Can human-like products decrease your obtained benefits in a negotiation context?

Can human-like products decrease your obtained

benefits in a negotiation context?

Exploring the differential effects of anthropomorphism and product role on the

willingness to negotiate, explained by the perception of appropriate behavior

by

Mark Baerveldt

Can human-like products decrease your obtained

benefits in a negotiation context?

Exploring the differential effects of anthropomorphism and product role on the

willingness to negotiate, explained by the perception of appropriate behavior

By

Mark Baerveldt

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master thesis MSc Marketing Management

Completion date: June 15, 2018

9712 CM Groningen +31 655979090

m.w.p.baerveldt@student.rug.nl

ABSTRACT

Given our limited knowledge about the differential effects of anthropomorphism on the negotiation process, this paper examines whether human-like products can decrease consumers’ willingness to negotiate. Anthropomorphized products are often perceived as true human-beings and the humanization of products may therefore lead consumers to believe that it is not appropriate to negotiate about this kind of products. Moreover, the product’s role is introduced as an influential factor, which makes that the perceived appropriateness and thus their willingness to negotiate, is dependent upon whether the product is perceived as a partner or as a servant. Using survey data from 198 participants, the results show that the combination of anthropomorphism and the product’s role does not decrease participants’ willingness to negotiate. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that the proposed mediator, perceived appropriateness, mediates this relationship. For marketing practitioners, this result indicates that consumers are likely to negotiate about anthropomorphized products regardless of whether they embody a partner or servant role.

Keywords: Anthropomorphism; Negotiation; Product role; Appropriateness; Sacred values;

PREFACE

During my Pre-MSc period, I wrote a research paper about a topic known as ‘anthropomorphism’. The paper itself was challenging, but also a lot of fun. Although many consumers may not be aware of it, I identified how prevalent and influential the concept is in our daily lives. Upon finalizing my research paper, I noticed how my interest for the topic had not stagnated; I was still scanning shopping environments for anthropomorphized products and/or brands. Given my interest in the topic, I was very pleased to hear that there was a possibility to write my master thesis about the influence of anthropomorphism on consumers’ behavior.

This master thesis constitutes the final project of my study Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. After seven great years in possibly the best student city in the world, it is time for a new chapter. My choice to continue studying may have been one of the best choices in my life and I truly believe that the Pre-MSc, as well as the MSc Marketing Management course, have made me a far more knowledgeable person.

For helping me during this period, I am thankful to my supervisor dr. Jing Wan for providing me very useful feedback during the last five months of my student life. Moreover, I would like to thank my dear (RUG) friends for their knowledge and insights. Your recommendations were very helpful.

I hope my thesis will interest you as much as the topic interested me during the past two years.

Mark Baerveldt, Groningen, June 2018

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

NEGOTIATION 3

WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE 3

NEGOTIATION AND SACRED VALUES 4

ANTHROPOMORPHISM 5

CONSEQUENCES OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM 6

NORMS OF BEHAVIOR 7

PRODUCT ROLE 7

CONCEPTUAL MODEL & HYPOTHESES 9

METHODOLOGY 13 RESEARCH DESIGN 13 PRE-TEST 14 PRIMARY STUDY 16 PROCEDURE 16 MANIPULATION 16 MEASURES 17 RESULTS 18

RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING 19

POST-HOC ANALYSIS 21

GENERAL DISCUSSION 24

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 24

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 26

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 26

CONCLUSION 27

REFERENCES 28

APPENDIX 31

APPENDIX1:EXAMPLESMANIPULATIONPRODUCTROLE(PRE-TEST) 31

APPENDIX2:RESULTSPRE-TEST 32

APPENDIX3:CONDITIONS(MAINSTUDY) 33

APPENDIX4:MEASURESANDPROCEDURE 35

APPENDIX5:RESULTSMAINSTUDY 40

1

INTRODUCTION

The concept of negotiation – the process whereby people attempt to settle what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction between them (Rubin and Brown, 1975) – has been proven to be very beneficial in the marketplace (Bazerman, Curhan, Moore and Valley, 2000). However, the applicability of this process is highly context dependent and the use of a negotiation is for most of our everyday transactions impassable (Maes, Guttman and Moukas, 1999; Evans and Beltramini, 1987). For instance, given that most retail stores wield fixed prices (Dwyer, 1984), we do not often see consumers negotiate about the price of their daily groceries. A context for which negotiations become explicitly inadmissible is when the act is in violation with our sacred values. Sacred values are of such importance to humanity that the thought of trading these values is seen as disgraceful (Tetlock, 2003). For example, setting a price on another human’s life (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green and Lerner, 2000). When humans are aware of this violation, they tend to abominate any associated behavior (Tetlock, McGraw and Kristel, 2004) and the procedure of negotiation will therefore be avoided almost immediately (Tetlock et al., 2000).

Even though the trade of humans is a thing of the past, the current research proposes that there is still an economic factor, which may induce the perception that consumers are trading sacred values for monetary rewards, namely anthropomorphism. The concept of anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human-like properties, characteristics, or mental states to real or imagined non-human agents and objects (Epley, Waytz and Cacioppo, 2007). Subsequently, anthropomorphism may lead consumers to believe that products have their own character, mind-set and will (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007). Given that these products are often perceived as real human-beings (Chandler, 2010), many consumers apply the same norms of behavior as for any other social context (Waytz, Cacioppo and Epley, 2010). Consequently, setting a price on an anthropomorphized product is likely to contradict our sacred values and may thus in many ways not be justifiable (Tetlock et al., 2000). Therefore, the current study argues that the anthropomorphization of a product is likely to mitigate consumers’ tendency to start a negotiation about the product.

2

anthropomorphized product implies that a consumer sets a price on a human-being and by doing so violates sacred values (Tetlock et al., 2000). Following this line of reasoning, negotiating about an anthropomorphized product is likely to increase one’s perception of inappropriateness, which in turn reduces his/her willingness to negotiate.

