Bodily Integrity on Anthropomorphism and Customization University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis, MSc Marketing Management

1

Master Thesis, MSc Marketing Management

University of Groningen,

Faculty of Economics and Business

Bodily Integrity on Anthropomorphism and

Customization

Author: Edoardo Carlotto

Student ID: 3205622

Supervisor: Dr. Jing Wan

2

Table of contents

Limitations and Future direction………18

Conclusion………..19

References ………..20

3

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze whether the concept of bodily integrity can mediate the

relationship between anthropomorphized products and customization. In this study, two hypotheses were tested in order to find relevant results. The first hypothesis focuses on consumers willingness to customize anthropomorphized products compared to non-anthropomorphized product whereas the second one investigates whether the relationship between anthropomorphized products and willingness to customize is mediated by the concept of bodily integrity, such that the more consumers perceive anthropomorphized products as a whole entity, the less they are willing to customize it. Results of the study suggest that anthropomorphism did not have a significant effect on consumers ‘willingness to customize and that the concept of bodily integrity did not mediate the relationship between anthropomorphized products and willingness to customize.

Key words: anthropomorphism, customization, bodily integrity

4

Introduction

In today’s highly competitive world, where consumers have more choices than ever, companies have to carefully set actions and tactics to attract and retain their customers. Successful marketing activities that firms can implement to gain competitive advantages consist of developing, maintaining and enhancing consumers’ loyalty toward their products or services (Dick and Basu 1994). Loyalty relies on having customers making a connection with the brand that transcends the actual purchase of products or services (Leventhal 2006). Thus, the creation of relationships with customers represents a very important strategy that leads to a higher level of trust toward brands. How can companies establish this connection with their customers? There are different ways to create powerful relationships with consumers. One way is to meet customers’ needs, providing them with highly interactive and customized experience (Winer 2001). Considering that consumers have the possibility to modify a product by adding or removing features, companies through

customization have higher chances to closely match consumers’ individual preferences (Kramer et al. 2007; Franke et al. 2009).

5

customers. However, there is no literature regarding the effect that anthropomorphism may have on customization.

What would it happen if companies anthropomorphize their products and give the opportunity to consumers to customize them? Would anthropomorphism have an effect on customization? Would customers be willing to customize human alike products?

In order to answer these questions it is important to focus on the values humans attach to their bodies. Literature suggests that according to the embodiment perspective, people do not perceive their body as an object that can be modified, but as an integral part of a person’s identity (Williams-Jones 1997). Considering this perception of human bodies, consumers may be reluctant to

customize anthropomorphized products. Adding or removing features of a product that looks like a human may be perceived by customers as modifying the physical aspect of an individual, which is considered against the concept of bodily integrity. This concept entails that humans’ body is more than simply a bundle of distinct parts, it is “giving way to a networking body, a body with a sense of life to it, a body that is, well, animated” (Sheets-Johnstone 1992,). Therefore, adding or removing body parts of a self will destroy what it means to be a person (Williams-Jones 1997).

To what extent the concept of bodily integrity mediates consumers’ decisions to customize anthropomorphized products might be significant for companies to understand whether a

combination of anthropomorphism and customization may increase customer loyalty.

Customization

According to Chen and Popovich (2003) the development of mass marketing and mass production strategies, occurred in the mid-twentieth century, incremented the number of products available for consumers. Due to these production changes companies used to focus less on

6

numbers”. Thus companies, in order to re-establish relationships with customers and enhance customer loyalty, have decided to move from mass production to mass customization (Chen and Popovich 2003).

What makes mass customization different from mass production is the high intensity of information exchanged between suppliers and customers (Piller 2002). As stated by Piller and Moeslein (2004) the supplier has to create a connection with the consumer to acquire specific information in order to delineate and translate the consumer’s needs into the desired product. Customers are often not only transferring information about their needs and desires but they are actually cooperating with the suppliers for the development of the product (Piller and Moeslein 2004). The concept of customer integration has been defined as “a form of industrial value creation where the consumers take part in activities and processes which used to be seen as the domain of the companies” (Wikstrom 1996). In a mass customization system, during the design phase or configuration customers become co-producers in the development of a product (Toffler 1970; Piller and Moeslein 2004).As a result of mass customization, customer integration enhances the

relationship between a supplier and its customers and, thus, to increase customer loyalty(Piller and Moeslein 2004). Companies like Adidas and Nissan decided to reinforce the relationships with their customers by giving them the opportunity to personalize their products.

