The influence of awe on message reception and willingness to pay

The influence of awe on

message reception and

willingness to pay

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND

What do you feel?

Lucio Fontana – Concetto spaziale. Attesa

(Spatial Concept. Waiting – slashed canvas)

«...it is the Infinite, so I slash this canvas that was the basis of all the Arts, and so I

created an endless

dimension, an hole that for me represents all the

Nonsensical Messages

• Puffery advertising - sellers use vague and subjective claims to influence consumers

(Chakraborty & Harbaugh, 2014)

• Metaphors. They can express intangible values of the product in a more concrete aspect

(Boozer, Wyld & Grant, 1990)

Message Reception

• Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986)

• The type of processing is determined by consumers’ motivation, ability and opportunity(Batra & Ray, 1986)

Awe

• Awe is an emotional response to perceptual stimuli characterized by vastness and need for accommodation (Keltner & Haidt, 2003)

• Its effects and its valence could be both positive and negative, depending on the

particular secondary appraisal, or “flavour”, that takes place during an event. (Keltner & Haidt, 2003)

Awe

• Yet, awe is mainly associated with openness, described in the work of Bonner and Friedman (2011) as a precondition of awe that makes people more likely to accept uncertainty, moving them to a deeper understanding. People are showed to be less craving for cognitive closure.

• Awe reduces persuasion by weak argumentation, making people think in a more

reflective and analytical way. (Griskevicius, Shiota & Neufeld, 2010)

• Openness to Experience is positively correlated with positive arts judgements

Mediator - Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC)

• Strong a desire for definite knowledge and an aversion to ambiguity and confusion

• It makes high-NFCC individuals jumping to hasty conclusions with rigidity of thoughts and high levels of NFCC lead to avoidance of openness to new information about

changes in market uncertainty (Kruglanski & Ajzen, 1983; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996)

Moderator - Aesthetic Sensitivity

• The general responsiveness to the beauty, reflecting both its appreciation and engagement (Gusewell & Ruch, 2012)

• General factor in aesthetic judgement (Eysenck, 1940), linked to the concept of good taste.

Conceptual Framework

-Hypotheses

H1: Awe positively influences nonsensical messages reception, and enhances consumers’ willingness to pay for arts.

H2a: Awe decreases levels of NFCC.

H2b: Lower levels of NFCC result in a higher acceptance of nonsensical messages and willingness to pay

Methods - Participant and design

• Qualtrics

• 202 participants, 89 useful participants.

• between 18 and 34 years old; 42.7% Females

• mostly Italian (25.8%), German (13.5%) and Dutch (12.4%) with a Bachelor’s degree (48.3%).

• Snowballing referencing through social media

• IV - 2x2 Factorial design: Awe (Yes/No) and Message (Factual/Nonsensical)

• DV - Message reception and willingness to pay

• Mediator - Need for cognitive closure

Methods - Materials

• Manipulation of awe - videos embedded from Youtube.

• Duration: 3 minutes; Full screen allowed.

Methods - Materials (2)

Message Condition

Factual message

“Spatial Concept, Waiting is one of a series of works Fontana made in Milan between 1958 and 1968. These works, which all consist of a canvas that has been cut either once or multiply, are collectively known as the Tagli ('cuts'). Each cut was made with a single gesture using a sharp blade, and the canvases were then backed with strong black gauze giving the appearance of a void behind.”

Nonsensical Message

“Spatial Concept, Waiting is about the discovery of the hole and that's it… …it is the Infinite regressing in itself,

brought about by the painter slashing the canvas. The work represents the womb of all the Arts, and so creates an endless dimension of emptiness, a hole that represents and internally

Methods - Materials

Constructs Items and likert scale Cronbach Alpha

Emotion Measurement (Piff et al., 2015) 11-items scale; 7-item Likert ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

0.747

Message reception (Leder, Carbon & Ripsas, 2006) 6-items scale; 7-item Likert ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

0.860

Willingness to pay Minimum and maximum

Methods - Materials (2)

Constructs Items and likert scale Cronbach Alpha

Aesthetic Sensitivity (Diessner et al., 2008) 4-items scale; 7-item Likert ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

0.781

Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011) 15-items scale; 6-item Likert ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

0.796

Intelligence (Frederick, 2005) Cognitive Reflection Test

Art Interest (Leder, Carbon & Ripsas, 2006) 9-items scale; 7-item Likert ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

Methods - Procedure

• General Presentation

• Socio-Demographic question

• Intelligence

• Aesthetic sensitivity

• Video Manipulation and Emotion Measurement

• Exposition to the message condition

• Message perception and willingness to pay

• Art Interest

Results - Manipulation check

Table 1: one-way ANOVA table fot the effect of the video on emotions

Emotion df F Sign. Mundane Awesome

Results - Awesome Nature and Message Condition On

Willingness To Pay And Message Reception

A two-way between subjects ANOVA resulted in no significant effects, except for the direct effect of the message condition.