Although anthropomorphism may decrease a consumer’s tendency to negotiate because of the perceived appropriateness of the act, the current research proposes that this relationship may be dependent on an important boundary condition. Specifically, the behavioral norms between consumer and the product may differ as a function of the product’s role.Based on the communal/exchange theory, Aggarwall and McGill (2011) proposed that consumers may either perceive a product as a partner or as a servant. In the case of the product as a partner, consumers believe the product to coproduce with them, whereas the servant product is merely there to produce, meaning that the product works for the consumer in order to create benefits. In line with findings by Wan and Aggarwal (2014), the current research proposes that a primarily functional anthropomorphized product (i.e. servant) will sanction the functional use of that entity and thus increase consumers’ willingness to negotiate. Contrarily, given that humans are naturally inclined to form positive attitudes towards anthropomorphized products (Epley et al., 2007) as well as partner products (Aggarwal and McGill ,2011) it is less likely that consumers will negotiate about these kind of products, as it would not feel right to negotiate about a human’s life or friend for that matter.

Many papers have addressed the effects of anthropomorphism on consumer behavior in terms of sales (Landwehr, McGill and Herrmann, 2011), brand loyalty (Tsai, 2011) and other prevalent economic concepts. However, only little is known about its effect on the negotiation process. Similarly, even though the concept of negotiation has received a lot of academic attention (Bazerman et al., 2000), there is very little work that has focused on the actual willingness to start or avoid a negotiation (Kteily, Saguy, Sidanius and Taylor, 2013).

Given these findings, it seems important to examine the differential factors that form consumers’ willingness to negotiate. These findings can be of vital importance, especially in a business-to-consumer context. If consumers are by definition averse to negotiate about certain products or product categories, it is important to understand why these effects take place. This paper therefore contributes theoretically as well as practically, as it may aid marketing professionals in their line of work.

3

LITERATURE REVIEW

Negotiation

Negotiation can be described as the process whereby people attempt to settle what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction between them (Rubin and Brown, 1975). The use of negotiations can be very lucrative. When adopted properly, consumers benefit from additional gains that may not have been achieved without a negotiation (Bazerman et al., 2000). For example, when looking for a second-hand chair at Craigslist both seller and buyer may benefit in terms of monetary gains, their possessions or even both (e.g. buying a chair that may have been more expensive when bought new). Even though possibly beneficial, it is important to highlight that the applicability of a negotiation may vary as a function of the context in which one is trying to ascertain a product or service (Maes et al., 1999). Given this assumption, it is essential to investigate what factors influence the applicability of negotiations as well as the conditions that may drive consumers to either accept or avoid the process.

Willingness to negotiate

Research regarding negotiation has been extensively documented in academic research (Rubin and Brown, 1975; Maes et al., 1999; Bazerman et al., 2000). Although the exact terminology differs among academics, most agree that negotiations share the same three stages, namely an initiation phase, a problem-solving phase and a resolution stage. Holmes (1992) was one of the first to further specify the three stages, where the initiation stage is characterized by determining the parties’ conflicting goals, their priorities and the establishment of a solid negotiation position. In the problem-solving phase, the parties aim to settle the problem at hand. This phase is often characterized by debating, where both parties aim to influence or convince the other party that their point of view is most profitable for both. Lastly, the resolution phase is characterized by agreements and ultimately, the implementation of the negotiated outcomes.

4

(e.g. monetary gains or pleasure) outweigh the costs (e.g. mental effort) (Shalvi, Reijseger, Handgraaf, Appelt, Femke, Giacomantonio and De Dreu, 2013).

One of the factors that contribute to the perceived benefits and thus consumers’ willingness to negotiate is the perceived fairness of the price (Maxwell, Nye and Maxwell, 1999; Maxwell, Nye and Maxwell, 2003). Maxwell et al. (1999) showed that the perception of fairness may drastically influence respondents’ behavior during a negotiation. Specifically, when primed with fairness respondents tend to be more cooperative and make greater concessions, ultimately leading to a faster final agreement. Contrarily, groups that were not primed with fairness were more likely to negotiate and less likely to make a concession during the act (Maxwell et al., 2003). Importantly, these results suggest that when an initial bid exceeds the internalized reference price (i.e. a price that consumers are willing to pay for a product) by some margin, consumers are likely to restore the imbalance of the offer by starting a negotiation. Contrarily, if the seller’s initial price is congruent with consumers’ reference price, the price is perceived as fair and consumers may be less likely to start a negotiation.

However, even if a negotiation could clearly increase benefits, consumers are not always willing to negotiate. More specifically, research suggests that some products and services are by definition not suited to negotiate about (Evans and Beltramini, 1987). It seems likely that consumers’ willingness to negotiate relies on the perceived ordinariness of negotiating about the respective product. For example, given that most traditional retail stores wield fixed prices (Dwyer, 1984) it may feel somewhat inappropriate to negotiate about the price of a bottle of wine. The nature of the product or service therefore influences consumers’ willingness to negotiate as they may not feel comfortable negotiating about a better price when it is not common to do so (Evans and Beltramini, 1987). In sum, negotiating about products and/or services may be dependent upon the perceived benefits and may furthermore not always be possible and/or seen as appropriate across all scenarios (Maes et al., 1999).

Negotiation and sacred values

5

2003). The study of Tetlock et al. (2000) examined the relationship between sacred values and negotiation and found respondents tended to antagonize the thought of setting a price on a human life or a human’s body parts and therefore firmly resisted to comply. Respondents perceived the sole thought of setting a price on a human life to be detestable and most resisted to pursue with any behavior that involved such transactions. Given that the formulation of a price (e.g. settlement price) is an important part of the negotiation process, it could be argued that consumers will immediately avoid negotiations over human lives when they are asked to do so.

Since the study by Tetlock et al. (2000) included hypothetical scenarios (e.g. asking respondents whether they would be willing to buy body parts), the question of interest is whether similar effects can be found for actual negotiations in regular market transactions. The current research proposes that this may be the case for a specific type of product, namely those products endowed with human-like characteristics. These products are often perceived as true human-beings with actual feelings and even a soul (Epley et al., 2007). The act of attributing human-like features to non-human entities, is also known as anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism may bear serious implications for marketers and consumers alike as consumers may perceive they are negotiating about a human-being and thus are trading their sacred values for monetary benefits.

Anthropomorphism

6

stated otherwise, the word brand and product can be interpreted interchangeably throughout this section.