Adidas givesconsumers the opportunity to customize their favorite shoes. The company’s website has an entire section where customers, for instance, can remove the logo and add their names to the side of the shoe. Additionally, consumers have the possibility to decide on which type of material the shoes will be made of (i.e. Graphic mesh, mesh, suede, leather). The last step to design a customized shoe is the selection of color, a total of twelve colors are available (i.e. green, red, blue, yellow, etc.).

7

cab, crew cab) the customization moves to colors and packaging choices. In the last step customers, in order to personalize their truck, can select which features they would like to add or remove, ranging from splash guards, rear bumper step assist, tailgate guard, and many others.

Although customization is an efficient technique for companies to attract and retain customers, imbuing human-like features to products or brands is considered as an alternative and successful strategy. Anthropomorphism has been recognized as the precursor to establishing a relationship with a brand(Fournier 1998).

Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is defined as a concept by which individuals ascribe human

characteristics to nonhuman entities. The word anthropos stems from Greek and literally means human and morphē that means form (Wan and Aggarwal 2015).The notion to anthropomorphize already extends back centuries and is still largely present today. The first sign of anthropomorphism dates back to 6th Century B.C (Aaker 1997; Biel 2000) where Xenophanes, a Greek philosopher, (as cited in Lesher, 1992), adopted the concept of anthropomorphism to report the similarities between religious agents and their believers. Xenophanes observed that African gods were dark-skinned and dark-eyed and Greek gods were light-dark-skinned with blue eyes (Epley, Waytz & Cacioppo, 2007). In the last decades, marketers understood the importance played by anthropomorphism to form or reinforce the relationship with consumers (Aggarwal 2004).

8

M&M’s. Their chocolate body is button shaped, arms and legs have typically Caucasian

resemblances and they have wide eyes and a fun mouth. This ‘Mascot’ strategy adopted by M&M’s leads towards brand anthropomorphism. Imbuing anthropomorphic cues to the chocolate treats made easier for consumers to recognize the brand and feel attached to it (Khogeer 2013). Aacker (1991) stated that strong brands are capable to maintain a coherent and steady brand image for twenty or thirty years and sometimes even more. M&M’s is an example of how anthropomorphic mascots have been successfully used for over fifty years to help selling their products (Khogeer 2013). Scott Hudler, Mars’s brand communication manager at the time, said that the characters’ appeal was their personality; “Everyone can almost identify with one of the personalities”

(Angrisani 2002). M&M’s reached the number 27 in the ranking of the best-selling chocolate in the U.S. as well as in the world (Deprez 2009)

As shown in the M&M’s example, humans can become extremely passionate about some brands when thinking about them as if they were human characters (Levy 1985; Plummer 1985). Once products or brands are embodied with anthropomorphic cues it becomes more likely for consumers to enter into a relationship with them. (Chandler and Schwarz 2010). Hence, some products could be more promptly and easily perceived as humans due to their resemblance to human forms and shapes (Arnheim 1969). Chandler and Schwarz (2010) observed how an object (a car) that is perceived as “warm”and “alive” leads people to be less willing to replace it. This is because humans who anthropomorphize use the same mental processes, social norms and neural systems that are also involved when interacting with another human (Epley et al. 2007; Wan & Aggarwal, 2015).

Additionally, humans often identify their cars as loyal companions and have the habit to name them (Aggarwal and Mc Gill 2007). For example, the four-time Formula One World

9

important thing is to have a good relationship with the bike, you have to understand what she wants, I think of a motorcycle as a woman”.

Why people have this tendency to humanize products? The answer can be found focusing on the meaning of the word anthropomorphism. The word Anthropos, as previously mentioned, stems from Greek and literally means humans (Wan and Aggarwal 2015). Aristotle suggested that the people we surround ourselves with are the only critical ingredient for the absolute happiness, from practical to existential reasons, people need other humans in daily life (Epley, Waytz, Akalis, and Cacioppo 2008). Apparently, humans are not inclined to live alone and consequently they may be more inclined to humanize anthropomorphized products in order to establish a relationship. Marketers, therefore, anthropomorphize their products in order to create a connection with their customers and increase their loyalty towards their brands.