DV df F Sign. Mundane Awesome

M SD M SD Message Reception 1,85 0.002 0.961 3.67 0.988 3.68 1.106 Minimum WTP 1,85 0.047 0.829 3.15 4.661 3.28 4.275 Maximum WTP 1,85 0.862 0.356 3.86 4.058 3.45 3.669

DV Df F Sign. Factual Nonsensical

M SD M SD Message Reception 1,85 2.387 0.126 3.84 1.032 3.53 1.033 Minimum WTP 1,85 12.473 0.001 4.94 4.508 1.74 3.894 Maximum WTP 1,85 13.398 0.000 5.20 3.248 2.37 3.909

Results - Awesome Nature and Message Condition On

Willingness To Pay And Message Reception

Table 4: ANOVA table for interaction effect

DV Df F Sign.

Message Reception 1,85 2.996 0.087

Minimum WTP 1,85 0.067 0.797

Maximum WTP 1,85 0.615 0.435

Results - Mediation analysis

Andrew Hayes; all the

results were not significant.

Table mediation analysis for Need for Closure

Results - Moderation analysis

Three-way interaction analysis using the model 3 from PROCESS by Andrew Hayes (2013).

Table 5: Three-way interaction effect on the dependent variables

DV Coeff. SE Sign.

Message Reception -0.2488 0.3951 0.531

Minimum WTP -0.0222 1.7959 0.991

Results - Additional research

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between the respondents’ intelligence, their art interest and the dependent variables.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 9: Correlation matrix

Intelligence Art Interest Maximum WTP Minimum WTP Reception

Intelligence - 0.076 0.094 0.122 -0.036

Art Interest 0.076 - 0.306** 0.273** 0.523**

Maximum WTP 0.094 0.306** - 0.811** 0.553**

Minimum WTP 0.122 0.273** 0.811** - 0.570**

-Discussion - Main findings

• Awesome nature evoked awe.

• In general, were more likely to spend their money in the factual condition.

• Marginal positive interaction effect on factual messages reception

• Need for cognitive closure resulted not being a good mediator.

• Aesthetic sensitivity has not been confirmed as a moderator.

Discussion - Limitations and further research

•

Sample size; drop-out rate; potential distractions

•

Exposition

•

Improve the sample

•

Study potential influence of positive “flavours” of awe

•

Art interest as moderator

Discussion - Managerial implication

•

When awestruck consumers face arts, they are not more influenced by abstract

messages

•

Metaphors do not influence awestruck consumers’ resistance more than

normal consumers.

•

Advertising strategy based on the exposition on tall buildings (e.g. the

Reference

• Chakraborty, A., & Harbaugh, R. (2014). Persuasive puffery. Marketing Science, 33(3), 382-400.

• Boozer, R. W., Wyld, D. C., & Grant, J. (1990). Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages. Journal of

Services Marketing, 4(3), 63-71.

• Leder, H., Carbon, C. C., & Ripsas, A. L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta psychologica, 121(2), 176-198.

• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York

• Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer research, 12(4), 432-445.

• Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion a cognitive response analysis. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 331-345.

• Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments: independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(4), 585.

• Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & emotion, 17(2), 297-314.

• Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept.

Reference

• Saroglou, V., Buxant, C., & Tilquin, J. (2008). Positive emotions as leading to religion and spirituality. The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 3(3), 165-173.

• Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: a functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2), 190.

• Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgements of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European

Journal of Personality, 15(1), 57-72.

• Bonner, E. T., & Friedman, H. L. (2011). A conceptual clarification of the experience of awe: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39(3), 222-235.

• Feist, G. J., & Brady, T. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art. Empirical

Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77-89.

• Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1-44.

• Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:" Seizing" and" freezing.". Psychological

review, 103(2), 263.

• Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 265-278.

• Güsewell, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Are there multiple channels through which we connect with beauty and excellence? The

Reference

• Eysenck, H. J. (1940). The general factor in aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 31(1), 94–102.

• Götz, K. O., Borisy, A. R., Lynn, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(3), 795–802.

• Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 705–715.

• McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation & Emotion, 31(1), 5–11.

• Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2014). Is visual aesthetic sensitivity independent from intelligence, personality and creativity? Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 16-20.

• Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 108(6), 883.

• Diessner, R., Solom, R. D., Frost, N. K., Parsons, L., & Davidson, J. (2008). Engagement with beauty: Appreciating natural, artistic, and moral beauty. The Journal of psychology, 142(3), 303-332.

• Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 67(6), 1049.

• Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale.

Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90-94.