Consequences of anthropomorphism

Whether a non-human entity is perceived as humane may have significant consequences for both consumers and firms. For example, from a manager’s point of view, research suggests anthropomorphized brands and/or products can induce higher levels of brand loyalty (Macinnis and Folkes, 2017), increase the perceived price fairness (Kwak, Puzakova and Rocereto, 2015) and even induce profound consumer-brand relationships (Delbaere, McQuarrie and Philips, 2011). Customers on the other hand, perceive anthropomorphized items as more favourable (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007) and therefore may become emotionally attached to a given product (Chandler, 2010). However, the consequences of anthropomorphism stretch beyond economic outcomes. Customers may even perceive anthropomorphized products as true living entities, thereby applying the same norms of behavior as for any other social context (Waytz et al., 2010). This makes that consumers are likely to behave differently towards anthropomorphized products compared to neutral products.

The reason why consumers show this behavior towards these brands and/or products can partly be derived from work by Waytz et al. (2010). The authors showed that the anthropomorphization of non-human entities may grant them with moral regard. By doing so, respondents tend to allocate the same rights to anthropomorphized entities as they would to normal humans. For example, respondents perceived it to be morally wrong when the researchers proposed to destroy the IBM’s legendary chess-playing computer Deep Blue (i.e. anthropomorphized object) (Waytz et al., 2010). In line with this finding, Chandler (2010) found that respondents’ behavior towards entities differ as a function of the perceived humanness. More specifically, respondents showed more social behavior towards a product when primed with an anthropomorphized one, subsequently reducing their product replacement intentions. Given that respondents were likely to perceive the anthropomorphized products as human-beings, this finding relies on the idea that replacing an anthropomorphized possession leads to the perception that one is replacing a person. Since we would not do this to other humans, we tend to avoid this kind of behavior.

7

anthropomorphization of a product may also facilitate relationships (Kim, Lee and Ulgado, 2005; Epley, Waytz, Akalis and Cacioppo, 2008; Delbaere et al., 2011). For example, the VW beetle, one of Volkswagen’s most successful cars, is known for the fact that many owners name, stroke and even talk to their cars (Aggarwal, 2004). Making consumers think of their cars as personalities (i.e. anthropomorphism) rather than a normal object has been proven to strengthen the relationship between the product and its user. This result is in line with findings by Chandler and Schwarz (2010), who showed that anthropomorphic inferences may lead to a strong relationship between consumer and the brand. In summary, these results shed light on how consumers decide on the appropriate behavior towards products according to the perceived humanness of the entity. More specifically, when an anthropomorphized product is perceived as a true being, respondents tend to behave in a similar manner as to any other human-being.

Norms of behavior

Although we tend to treat all humans with the respect they deserve, we do not treat each relationship in a similar matter. For example, behavior towards a business partner is likely to be different compared to behavior towards a close relative. Interestingly, this proposition holds for products too. Aggarwal (2004) proposed that when customer interact with their products, they are likely to apply the norms of interpersonal relationships to guide their behavior. For example, when consumer and product engage in an exchange relationship, it is expected that the product at least produces equal benefits for the consumer. This kind of relationship is likely to be transactional as well as quid-pro-quo (i.e. the business partner) (Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). Contrarily, a communal relationship is characterized by producing benefits out of care, thereby disregarding the quid-pro-quo character of an exchange relationship (i.e. the close relative) (Clark and Mills, 1979). Given that behavioral norms may differ as a function of the type of relationship (Aggarwal, 2004), the current research proposes there is a boundary condition, which influences the perception of appropriate behavior towards anthropomorphized products, namely the product’s role.

Product role

8

important implications for the way consumers behave towards products. In this study, it was proposed that consumers may either perceive a product as a partner (i.e. the co-producer of the benefit) or as a servant (i.e. the assigned worker). In the case of the product as a partner, consumers believe the product to coproduce with them. This role links to the communal relationship, where teamwork and mutual respect is essential. The second role however, can be characterized as the servant, meaning that the product works for the consumer in order to create benefits (Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). This role links to the exchange theory, where the relationship is much more quid-pro-quo (i.e. at least equal benefits expected) (Clark and Mills, 1979). Moreover, the two product roles are likely to come with different degrees of hierarchy. If a product embodies a servant role, consumers often try to dominate the product. Contrarily, when perceived as a partner product, consumers tend to perceive the product to be equal to themselves (Kim and Kramer, 2015)

9

CONCEPTUAL MODEL & HYPOTHESES

When adapted successfully, the anthropomorphization of a product may lead to the perception that it has its own emotions, intentional actions and even a free will (Epley et al., 2007). Moreover, anthropomorphic inferences may grant non-human entities with moral regard and, subsequently, endow them with the same rights as normal human-beings (Chandler, 2010). In line with these findings, some consumers feel as if these anthropomorphized products are truly human and treat them accordingly (Waytz et al., 2000). Even though often beneficial in the marketplace (Delbaere et al., 2011; Landwehr et al., 2011; Macinnis and Folkes, 2017), the current research proposes that anthropomorphic inferences may also wield counteracting effects.

A specific context for which negative outcomes may occur is a negotiation. Consumers negotiate in order to settle what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction between them (Rubin and Brown, 1975). Even though often beneficial (Bazerman et al., 2000), the applicability of a negotiation is highly context dependent (Maes et al., 1999). This is particularly true for situations where the use of a negotiation contradicts our sacred values (Tetlock, 2003). For example, if one has to negotiate about another human’s life, the negotiation will be avoided almost immediately (Tetlock et al., 2000). Fortunately, the trade of a human’s life for monetary rewards belongs to the past and the study conducted by Tetlock et al. (2000) is foremost hypothetical. However, these negative consequences may still be encountered for anthropomorphized products. After all, if anthropomorphized products are truly perceived as human-beings, one may feel as if he/she is negotiating about the life of a human-being, thereby trading his/her sacred values for monetary rewards. Given that humans tend to avoid such behavior, I propose that the same effect is likely to occur for anthropomorphized products. This proposition leads to the following hypothesis:

H1

compared to a non-anthropomorphized product

10

they will more often pay the seller’s initial ask price. After all, buying the anthropomorphized product for the seller’s initial ask price means the consumer does not have to actively contemplate about the entity’s worth, thereby reducing any negative emotions. Contrarily, consumers confronted with a non-anthropomorphized product are likely to optimize their utility (Kahneman and Thaler, 2006), thereby still motivated to reduce the price of the product by means of a negotiation. Therefore, I propose the following holds true:

H1

:

anthropomorphized product compared to a non-anthropomorphized product

Although consumers are likely to avoid negotiations about anthropomorphized products, the current research proposes there is an important boundary condition that influences this relationship, namely the product’s role. It seems likely that the two distinct product roles (i.e. servant and partner) come with different norms of behavior that may either increase or mitigate consumers’ willingness to negotiate. Specifically, I propose that consumers are more willing to negotiate about anthropomorphized servant products compared to partner products. After all, exposure to a functional product will highlight the goal of instrumentality, subsequently increasing consumers’ use of human-like products when primed with the concept of money (Wan and Aggarwal, 2014). Given that the concept of money is prevalent during a negotiation, I propose that anthropomorphized servant products induce a similar effect and therefore increase participants’ willingness to negotiate. Contrarily, the partner role is concerned with attaining a profound relationship and consumers are more likely to bond with products that embody this role (Aggarwall, 2004). Given that partner products are often perceived as friends, it is likely that this respective prime mitigates consumers’ willingness to negotiate. In sum, when economic motives are at play consumers are more strongly inclined to forego social norms when it comes to servant products. This ultimately increases one’s willingness to negotiate. Contrarily, a partner prime is likely to mitigate one’s willingness to negotiate as negotiating about a friend would not feel right. Therefore, I propose the following:

H2

:

11

Moreover, the product’s role is likely to have a differential effect on consumers’ willingness to pay the initial asking price too. Specifically, when products embody a partner role it is likely that consumers are more often willing to pay the initial asking price. Given that a partner prime induces a social bond between consumer and product, it seems likely consumers are more often willing to pay the initial asking price. After all, paying the asking price would mean that they do not have to contemplate about the worth of a human-being, as well as their friend. Contrarily, it seems likely that consumers are less willing to pay the initial asking price when a product embodies a servant role. Given that the servant role induces consumers to believe that the functional use of anthropomorphized products is justifiable (Wan and Aggarwal, 2014), it seems likely that consumers are more willing to negotiate. This can be explained by the fact that this behavior may lead to the optimization of one’s utility (Kahneman and Thaler, 2006). Therefore, I propose that the following holds true:

H2

:

willingness to pay the asking price, such that a partner role increases the willingness to pay the asking price, whereas a servant role decreases it

In line with findings by Chandler and Schwarz (2000), the current research proposes these hypotheses rely on the idea that consumers may not find it appropriate to negotiate about a human – or human-like object – for monetary gains. Similar to other human-beings, anthropomorphized entities should be treated with the respect it deserves (Waytz et al., 2000) and to set a price on the product would not express such beliefs. In a negotiation context, this line of reasoning would suggest that when a product is anthropomorphized, consumers will avoid the negotiation process due to the perception that the act is inappropriate. Contrarily, starting a negotiating about a non-anthropomorphized product can be seen as an attempt to optimize one’s utility (Kahneman and Thaler, 2006) and should not necessarily evoke feelings of inappropriateness. Consequently, when a product is not anthropomorphized I predict consumers will be more willing to negotiate due to the perception that the act is appropriate. Formally:

12

13

METHODOLOGY

The current study is guided by three propositions. Firstly, I propose that participants’ willingness to negotiate differs as a function of a product’s anthropomorphic characteristics. Specifically, given that participants may perceive anthropomorphized products to be truly human (Waytz et al., 2010), it is likely that their human-like characteristic mitigates one’s willingness to negotiate. After all, we do not negotiate about the life of another human’s life (Tetlock et al., 2000), so the same pattern is likely to be observed for this kind of products. Secondly, essential to the main goal of this study is the proposition that the effect of anthropomorphism on one’s willingness to negotiate is likely to be stronger for partner products. Specifically, when perceived as a partner (or the co-producer of the benefits) consumers are likely to bond with their product (Aggarwal, 2004), thereby ultimately reducing their willingness to negotiate about the product. Contrarily, when perceived as a servant (the assigned worker) it is likely that participants’ desire to bond shifts towards to the importance of the product’s functionality (Wan and Aggarwal, 2014), thereby increasing consumers’ willingness to negotiate. Lastly, I propose that the construct perceived appropriateness mediates this relationship. The rationale for this proposition relies on the idea that consumers may not find it appropriate to negotiate about a human – or human-like object – for monetary gains, whereas negotiating about a normal product can be seen as utility optimization (Kahneman and Thaler, 2006).

Research design

14

Importantly, due to a lack of time the factors within the proposed design are contingent upon each (i.e. either anthropomorphism and product role are present or product role alone is present). In other words, for several hypotheses there is no neutral condition, which controls for the effects of anthropomorphism and/or the product role. This makes that there is no way to conclude that the proposed main effect, anthropomorphism on one’s willingness to negotiate, is uniquely attributable to anthropomorphism. The same is evident for a singular mediating relationship. Since anthropomorphism may decrease one’s perceived appropriateness of negotiating, whereas a servant role may increase this, it is likely that these factors cancel each other out. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a singular mediating relationship will be found. Although this flaw is in many ways not favorable, it is important to note that it does not withhold the formal analysis. After all, the design does allow for the measurement of a potential interaction effect between anthropomorphism and the product’s role. This proposed moderating relationship will therefore be central to the final analysis. Moreover, although not likely to occur due to the design, the proposed main effect will still be analyzed as it may wield interesting insights for the post-hoc analysis as well as future research.

Pre-test

A pre-test was conducted in order to find a single product which was suitable to embody both a servant and a partner role. Using the same product in a manipulation decreases the possibility of extraneous effects (Malhotra, 2006), subsequently purifying the obtained results. Moreover, in order to qualify as satisfactory, the product featured had to be something consumers are willing to negotiate about. To meet this prerequisite, an initial selection was made by the researcher based on websites such as Craigslist and EBay. The following five potential products were found: a backpack, a headphone, an inflatable chair, running shoes and a tent. No logos were displayed in order to rule out potential predispositions.

15

partner products were displayed with sentences such as “let product X help you” and “let product X be your loyal companion” (for examples, see appendix 1).

In line with the study by Kim and Kramer (2015), participants were then asked to rate whether they perceived the product as a servant (“It is like a servant to the consumer”) or as a partner (“It is like a partner to the consumers”), where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Moreover, participants were asked to indicate whether they would be willing to buy the product on a second-hand market (“I would be willing to buy this product on a second-hand market”). Next to this, they were asked whether they would feel comfortable negotiating about the product (“If I were to buy this product from a secondhand market, I would feel comfortable negotiating for the price of this product”), where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. In order to test whether one of the selected products was able to embody both product roles, an independent sample t-test was conducted. Specifically, the two questions that aimed to measure the perceived product role were paired and tested for significant differences between conditions. The independent samples t-test indicated significant results between conditions, however only for the backpack. Other products indicated insignificant results of at least p > .4 and were therefore excluded from the choice possibilities. When primed as a partner, the independent samples t-test revealed a marginally significant difference between the two backpack conditions (Mpartner= 5.21 vs. Mservant= 4.48; t(52) = 1.68, p = .099).