Bodily Integrity

10

the person (Williams-Jones 1997). According to the concept of ‘self-in-body’ (Joramelon and Cox 2003) or ‘body-as-self’ (Belk 1990), the body must be treated as integral and inseparable part of a person’s identity and not as a simple bundle of distinctive parts. Karl Marx stated that separating something from oneself as a piece of property infringes the integrity of a body (Radin 1987).

Organ transplantation is an example of how humans’ bodily integrity can be violated by removing organs from one body and placing it in the body of a recipient. According to Siminoff et al. (2001) due to the progress in surgical techniques and transplant immunology, transplantation has changed from an experimental therapy to the cure for patients with organ failure. In the last years, the number of patients waiting for solid organs has grown over 70%. However, only half of the potential donors (600 out of 1200) donate organs each year. The main reason why the number of organ donors is insufficient is due to the high percentage of families who do not consent to

donation. A 1995 study found that approximately only half (47.3%) of the families of donor-eligible patients (86.5%) gave consent after they were asked to donate.

Why are consent rates so low? (Siminoff, Gordon, Hewlett and Arnold 2001). According to

Wilkinson and Garrard (1996) appealing to the notion of bodily integrity can be helpful to explain the moral significance of organ removal. Considering the value humans attach to their bodiesthe transplantation of healthy organs represents a violation of this integrity. Apparently, the concept of bodily integrity constitutes the main reason why selling organs is normally thought to be wrong (Wilkinson and Garrard 1996).

Conceptual model

11

relationships with their customers. Customization has now become a dominant trend in modern industries and, as a result, consumers have now more possibilities to create and shape products as close as possible to their needs (Joneja and Lee 1998). Due to the possibility to shape and form their favorite products consumers have been found to positively react to customization (Puzakova,

Rocereto and Kwak 2013).

However, when marketers imbue anthropomorphic cues in a product consumers might be less willing to customize that product. This can be explained by the influence that the concept of bodily integrity might have on customers’ attitudes toward anthropomorphized products. As seen before, human beings tend to perceive other humans as a whole entity (Fiske, Neuberg & Milberg (1987). Therefore, considering the fact that anthropomorphism makes people perceive a product no longer as an object but more as a human, the same concept of bodily integrity can be conveyed and applied to anthropomorphized products. We can therefore assume that consumers may not be willing to add or remove features from anthropomorphized products because they would perceive customization as a way to change some aspects of other human beings violating their bodily integrity.

So, the following hypotheses are formed:

H1: Consumers are less willing to customize anthropomorphized products compared to non-anthropomorphized product.

H2: The relationship between anthropomorphized products and willingness to customize is mediated by the concept of bodily integrity, such that the more consumers perceive

12 H1 H2

Methodology

A total of 160 respondents participated voluntarily in this field experiment. Data from

respondents were collected in the city of Groningen. In a between-subjects study design, participants were randomly assigned to either the anthropomorphized scenario or to the non-anthropomorphized scenario. Participants were introduced to the scenarios with a picture of a car. The two scenarios differed in the way the car was introduced to the respondents and the way it acted. In order to control consumers’ involvement with the car, all respondents were asked to

Anthropomorphism

_{Customization}

Anthropomorphism

_{Customization}

13

imagine to be interested in purchasing it. To avoid the possible effect of a confounding variable coming from the brand elements, the logo of the car was covered.

To each respondent assigned to the no-anthropomorphized condition a picture of the car was shown (see appendix 1) together with a short description of its functions, “This car, model MZ13, catches

your attention. MZ13 comes equipped with the following features”.

On the other hand, in order to achieve the anthropomorphism scenario a bubble speech was

added to the picture and placed next to the car making the product appear to speak for itself.

Together with the introduction of the bubble speech, the description was changed from third-person to first person. Here, the car was introduced with: Hi I am Betty, a car who loves spending time with

friends, Join me on our next journey! (picture of this conditions can be found in appendix 2 ).

