., Dickinger, A., & Murphy, J. (2005). Diffusion and success factors of mobile marketing. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 4(2), 159–173.

Shankar, V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2009). Mobile Marketing: A Synthesis and Prognosis.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 118–129.

Shankar, V., Venkatesh, A., Hofacker, C., & Naik, P. (2010). Mobile Marketing in the Retailing Environment: Current Insights and Future Research Avenues. Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 24(2), 111–120.

Škařupová, K., Ólafsson, K., & Blinka, L. (2016). The effect of smartphone use on trends in European adolescents’ excessive Internet use. Behaviour & Information Technology,

35(1), 68–74.

(41)

Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 248-273

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.

Psychological Review, 117, 440

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer

Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95

Trope, Y., Liberman, N. & Kruglanski, A.W. (2000). Temporal Construal and Time- Dependent Changes in Preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.79(6), 876-889

Tsang, M.M., Ho, S., & Liang, T. (2004). Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile

Advertising: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8 (March 2015), 65–78.

Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58

(42)

Appendix I: Survey

Introduction

Beste deelnemer,

Hartelijk bedankt dat u de moeite neemt om mijn enquête in te vullen. Dit onderzoek is opgesteld naar aanleiding van mijn masterscriptie voor de opleiding Business Administration aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. De smartphone is, door zijn persoonlijke en mobiele karakter, op dit moment voor veel bedrijven het meest interessante middel om de relatie met hun klanten te onderhouden. Dit doen zij onder andere door het aanbieden van mobiele kortingscoupons. Dit onderzoek verzamelt informatie over uw mening betreffende privacy bij deze vorm van communicatie. Het zal maximaal 10 minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen. De antwoorden zullen anoniem worden verwerkt.

Mocht u vragen of opmerkingen hebben, neem gerust contact met me op via: pauline.molenaar@student.uva.nl

Uw deelname wordt heel erg gewaardeerd, nogmaals dank! Met vriendelijke groeten,

Pauline Molenaar

Masterstudent Business Administration Universiteit van Amsterdam

Demographic factors Q1 Wat is uw geslacht?

• Man

• Vrouw

(43)

• Jonger dan 18 • 18 - 24 • 25 - 34 • 35 - 44 • 45 - 54 • 55 - 64 • 65 of ouder

Q3 Wat is uw hoogst genoten (behaalde) opleiding?

• VBO • MAVO • VMBO • HAVO • VWO • MBO • HBO • WO

Q4 Heeft u een smartphone?

• Ja

• Nee (when selected no, skip to end of survey)

Q5 Hoeveel tijd spendeert u gemiddeld dagelijks online (privé)?

• minder dan 2 uur

The importance of privacy, financial benefits and the effect of the construal level theory in the field of mobile coupons