Accordingly, when primed as a servant a similar significant result was recognizable (Mpartner=

4.17 vs. Mservant= 5.32; t(52) = -2.55, p = .014). In sum, these results suggest that a backpack is

able to successfully embody both product roles.

In order to test whether participants were also willing to negotiate about the backpack, a one-sample t-test was conducted. Two specific cut-off scores were used in order to perform this test, namely a cut-off score of 1, indicating that participants were not at all willing to negotiate and a cut-off score of 4, indicating that participants were neither willing nor unwilling to negotiate. The one sample t-test revealed significant results when comparing participants’ willingness to negotiate scores with the cut-off score of 1, t(54) = 18.74, p < .01. A similar pattern was recognized for the mid value score of 4, t(54) = 5, p < .01. These results indicate that participants’ willingness to negotiate is significantly higher compared to the neutral score, meaning that one can assume that participants are willing to negotiate about a backpack.

16

uncomfortable about the use of a negotiation. The one sample t-test indicated significant results for a test score of 1, t(54) = 25.26, p < .01 as well as for a test score of 4, t(54) = 8.82, p < .01. These results indicate that participants would feel comfortable if they would have to negotiate about the backpack.

Lastly, the mean scores of participants’ willingness to negotiate seemed to be dissimilar across the partner and servant condition (Mpartner = 4.86, SD = 1.663; Mservant = 5.36; SD = 1.52).

A significant difference between these conditions may influence the final results, as participants may be predisposed to negotiate about functional products (i.e. servant primed products) (Vohs et al., 2012). However, an independent t-test revealed that the means of participants’ willingness to negotiate did not significantly differ across the two product role conditions, t(54) = -1.15, p = .256.

Overall, the tests indicate that a backpack can be successfully primed either as a servant or as a partner. Moreover, participants were willing to negotiate about the backpack and they would feel comfortable doing so. Therefore, among the products used throughout the pre-test, the backpack formed the optimal product and will be used for the main study’s manipulations. The statistical results of the pre-test can be found in appendix 2.

Primary study

Two hundred and twenty-eight (N = 228) students from a major university in the Netherlands participated in this experiment for either study credits or a monetary reward. All participants were clearly instructed and randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.

Procedure

Participants were asked to imagine that they were about to go on a holiday. Given that their holiday destination was not suitcase proof, participants were asked to believe that they were looking for a second-hand backpack on the website https://www.preloved.co.uk/. They were then presented with an advertised backpack that fitted their needs. After carefully reviewing the advertisement, participants were asked to answer a set of questions that were the same across all four conditions (see appendix 4)

Manipulation

17

manipulated by means of a verbal cue similar to the method used by Aggarwal and McGill (2007). Specifically, for the anthropomorphism conditions, the backpack was featured presenting itself (i.e. “Hey! My name is Hero the backpack”). Contrarily, for the neutral condition, the backpack was presented in a way similar to normal advertisements (i.e. “This is the Hero backpack”). The product’s role was manipulated in a similar way compared to the pre-test (i.e. “Let me be your loyal companion” vs. “Let me do all the work for you” and “let the Hero backpack be your loyal companion” vs. “let the hero backpack do all the work for you”) (Kim and Kramer, 2015) (see appendix 3).

Measures

After being exposed to a specific condition, participants were asked five questions that aimed to measure their willingness to negotiate about the backpack. Measures included both their initial bid as well as their will to keep on negotiating in case of a rejection (1= not at all willing, 7= very willing).

In order to examine the proposed mediator - perceived appropriateness - participants were directly asked whether they felt negotiating about the product was appropriate. Next to this, participants were also given the chance to indicate whether monetary gains were their primary motivation to negotiate (1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).

In order to test whether the manipulations worked efficiently, two manipulation checks were incorporated. In order to test whether respondents perceived the stimuli to be anthropomorphic, a standard manipulation check was used (cf. Puzakova et al., 2013). Likewise, the second manipulation check aimed to measure the perceived product role (cf. Kim and Kramer, 2015).

Furthermore, in order to guarantee the validity of the study an attention check was incorporated. Respondents were asked to indicate the option “Somewhat disagree”. This check aimed to investigate whether participants payed attention throughout the survey. Given that full focus is required, those respondents who fail this check will be excluded from the final analysis.

18

RESULTS

The final dataset consisted of two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (N = 228). However, in order to guarantee the validity of the study several respondents were excluded from the main study’s analyses. Specifically, three (N = 3) respondents were deleted due to the fact that they did not fully complete the questionnaire. Likewise, respondents who failed the incorporated attention check (N = 27) were also excluded from the dataset. The exclusion resulted in a valid dataset of one hundred and ninety-eight respondents (N=198). Among the 198 valid participants, 80 were male (40.4%) and 118 were female (59.6%). On average, participants were 22 years old (M = 22.16; SD = 2.93).

Manipulation check

Firstly, in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the incorporated manipulations, participants rated a set of two questions that aimed to identify their anthropomorphic inferences. Likewise, two questions were asked in order to identify participants’ perceived product role. Given that the two questions that aimed to measure participants’ anthropomorphic inferences were highly correlated (r > .85) and the Cronbach’s Alpha indicated a sufficient score (α = .92) the two items were merged into one construct. As expected, the results indicated that respondents primed with the anthropomorphized condition did perceive it to be more human-like compared to respondents primed with the neutral condition (Manth= 3.32 vs.

Mneutral= 2.25; F(1, 196) = 21.86, p < .01). Hence, the manipulation can be perceived as

successful.

