Product choice location, does it even
matter?
Experimental research to explore the influences of attentional scope, assortment structure and state self-control on a person’s product choice location.
Pagina | 1
Product choice location, does it even
matter?
Experimental research to explore the influences of attentional scope, assortment structure and state self-control on a person’s product choice location.
Word count: 11528
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis
June 2016
First Supervisor: S.A. Sadowski Second Supervisor: Prof. dr. B.M. Fennis
Pagina | 2
Abstract
Choices can show edge aversion, meaning that people tend to choose a product that is more located in the middle, or it can show edge advantage, meaning that people tend to choose a product that is more located to the edge. Knowing what influences these decisions, enables the prediction of consumer behavior. This experimental research manipulated attentional scope with the implicit affective cue color and measured the product choice location across two different assortment structures. These results were compared along two groups, one with a high state self-control and one with a low state self-control. The author hypothesized that people with a low state self-control would be more receptive to the assortment structure when they had a broad attentional scope. The results could not reveal this relation, but did found a significant effect between attentional scope and state self-control, showing that people with a high state self-control make product choice according the primacy effect.
Keywords: Product choice location, edge aversion, edge advantage, implicit
Pagina | 3
Acknowledgement
This thesis is the last achievement of my master Marketing Management at the
Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen. After many hours of work, the time has come to finish my study and start my professional career. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor Mr. Sadowski for all provided feedback during the process of writing my thesis. Subsequently, I want to thank my second supervisor Prof. dr. B.M. Fennis for evaluating my thesis.
Furthermore, I want to thank my fellow students from the MSc Marketing for the support during my study and especially Ninos George for helping me with the visualizations of the assortment. Last but not least, I want to thank my parents Jaap Klifman and Hennie Klifman, without them I would never been able to achieve this.
I hope you enjoy reading my thesis.
Pagina | 4 Table of content Abstract 2 Acknowledgement 3 1. Introduction 5 2. Theoretical framework 7 2.1 Attentional scope 7
2.2 Product choice location 8
2.3 Assortment structure 9
2.4 State self-control 10
2.5 Conceptual Relationships 11
2.6 Conceptual framework 14
3. Research methods 15
3.1 Design and participants 15
3.2 Experiment 15 3.3 Experimental procedure 16 3.4 Data analysis 18 3.5 Scoring table 19 4. Results 20 4.1 Sample 20 4.2 Manipulation checks 20 4.3 Time 21
4.4 Product choice location 22
4.5 Repeated measures 25
5. Discussion 27
6. Limitations and future research recommendations 30
References 32
Appendix A 38
Appendix B 40
Appendix C 41
Pagina | 5
1. Introduction
People have to make a lot of choices, whether it is a student choosing an answer in a multiple choice test or as a consumer in a restaurant choosing from a menu. Decision makers are often confronted with a large assortment of options, leading to choice overload (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder & Todd, 2010; Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman, 2014). From a marketing perspective, it is useful to understand how and why certain product choices are made
(Iyengar, 2010; Schwartz, 2013). This knowledge makes it able to predict consumer behavior in the future.
One important driver of choice is the complexity of the choice the consumer faces (Swait & Adamowicz, 2001a). Especially choice when the available options in the assortment look similar make researchers wonder why individuals make certain decisions. The product choice location during decision making in these kinds of situations have been a popular research topic for years. The product choice location can show edge aversion, meaning that people tend to choose a product that is more located in the middle, and it can show edge advantage, meaning that people tend to choose a product that is more located to the edge (Attali & Bar-Hillel, 2003).
Decision making is affected by a lot of processes. One of these processes is attention
(Mukherjee & Srinivasan, 2013). Attention is a cognitive process that is often conceptualized in difference in scope rate, with a distinction between a narrow and a broad attentional scope (Förster & Dannenberg, 2010). There is a comprehensive field of literature explaining the differences in attentional scope, but there are not many studies that directly relate attentional scope to decision making and especially to the position effects behind these decisions. This study uses this opportunity to research this relation and find relevant outcomes for the field of marketing.
Theory that relates to this complexity of choice options and which is relevant in this research is the theory about assortment structure. An assortment can be evidently equivalent or
Pagina | 6
The processing of information by a decision maker depends on the amount of self-control, which is explained in the theory about ego-depletion. Processing demands a certain level of self-control from the decision maker. Sufficient self-control resources make it possible for a decision maker to act in goal-directed behavior. However, performing one act of regulating the self will impair the performance on a subsequent, seemingly unrelated act of self-control (Vohs, Baumeister, Schmeichel, Twenge, Nelson & Tice, 2014). Therefore, the strength of a person’s self-control can vary over time, the resources for self-control can get depleted. Low self-control and high self-control show a difference in deliberate decision making, leading to differences in product choice location (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).