Personal speech suggests a human-to-human interaction and represents a strategy to lead human beings anthropomorphizing the product (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007; Chandler and Schwartz, 2010; Epley, Waytz, Akalis and Cacioppo 2008).

The respondents randomly assigned to no-anthropomorphism scenario were firstly presented with the features that were already included in the car (Radio, LED Headlights) and secondly with two addable extra features (Heated Seats and GPS) not included in the car. In the

anthropomorphism scenario, the features of the car were introduced as Betty’s organs. More specifically, LED headlights: “these are my eyes they help me to see better the streets at night”;

Radio: “this is my voice that will entertain us during our trips”; Heated seats: “this is how I make you more comfortable and warm on cold days”; GPS (Navigation System): “this is my brain that tells me which directions I have to take”.

After that, respondents’ willingness to customize was measured. Based on Bouwens and Abernethy (2000) article three questions in a 7-point Likert scale were asked. In the first question, respondents were asked whether they were willing to add or remove the features mentioned above. Furthermore, participants’ willingness to customize products and their feelings toward

14

Subsequently, bodily integrity was measured in order to test whether it explains the

relationship between anthropomorphism and customization. Based on Stephenson et al. (2008) three questions were asked in a 7-point Likert scale. Respondents had to indicate to what extent they agree with the following statement: “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical integrity”. Furthermore, respondents’ tendency to perceive the car as a whole entity and their attitude towards the removal and implantation of organs were measured with the other two questions.

In the last page of the survey respondents needed to fill in a post-questionnaire containing questions regarding demographics (gender, age). To make sure respondents comprehended what was illustrated in the survey they were asked for their level of English using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all fluent) to 7 (Very fluent).

Results

Reliability Analysis

15

Formal analysis

No data was emitted and no missing values were found with a final sample of 160 respondents (51% Female; 49% Male). The average age of the respondents was 50, 71 and their average English Fluency was 5, 23.

To test the hypothesis 1: “Consumers are less willing to customize anthropomorphized

products compared to non-anthropomorphized product”, a one-way ANOVA was conducted.

Anthropomorphism did not have a significant effect on willingness to customize F (1,158) =3.680, p=.057. This means that respondents were willing to customize the car approximately the same way regardless the scenario they were exposed to (anthropomorphism: M=4.688; SD= 0.181; no-

anthropomorphism M=4.169; SD=0.181), as can be observed in the graph below.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. According to the paper of Baron and Kenny (1986), which describes the classic methods of moderation and mediation (Causal Steps Approach), the

16

analyses test would have stopped here, because there was no significant effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. However, recent literature advice to not stop at the main insignificant effect but to proceed with the study in order to test whether other variables might mediate the main effect between the independent and the dependent variable (Hayes 2009).

Therefore, to test for hypothesis 2: “The relationship between anthropomorphized products

and willingness to customize is mediated by the concept of bodily integrity, such that the more consumers perceive anthropomorphized products as a whole entity, the less they are willing to customize it”, a mediation analysis with the program macro PROCESS by Andrew F. Hayes (2012)

has been executed in SPSS. This mediation model aims to identify and explain the mechanism that underlies the observed relationship between anthropomorphized products and willingness to customize, through the addition of the mediator variable, which is the concept of bodily integrity. The analysis provided evidence that the mediation effect is not significant. More specifically, anthropomorphism was not a significant predictor of bodily integrity (Coeff. = 0,200, SE = 0,143, t(1, 158) = 1,394, p = 0,1652, 95% CIs (-0,083, 0,4833) as well as bodily integrity was found to be a negative predictor of customization (Coeff. = -.0744, SE = 0,142, t(13, 146) = -.522, p = 0,6024, 95% CIs (-0.3557, 0,2070). Therefore, the results of the mediation analysis indicated that bodily integrity is not responsible for the relationship between anthropomorphized product and willingness to customize. Consequently, hypothesis 2 was rejected.