Likewise, for the product role manipulation check, respondents exposed to a servant condition did perceive it to be more like a servant compared to those exposed to the partner condition (Mpartner= 3.44 vs. Mservant= 4.02; F(1, 196) = 4.78, p = .03). The manipulation check

for the servant condition is therefore successful. However, for the partner condition the analysis did not reveal a similar pattern. Contrary to my expectations, the mean scores of the respondents exposed to a partner primed backpack did not significantly differ from those who were exposed to a servant primed backpack (Mpartner= 3.83 vs. Mservant= 3.98; F(1, 196) = .39,

p = .534). Since there is no differential effect recognizable between conditions, I conclude that

19 Results of hypothesis testing

The effect of anthropomorphism and product role on one’s willingness to negotiate

As part of the first hypothesis, I predicted that participants are less willing to negotiate when products embody human-like characteristics. Moreover, this effect is likely to be even stronger when products embody the role of a partner. In order to test these propositions, the most direct incorporated measure was used, namely “how willing are you to negotiate with the seller for a lower price?”. A 2 (anthropomorphism x neutral) x 2 (partner x servant) ANOVA was conducted to examine whether anthropomorphism can decrease one’s willingness to negotiate. Although the mean scores related to the neutral condition seem to lean towards the predicted pattern, the overall analysis yielded insufficient proof that anthropomorphism decreases participants’ willingness to negotiate (Manth= 4.77 vs. Mneutral= 4.83; F(1, 194) = .05,

p = .819). Moreover, the interaction effect between the product’s role and anthropomorphism

was found to be insignificant, F(1, 194) = .07, p = .796. This result indicates that the product’s role does not moderate the effect of anthropomorphism on participants’ willingness to negotiate. In other words, there is no reason to believe that participants were likely to show a decrease in their willingness to negotiate when the product was anthropomorphized, while it was also featured as a partner.

Similar results were found for other measures that were incorporated in order to measure participants’ motivation to continue the negotiation. Whereby it was assumed that anthropomorphized primed participants should be less motivated to continue compared to the neutral condition. Importantly, although this description includes respondents’ motivation to negotiate, this measure examines the same proposed construct, namely their willingness to negotiate. The following measure was used in order to investigate this proposition: “I would consider make a second offer.”Contradicting my predictions, the two-way ANOVA revealed that participants primed with an anthropomorphized backpack were actually more willing to make a second offer compared to those in the neutral condition (Manth= 3.17 vs. Mneutral= 2.67;

F(1, 194) = 12.76, p = .035). Accordingly, as for the earlier presented interaction effect the

results indicate that there is no moderating effect of the product’s role on participants’ willingness to make a second offer, F(1, 194) = .08, p = .772.

In summary, the test results belonging to the first two-way ANOVA lean towards my proposition. However, given that these results are not significant there is no statistical

20

holds for the second measure, where I find a contradictory pattern. Moreover, given that the measure that aimed to investigate a potential interaction effect was found to be insignificant for both tests, there is no reason to believe that the product’s role moderates this relationship. Overall, it is safe to say that there is no evidence to infer that anthropomorphism decreases participants’ willingness to negotiate, even if the product of interest is perceived as a partner. I therefore reject H1a and H2a. The statistical results can be found in appendix 5.

The effect of anthropomorphism and product role on one’s willingness to pay the initial asking price

The second hypothesis predicted that, instead of negotiating, participants primed with an anthropomorphized product are more likely to pay the initial asking price, as they do not have to contemplate about the entity’s worth. Moreover, this effect is likely to be stronger when products embody the role of a partner. To check for possible significant differences between the dimensions a two-way ANOVA was conducted, thereby using the most direct measure available, namely “I would consider paying the asking price”. Similar to the first tests, the results indicate that there is no reason to believe that participants primed with an anthropomorphized product are more willing to pay the initial asking price (Manth= 3.41 vs.

Mneutral= 3.58; F(1, 194) = .53, p = .467). More importantly, the interaction effect between the

product’s role and anthropomorphism was found to be insignificant as well, F(1, 194) = 2.32,

p = .13. In sum, the test results indicate that there is no reason to believe that the

anthropomorphization of a product increases respondents’ willingness to pay the asking price, even if the respective product is primed as a partner. I therefore reject H1b as well as H2b.

The mediating effect of appropriateness

As part of the third hypothesis, I predicted that participants’ perception of appropriate behavior mediates their willingness to negotiate, such that the more products are anthropomorphized the more respondents feel inappropriate. Moreover, this effect is likely to be moderated by the product’s role, such that a servant increases the perceived appropriateness of using a negotiation, whereas the partner decreases it. In order to measure this proposition, a PROCESS Macro by Hayes (2017) was used.

21

= 290.34, p < .01. The principal component analysis as well as a VARIMAX rotation matrix were used and revealed that the three items were indeed likely to factor well. The three items were therefore merged into one construct named perceived appropriateness.

The PROCESS Macro was executed in SPSS (Model 8, 5000 bootstrap samples). Specifically, a regression analysis was used to investigate whether participants’ perception of (in)appropriateness mediated the effect of anthropomorphism on their willingness to negotiate. Firstly, the direct effect of anthropomorphism on the willingness to negotiate was found to be insignificant, b = -.73, t(193) = -.20, p = .466. Subsequently, as a second step in the analysis the effect of anthropomorphism on the mediator, perceived appropriateness, was insignificant, b = .25, t(194) = .90, p = .369. More importantly, the proposed interaction effect (i.e. anthropomorphism x product role) revealed a similar insignificant pattern, b = 0, t(194) = 0 p = .999. Given that both predictors reveal an insignificant pattern, there is no reason to suggest that the construct perceived appropriateness is mediating the relationship between anthropomorphism and participants’ willingness to negotiate. Finally, there is no proof of a potential unconditional interaction between anthropomorphism and the product role on participants’ willingness to negotiate, b = -.13, t(193) = -.33, p = .743. In sum, there is no reason to believe that the construct perceived appropriateness mediates the relationship between anthropomorphism and participants’ willingness to negotiate. I therefore reject hypothesis 3.

Post-hoc analysis

Given the outcome of the partner manipulation check, one cannot infer that respondents were successfully manipulated during the study. After all, partner primed respondents did not show a significant difference with respect to their perception of the backpack being a partner (Mpartner= 3.83 vs. Mservant= 3.98; F(1, 196) = .39, p = .534). Therefore, during the secondary

22

that the servant manipulation was successful, all participants primed with a servant condition were used for the analysis (N = 99). The final dataset consisted of 142 respondents (N = 142).

It is important to highlight that by excluding 56 respondents from the secondary analysis, a vast percentage of the overall explained variance is demoted. Therefore, one can technically not infer any conclusions from these post-hoc analyses. However, with regards to the earlier presented reason to continue with the study, these findings too may wield interesting insights for future research. The statistical results can be found in appendix 6.