To see if product choice location is influenced by attentional scope, assortment structure and state self-control, the author performed an experiment to provide an answer to the following research question:
Is there an interaction between attentional scope and the structure of an assortment, across different states of self-control, influencing the product choice location?
Pagina | 7
2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Attentional scope
Numerous studies suggested that affective experiences, like moods and emotions, influence people’s attentional scope (Schwarz & Clore, 2007). People who habitually experience anxiousness and depression attend to details (Basso, Schefft, Ris, & Dember, 1996), whereas people who experience elated moods focus more broadly (Andreasen & Powers, 1975). Fredrickson and Branigan (2005) and Gasper and Clore (2002) found that manipulated affective cues, like happy and sad moods, are also able to create a narrow or broad attentional scope among people.
These suggestions made throughout the years are often based on the Easterbrook hypothesis (Easterbrook, 1959). This hypothesis suggests that anxious emotional states narrow the scope of perceptual attention (Cacioppo, Berntson, & Crites, 1996). Schwarz (1990; 1994) proposed that negative emotional states signal danger and facilitate a narrow and more focused
attention, whereas positive emotional states signal safety, which means there is no action required. Derryberry and Tucker (1994) joined these suggestions by explaining that a person’s narrow attentional scope, due to threatening circumstances, facilitates concentration on the problem at hand.
Friedman and Förster (2010) noticed that the emotional states and moods in the
Pagina | 8
Harmon-Jones, Gable and Price (2011) tone down the review of research done by Friedman and Förster (2010), Easterbrook (1959) and Fredrickson (2001), since they theorize that it is not affective valence that causes differences in attentional scope. According to their research (Harmon-Jones & Gable, 2008) it is motivational intensity that causes these differences. They suggested that affective states low in motivational intensity, like sadness, broaden and
affective states high in motivational intensity, like disgust, narrow the scope of attention. This indicates a clear friction between theories regarding attentional scope, which makes the influence of attentional scope (evoked by implicit affective cues) in this research and subsequently the outcome of this research even more interesting.
2.2 Product choice location
The attentional scope of people can be narrow, having a more goal-focused attentional scope, or broad, where people have a more context-sensitive attentional scope. Product choice location, whether people are showing edge aversion or edge advantage, will show differences between these two levels of attentional scope. Studies on position effect already showed inconsistent results. Multiple choice tests show edge aversion or middle bias when students had to guess their answer (Attali & Bar-Hillel, 2003) and menu choices in restaurants show edge advantage, consumers favoring items at the beginning or end of the menu (Dayan & Bar-Hillel, 2011; Panitz, 2000). Bar-Hillel (2015) researched this conundrum of these seemingly similar tasks showing opposite results. She found that there is a clear distinction in position effects between individual or interactive decision making. A decision made by an individual is not influenced by the interest of another decision maker. In interactive decision making, the result is partly influenced by the decision of at least one more decision maker. This research will focus on the product choice location of individuals.
Several psychological principles are in play when explaining product choice location. One of them is reachability, the principle that states that the choice option that is easiest to reach is more popular when other things are equal (Bar-Hillel, Peer, & Acquisti, 2014). This rule holds for both physical domains, the option that is closest to the decision maker, as well as mental domains, the option that runs first through the mind. Another psychological principle involved is serial position effect (Bar-Hillel, 2015). When individual decisions need
Pagina | 9
noncomplex assortments require processing done in different magnitude levels. That is where the attentional scope of a decision maker comes back in play and the link with state self-control becomes visible.
2.3 Assortment structure
Like mentioned above, one important driver of choice is the complexity of the choice the consumer faces (Swait & Adamowicz, 2001a). Especially choices where the available options in the assortment look similar make researchers wonder why individuals make certain
decisions. Therefore, you look at the variety of an assortment (Kahn & Wansink, 2004). An assortment can have choice options that differ only on a few attributes, like color or size. In such an assortment, the actual variety is easy to define and people will not perceive the
assortment as complex. However, when assortments differ on more than one or two attributes, the actual variety of the assortment is likely to become more complex.
The location of product choice depends on the assortment structure and thereby on the complexity of the assortment. Therefore, two types of assortment structures will be
researched. Bar-Hillel (2015) explained these two kinds of assortments in her recent research. The first is a nonequivalent assortment. This assortment structure contains a variety of
products that are not identical, differ on multiple attributes and require a certain amount of processing by people to see the differences between all the available choice options. Opposite to this is an evidently equivalent assortment, an assortment where the products in the
Pagina | 10
2.4 State self-control
The amount of processing that is necessary to make a choice decision from a nonequivalent or an evidently equivalent assortment asks for a certain amount of self-control from the decision maker. Every person has a certain level of self-control. This self-control is used to regulate the self, trying to attain control over available information (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, &
Chatzisarantis, 2010). Self-control or self-regulation helps people to act in disciplined goal-directed behavior. It is a process that tries to control dominant behaviors or response
tendencies in order to stay in line with the goal set by an individual (Baumeister et al., 1994)
All actions that require self-control are based on one energy resource (Baumeister, Vohs & Tice, 2007). However, this energy resource is assumed to have a limited capacity. People differ in their momentarily available self-control strength, called state self-control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). This variety in level of self-regulation inspired Baumeister and colleagues to develop the strength, or limited-resource, model of self-control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Baumeister et al., 2007; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000) which showed that people only have limited resources of self-control. When this source of self-control gets low, people capacity for further self-regulation will reduce.