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to assess whether there was a relationship between

17

and not as a hedonic product. Usually, utilitarian products are purchased to fulfill basic needs and generally are evaluated based on their functionalities, whereas hedonic products are acquired and consumed in order to experience joy, pleasure and positive emotions. (Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann, 2003; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). In this study, the car could have been assigned to both categories, since it was able to satisfy a basic need (mean of transportation) and at the same, with the presence of anthropomorphic cues, capable of transferring positive emotions. Apparently, the anthropomorphized car did not meet the respondents’ hedonic needs and in both scenarios (anthropomorphism; no-anthropomorphism) respondents identified the car as a utilitarian product.

Additionally, respondents did not perceive the anthropomorphized car as a whole entity, therefore the concept of bodily integrity was not a mediator of the relationship between

anthropomorphism and customization. This may be due to the fact that the embodiment perspective, which promotes the concept of bodily integrity, has been rejected by the modern medical and scientific communities (Williams-Jones 1997). According to Williams-Jones (1997) in the 17th Century, with the advent of modern scientific medicine, the western culture began to perceive the personhood as a duality of mind and body. The body started to be not considered as an integral part of a person’s identity, while is the mind that makes a person unique. Therefore, the body is

conveyed as a physical and mechanical thing that consists of a bundle of distinct parts. Furthermore, when the body is considered as a physical object distinct from an individual’s mind, humans might be willing to add and remove body parts of a self without being concerned about destroying that person’s identity. The development of modern scientific medicine is based on this dualistic and materialistic conception of the person. For instance, although people are still reluctant to donate organs, modern medicine has increased the level of acceptance of organs transplantation due to the body’s idea of a machine that could be opened to scientific investigations, analysis, and treatments (Williams-Jones 1997). This could have affected respondents’ decision to customize the

18

Limitations and future directions

19

design subjects might use certain criteria whereas in the between-study design they may go for others (Charness, Gneezy and Kuhn 2012).

Perhaps respondents would have been more positively impressed by the anthropomorphic cues if they knew that in the same experiment there was a car not able to speak with normal features. Probably a comparison between the two cars could have changed respondents’ decision regarding their willingness to customize.

Conclusion

20

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. San Francisco: Free Press.

Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347–56.

Aggarwal Pankaj (2004), “The effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. Vol. 31 June 2004

Aggarwal Pankaj & McGill,A.L.(2007) “Is That Car Smiling at Me?” Schema Congruity as a Basisfor Evaluating Anthropomophized Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479.

Angrisani, C. (2002, February). Character Traits. Brand Marketing, p. 6.

Arnheim, Rudolf (1969), “Visual Thinking”, Berkeley University of California Press.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Belk, R. (ed.) (1990) “Me and Thee versus Mine and Thine: How Perceptions of the Body Influence Organ Donation and Transplantation”. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Biel, A. (2000) “Converting image into equity”, Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands. eds. D. Aaker and A. Biel, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 67-82.

Bouwens Jan, and Abernethy Margaret A. (2000),” The consequences of customization on management accounting system design”, Journal of accounting organization and society Vol.25 pages 221-241

21

Chandler Jesse and Schwarz (2010),” Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them”, Journal of Consumer Psychology Volume 20, Issue 2, April 2010, Pages 138-145

Charness Gary, Uri Gneezy and Michael A. Kuhn (2012), “Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Volume 81, Issue 1, January, Pages 1-8

Chen and Popovich (2003) “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) People, process and technology” Business Process Management Journal Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 672-688

Deprez, E. (2009, June 24). The World's Best-Selling Candies. Bloomberg Business Week

Dick A. S., Basu K. (1994), “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework”. Volume: 22 issue: 2, page(s): 99-113

Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008),”When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism”. Social Cognition.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism”. Psychological Review (114), pp. 864-886.

Fiske,Neuberg & Milberg (1987) “Category-based and attribute-based reaction to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes”, Volume 23, Issue 5, September 1987, Pages 399-427

Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343–73.

22

Frederick, S., Fischhoff, B., (1998). “Scope (in) sensitivity in elicited valuations”. Risk Decision and Policy 3, 109–123.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/

public/process2012.pdf

Joneja A., Lee Neville K.S. (1998), “ Automated configuration of parametric feeding tools for mass customization”, Journal of Computers and Industrial Engineering Vol. 35 pag. 463-466

Joramelon, D. and Cox, D. (2003) Body values: the case against compensating for transplant organs, Hastings Center Report: 27–33.