The effect of anthropomorphism and product role on one’s willingness to negotiate

As for the earlier presented test, I conducted a 2x2 ANOVA on the willingness to negotiate. Likewise, this test included the proposed independent variable (i.e. anthropomorphism) as well as the moderator (i.e. product role). Not surprisingly, the main effect of anthropomorphism on one’s willingness to negotiate was found to be still insignificant (Manth= 4.86 vs. Mneutral= 4.63; F(1, 138) = 1.55, p = .215). More importantly, the results

belonging to the interaction effect reveal a similar insignificant pattern, F(1, 138) = 1.61, p = .206). Therefore, even after controlling for those who were not successfully manipulated, we cannot infer the product’s role moderates the effect of anthropomorphism on participants’ willingness to negotiate.

The effect of anthropomorphism and product role on one’s willingness to pay the initial asking price

Hypothesis 2B was rejected due to insignificant results, which lead to the impression

that anthropomorphism in combination with a partner prime does not lead participants to more often pay the initial asking price. A similar pattern was recognized after running the post-hoc 2x2 ANOVA. The test indicated that the effect of anthropomorphism on one’s willingness to negotiate was insignificant (Manth= 3.24 vs. Mneutral= 3.56; F(1, 138) = .38, p = .538). More

importantly, the interaction effect between anthropomorphism and the product role was not significant either, F(1, 138) = 1.2, p = .273). Even after controlling for the unsuccessfully manipulated respondents, the results indicate that there is no reason to believe the product role moderates the effect of anthropomorphism on participants’ willingness to pay the initial asking price.

However, after analyzing the individual conditions (Manth_partner: 3.6; Manth_servant: 3.04;

Mneutral_partner: 3.44; Mneutral_servant: 3.60) it is clear that the mean for the Manth_partner condition is

23

that the hypothesis holds when a product is anthropomorphized and is perceived as a partner. However, the ANOVA revealed that these conditions did not significantly differ from one another, F(1, 138) = 1.663, p = .199. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that hypothesis 2b

holds, even if the product is anthropomorphized as well as being presented as a partner.

The mediating effect of appropriateness

24

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Summary of findings

The main focus of the present study was to explore whether the anthropomorphization of a product could influence consumers’ behavior in terms of their willingness to negotiate. More specifically, I tested whether consumers’ decision to negotiate about anthropomorphized products was moderated by another important factor, namely the product’s role. Finally, consumers’ perception of appropriate behavior was proposed as the psychological construct mediating the relationship between anthropomorphism, the product’s role and participants’ willingness to negotiate. The results are consistent and found that the combination of product role and anthropomorphism does not influence participants’ behavior in terms of their willingness to negotiate. Likewise, there seems no proof of the proposed mediating construct. There are several reasons as to why this proposed effect may not have occurred, which will be described below.

First of all, I propose that the incorporated manipulations used in this study may not have evoked the desired effect. Although primed and perceived as more human-like there is still a big leap between perceiving the product as more like or as an actual human-being. Although this factor may not necessarily form a problem for most anthropomorphism studies, the current study conceptualized its predictions based on the assumption that humans do not negotiate about another human’s life (Tetlock et al., 2000). Therefore, if the backpack was still consciously perceived as a product there is no reason to believe participants were likely to decrease their willingness to negotiate, as it would simply mean that they were bidding on a product that only shared human-like characteristics. Such a trade-off can be seen as legitimate and does not include the trade of sacred values (Tetlock et al., 2000). Accordingly, although the scores for anthropomorphism manipulation checks are often low, the main study’s measure indicated a score of approximately 3.31. This result is fairly low compared to other papers such as the work by Puzakova et al. (2013) and Chandler (2010), who obtained scores of 4.17 and 4.01 respectively.

25

anthropomorphic inferences such as a human-like shape (cf. Puzakova et al., 2013) or a face (cf. Hur, Koo and Hofmann, 2015). For future research, it means a backpack may not be the easiest product to anthropomorphize by using the details used in the present study. In order to induce anthropomorphic inferences properly, new items are needed for future manipulations.

Moreover, there may have been a flaw with respect to the study’s advertisement design. Specifically, given that the advertisement was somewhat goal driven (i.e. respondents were in need of a backpack) the message may have motivated respondents to negotiate about the product. After all, goal-oriented messages highlight the objective of instrumentality, which increases the functional use of anthropomorphized products (Wan and Aggarwal, 2014). Given this assumption, it is possible that even though the backpack was anthropomorphized and thus perceived as human-like, participants were still willing to negotiate about the backpack. In order to test this proposition, one might create two distinct advertisements; one of which is similar to the current study’s scenario and one scenario that includes a more hedonic shopping motivation. For example, one could instruct respondents to believe that one is idea shopping and stumbles across a backpack that fits his/her needs for an upcoming holiday (cf. Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).

Next, turning to the product role construct. Given that the partner manipulation was found to be insignificant, it could be argued that not finding the proposed effect is due to a flaw in the design of the partner/servant role manipulations. However, research suggest that participants, who do not have a previous relationship with a product (e.g. a fictitious brand or product), are by definition more likely to perceive them as servants (Kim and Kramer, 2015). Given this assumption, it is possible that even by priming the backpack as a partner, participants were more likely to perceive it as a servant, thereby ultimately influencing the results of the study. Therefore, in order to increase the effectiveness of partner/servant manipulations one could implement text scenarios that describe how a participant could either use or work together with a given product (i.e. “please describe how the Hero backpack could work with you during your journey?”) (cf. Kim and Kramer, 2015). This specific type of manipulation has proven to strengthen one’s partner/servant perception.

26 Practical implications

Although no predictions were confirmed, this study may wield some noteworthy findings which can be used by marketing practitioners. Specifically, given the increasing use of negotiations on E-marketplaces (Kersten and Lai, 2007) it is important to note anthropomorphized items can be negotiated about regardless of whether they embody a partner or servant role. However, it is important to note this finding may not be generalizable as the study is based around one product. Moreover, even though marketing practitioners may invest additional resources in order to endow their products with anthropomorphic characteristics and a specific product role, there seems to be no differences in consumers’ willingness to pay the initial asking price. Consequently, there is no best option in order to induce consumers to pay the initial asking price.