Khogeer, Yusra Khalid (2013), “Brand anthropomorphism: the literary lives of marketing mascots”, Lampel and Mintzberg (2014), “Customizing Customization”, 21-28

Kramer Thomas, Suri Spolter-Weisfeld, Maneesh Thakkar (2007): “The Effect of Cultural

Orientation on Consumer Responses to Personalization”, Marketing Science Page Range: 246 - 258

Leventhal, R. C. 2006. Customer Loyalty, Retention, and Customer Relationship Management.Bradford, GBR: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd

Levy, Sidney J. (1985), "Dreams, Fairy Tales, Animals, and Cars,” Psychology and Marketing, 2 (Summer), 67-81.

Lesher, J. H. (1992). Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Mars. (2013). Brands: Chocolate. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from mars.com: http://www.mars.com/global/brands/chocolate.aspx

23

Piller Frank T, Christof M Stotko and Kathrin M Moeslein (2004), “Does Mass Customization Pay? An Economic Approach to Evaluate Customer Integration”, Pages 435-444

Plummer, Joseph T. (1985), “How Personality Makes a Difference,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (December–January), 27–31

Puzakova Marina, Rocereto F. Joseph and Kwak Hyokjin (2013), “Ads are watching me: A view from the interplay between anthropomorphism and customiz1ation” Internation Journal of adversting pag 513-538

Radin Margaret Jane (1987), “Market-Inalienability”, From Harvard Law Review 100 pp. 1849-1937.

Radin Margeret J, "Property and Personhood" (1982) 34(5) Stanford Law Review 957-1015

Schweda Mark and Schicktanz Silke (2009), “The "spare parts person"? Conceptions of the human body and their implications for public attitudes towards organ donation and organ sale”. Philos Ethics Humanit Med

Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine (1992), ‘The materialization of the body: A history of western medicine, a history in process’, in Giving the Body Its Due, ed. Maxine Sheets-Johnstone (New York:

StateUniversity of New York Press).

Siminoff, Gordon, Hewlett and Arnold (2001), “Factors influencing Families’consent for Donation of Solid Organs for Transplantation”, Journal American Medicine Associations 286; 71-77.

Stephenson Micheal T., Morgan Susan E., Samaria D. Roberts-Perez, Tyler Harrison, Afifi Walid, Shwan D.Long (2008) “The role of religiosity, religious norms, subjective norms and bodily

integrity in signing an organ donor card”, Journal of Health Communication Vol. 23 pages 436-447

T

24

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310–320.

Wan Jing and Pankaj Aggarwal (2015). “Befriending Mr Clean: The role of anthropomorphism in consumer-brand relationships”. 1-23

Williams-Jones Bryn (1997), “Embodiment, property, and the patenting of human genetic material”. Biomedical Ethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Wikstrom, S., 1996, Value creation by company–consumer interaction. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(5), 359–374

Wilkinson and Garrard (1996), “Bodily integrity and the sale of human organs”, Journal of Medical Ethics; 22: 334-339

25

Appendix 1)

Imagine that you are looking to buy a car. You notice this one in a local dealership.

This car, model MZ13, catches your attention. MZ13 comes equipped with the following features:

• LED headlights: they help you to see better at night

Adaptive LED headlights: the system increases visibility at night to help drivers stay vigilant - Glare-free High Beams: which automatically dim part of the illuminated area to avoid

dazzling other drivers

- Highway mode: which helps you see further when travelling at speed

• Radio: it plays your favorite tunes.

- AM/ FM radio - Single CD/ MP3 - Auxiliary jack (AUX)

26

• Heated seats: they keep you warm on cold days. • Seats are also heated (up front) on this model

• The heat is distributed evenly and can be set to one of three levels • GPS (Navigation System): it makes sure you take the right direction.

Key Features:

- 2D or 3D perspective for landmarks and city views - Traffic patterns based on historical data

Removable features: LED headlights- Radio Addable features: Heated seats- GPS

Please answer the following questions by marking the box that best describes your answer.

 To what extent are you willing to add or remove features from the car? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent are you willing to customize products? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

27

 To what extent do you agree with the following statement…. “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical integrity”?.

Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent did you perceive the car as whole entity during the experiment? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent do you believe that removing and implanting organs from human bodies is not right?

Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 What is your gender?

☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Other

 How old are you? ________

 How fluent are you in English?

Not at all fluent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Very fluent

28

Appendix 1 B)

Imagine that you are looking to buy a car. You notice this one in a local dealership.

This car, Betty, catches your attention.

Betty comes equipped with the following features:

• LED headlights: these are my eyes they help me to see better the streets at night.

Adaptive LED headlights: the system increases visibility at night to help drivers stay vigilant - Glare-free High Beams: which automatically dim part of the illuminated area to avoid

dazzling other drivers

- Highway mode: which helps you see further when travelling at speed

• Radio: this is my voice that will entertain us during our trips.

- AM/ FM radio - Single CD/ MP3 - Auxiliary jack (AUX)

29

• Heated seats: this is how I make you more comfortable and warm on cold days.

- Seats are also heated (up front) on this model

- The heat is distributed evenly and can be set to one of three levels

• GPS (Navigation System): this is my brain that tells me which directions I have to take.

Key Features:

- 2D or 3D perspective for landmarks and city views - Traffic patterns based on historical data

Removable features: LED headlights- Radio Addable features: Heated seats- GPS

Please answer the following questions by marking the box that best describes your answer.

 To what extent are you willing to add or remove features from the car? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent are you willing to customize products? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

30

 To what extent do you agree with the following statement…. “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical integrity”?.

Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent did you perceive the car as whole entity during the experiment? Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 To what extent do you believe that removing and implanting organs from human bodies is not right?

Not at all ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absolutely

 What is your gender?

☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Other

 How old are you? ________

 How fluent are you in English?

Not at all fluent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Very fluent

31

Appendix 2)

Statistics

Gender Age English

N Valid 160 160 160

Missing 0 0 0

Mean .51 50.71 5.23

Std. Deviation .502 10.765 .826

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 79 49.4 49.4 49.4

Female 81 50.6 50.6 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Appendix 3 a)

32 Summary Item Statistics

Mean Minimum Maximum Range

Maximum /

Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 2.921 2.706 3.081 .375 1.139 .037 3 Item Variances 1.306 .913 2.025 1.112 2.217 .388 3 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Statement 6.06 4.292 .567 .397 .600 Organs 5.68 3.061 .475 .230 .763 Whole_entity 5.79 4.017 .618 .434 .537

Appendix 3 b)

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .939 .939 3

Summary Item Statistics

Mean Minimum Maximum Range

Maximum /

Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 4.442 4.275 4.525 .250 1.058 .021 3

33 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted willingness_to_customize 9.05 11.519 .858 .742 .924 willingness_to_addremove 8.80 10.488 .898 .806 .892 How_would_you_feel 8.80 11.029 .866 .758 .917

Appendix 4)

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Anthro 0 no 80

1 yes 80

Anthro Dependent Variable: Custom

Anthro Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

no 4.196 .181 3.838 4.554

yes 4.688 .181 4.330 5.045

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Custom

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 9.669a _{1 9.669 3.680 .057} Intercept 3156.544 1 3156.544 1201.423 .000 Anthro 9.669 1 9.669 3.680 .057 Error 415.119 158 2.627 Total 3581.333 160 Corrected Total 424.789 159

34

Appendix 5)

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.00 ***************** Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2018). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ************************************************************************** Model : 4 Y : Custom X : Anthro M : Bodily Sample Size: 160 ************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Bodily Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1102 .0122 .8232 1.9437 1.0000 158.0000 .1652 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2.8208 .1014 27.8082 .0000 2.6205 3.0212 Anthro .2000 .1435 1.3942 .1652 -.0833 .4833 ************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Custom Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1564 .0245 2.6395 1.9679 2.0000 157.0000 .1432 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.4056 .4410 9.9902 .0000 3.5346 5.2766 Anthro .5065 .2585 1.9599 .0518 -.0040 1.0170 Bodily -.0744 .1425 -.5220 .6024 -.3557 .2070 ****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y ***************** Direct effect of X on Y

35 Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Bodily -.0149 .0293 -.0884 .0309

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************ Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000

--- END MATRIX ---