Limitations and future research

As for most big projects, this study encountered several limitations. Although the study’s main interest was the interaction effect between product role and anthropomorphism, the current research design did technically not allow for the measurement of several interesting hypotheses. Given that anthropomorphism and product role were contingent upon each other, there was no clear manner of testing a potential direct effect. Unfortunately, due to lack of time this problem could not be solved. Future research would benefit from investigating the effect of anthropomorphism and the product role in two distinct studies. Specifically, a first study should evaluate whether anthropomorphism alone can decrease one’s willingness to negotiate and whether this effect is mediated by one’s perceived appropriateness. Subsequently, a second study should test whether this effect is moderated by the product’s role. This design allows for a clear measurement of anthropomorphism alone as well as the interaction between anthropomorphism and a product’s role. Moreover, such a design may shed light on whether or not perceived appropriateness forms the mediating variable for this relationship.

27

Moreover, future research could examine additional factors that induce consumers’ perception of a product being a partner. Prime methods like these may be very valuable, especially given the fact that participants tend to assign the servant role to fictitious products. Moreover, if one was to replicate this study it would be beneficial to use the script as implemented by Kim and Kramer (2015).

Lastly, there may have been limitations with respect to the data gathering procedure. All participants were extracted by means of a university’s research lab, meaning that respondents were to complete questionnaires for approximately 40 minutes. Multiple respondents indicated that they became fatigued when they were halfway. This, in combination with studies that were more or less designed in a similar manner, leads me to believe that respondents may have been distracted. Distractions like these may cause participants to not fully read the study’s instructions or fail to carefully read the advertisement. In line with the obtained scores for the attention check, I propose that participants’ weariness may have formed a factor that influenced the overall results.

Conclusion

28

References

Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of consumer research, 31(1), 87-101.

Aggarwal, P., and McGill, A.L. 2007. Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of consumer research, 34: 468-479.

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2011). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of

Consumer Research, 39(2), 307-323.

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of

retailing, 79(2), 77-95.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology, 1: 99-142.

Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual

review of psychology, 51(1), 279-314.

Chandler, J. J. (2010). The cognitive and emotional consequences of anthropomorphic

thought (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan).

Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (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, 20(2), 138-145.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(1), 12.

De Dreu, C. K., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 90(6), 927.

Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., and Philips B. J. (2011). Personification in Advertising: Using a Visual Metaphor to Trigger Anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40, 121-130.

Dwyer, F. R. (1984). Are two better than one? Bargaining behavior and outcomes in an asymmetrical power relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 680-693. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human:

29

Epley, N., Waytz, A., and Cacioppo, J.T. 2007. On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 846-886.

Evans, K. R., & Beltramini, R. F. (1987). A theoretical model of consumer negotiated pricing: An orientation perspective. the Journal of Marketing, 58-73.

Guthrie, S. 1993. Faces in the clouds. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

Holmes, M. E. (1992). Phase structures in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff. (Eds.) Communication and negotiation. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 83-105.

Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 340-358

Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. H. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 221-234.

Kersten, G. E., & Lai, H. (2007). Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: An overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(6), 553-586.

Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the “brand-as-servant”? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284-299.

Kim, H. R., Lee, M., & Ulgado, F. M. (2005). Brand personality, self-congruity and the consumer-brand relationship. ACR Asia-Pacific Advances.

Kteily, N., Saguy, T., Sidanius, J., & Taylor, D. M. (2013). Negotiating power: Agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. Journal

of personality and social psychology, 105(6), 978-995.

Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal

of Marketing, 79(4), 56-76.

Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of

marketing, 75(3), 132-146.

MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer

30

Maes, P., Guttman, R. H., & Moukas, A. G. (1999). Agents that buy and sell. Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 81-ff.

Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M., & Oppenheim, P. (2006). Marketing research: An applied

orientation. Pearson Education Australia.

Maxwell, S., Nye, P., & Maxwell, N. (1999). Less pain, same gain: The effects of priming fairness in price negotiations. Psychology & marketing, 16(7), 545-562.

Maxwell, S., Nye, P., & Maxwell, N. (2003). The wrath of the fairness-primed negotiator when the reciprocity norm is violated. Journal of Business Research, 56(5), 399-409. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., and Rocereto, J. F. 2013. When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong:

The Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings.

Journal of Marketing. 77. 81-100.

Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York etc.: Academic Press.

Shalvi, S., Reijseger, G., Handgraaf, M. J., Appelt, K. C., Femke, S., Giacomantonio, M., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 40-49.

Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends

in cognitive sciences, 7(7), 320-324.

Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), 853.

Tetlock, P. E., McGraw, A. P., & Kristel, O. V. (2004). Proscribed forms of social cognition: Taboo trade-offs, blocked exchanges, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Relational models theory: A contemporary overview, 247-262.

European Journal of Marketing, 45, 1994-1213.

Vohs, K. D., Mogilner, C., Newman, G., & Aaker, J. (2012). Reminders of Money Focus People on What’s Functional. ACR North American Advances.

Wan, J., & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Spending Time With Mr. Lexus and Paying Money to Doughboy: the Effect of Time and Money on Preference For Anthropomorphized Products. ACR North American Advances.

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological

31

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLES MANIPULATION PRODUCT ROLE (PRE-TEST)

Figure 2: headphone servant-partner condition

32

APPENDIX 2: RESULTS PRE-TEST

Proposition N Mean _dif. t p _{supported/rejected} Proposition

When primed as a partner, participants perceive the backpack

to be more partner-like compared to those in the servant condition

54 .73 1.68 .099* Supported When primed as a servant,

participants perceive the backpack to be more servant-like compared

to those in the partner condition

54 1.15 -2.55 .014** Supported Participants are willing to negotiate

about the backpack (cut-off sore =

1) 54 4.09 18.74 <.01** Supported Participants are willing to negotiate

about the backpack (cut-off sore = 4)

54 1.09 5 <.01** Supported Participants feel comfortable while

negotiating about the backpack (cut-off score = 1)

54 4.57 25.62 <.01** Supported Participants feel comfortable while

negotiating about the backpack

(cut-off score = 4) 54 1.57 8.82 <.01** Supported Participants are not predisposed to

negotiate about servant products 54 -.50 -1.15 .256 Supported

Table 1: main findings pre-test

33

APPENDIX 3: CONDITIONS (MAIN STUDY)

Figure 4: anthropomorphized-partner condition

34

Figure 6: neutral-partner condition

35

APPENDIX 4: MEASURES AND PROCEDURE

Table 2: measures used

36 Procedure