Briefly said, after an initial act of exerting self-control, people are less willing or able to exert self-control on a secondary task. This state of reduced strength of self-control or temporary self-control exhaustion is called ego-depletion (Baumeister et al.,1994; Baumeister et al., 1998). Under the condition of ego-depletion, people fail to exert self-control over their decisions, people are unable to think of all the advantages and disadvantages of the options available and they will make undeliberate decisions.
Pagina | 11
2.5 Conceptual relationships
Schwarz (1990; 1994) proposed that negative emotional states signal danger and facilitate a narrow focused attention, whereas positive emotional states signal safety, which means there is no action required. Friedman and Förster (2010) joined this statement by explaining that also implicit affective cues, in comparison with previous conscious affective cues, create benign (safe) and threatening (danger) situations which creates a broad and narrow attentional scope. Elliot and Maier (2007) did extensive research on this part and showed that visual attention, like color, is an influencer of a person’s attentional scope. Red is for instance a color that signals danger, since red is often employed in warning signs and used to mark students’ errors. So when achievement is at stake, exposure to red evokes a motivation to avoid threats, thereby narrowing a person’s attentional scope. In contrast, blue signals openness, peace, and tranquility which are associated with benign situations.
According to Fredrickson (1998; 2001), a broad attentional scope which is accompanied by positive emotions encourages people to engage in atypical patterns of thoughts and actions. Subsequently, Carver (2003) explained that benign and safe situations lead people to adopt an explorative mindset in which their attentional scope gets broad. People become more visually receptive and embrace unusual ideas, decisions and incentives. An explorative mindset is more context-sensitive, people with this mindset are more receptive to the environment and act in a less goal-directed behavior. These findings cause us to assume that people with a broad attentional scope are more visually receptive and act in an atypical way, which results in showing edge advantage. People with a narrow attentional scope act in goal-directed behavior, showing edge aversion in product choice location.
H1¹: A broad attentional scope facilitates edge advantage H1²: A narrow attentional scope facilitates edge aversion
The complexity of an assortment structure asks for different amounts of processing by a decision maker. This research proposes two assortment structures to be analyzed, a
Pagina | 12
due to the order of intake and need for processing with nonequivalent assortments (Bar-Hillel, 2015). More interesting, when assortments are evidently identical, people tend to act in the opposite way. When guessing the answer on a multiple choice test, people prefer the fuzzy middle. The middle is preferred, because people use strategic reasoning instead of processing. This causes people to see the first and last option as special positions and therefore shy away from these choice options. When participants in a drawing were asked to guess what random number between one and twelve would come up next, most people chose one of the four middle numbers. In this situation there no need for processing information and therefore strategic reasoning is used which leads to avoiding the special positions (Teigen, 1983). Christenfeld (1995) also researched these evidently equivalent options, choice options that did not require any deliberation, in an assortment. He found in several experiments that people showed edge aversion, choosing options in the middle more often than options at the beginning or the end of the assortment.
H2¹: An evidently equivalent assortment facilitates edge aversion H2²: A nonequivalent assortment facilitates edge advantage
Pagina | 13 H3: The effect of attentional scope on product choice location does depend on assortment structure, making people with a broad attentional scope more sensitive for the influence of
assortment structure on product choice location
Choosing involves weighing all the available information about the choice options. This process of information-processing is a costly skill (Vohs et al., 2014). The assumed difference between a broad and narrow attentional scope regarding choice options in different assortment structures, varies along state self-control. Self-control is used to regulate the self, trying to attain control over information (Hagger et al., 2010). Both types of assortment structures ask for different levels of information processing by the decision maker. The level of self-control is crucial here, leading to successful or unsuccessful decision making (Baumeister et al., 1994).
Low amount of self-control will lead to a reduced capacity for self-regulation, resulting in ego-depletion and automatic decision making (Baumeister et al., 1998). These people are expected to make undeliberated decisions, because they do not consider all the pros and cons belonging to the choice options, which will make them more impressionable for assortment structure. Therefore, people with a broad attentional scope and a low amount of self-control have more difficulties in processing information, especially when the choice options are complex. They have an explorative mindset and are more receptive to the environment. This is expressed by showing edge aversion for an evidently equivalent assortment and edge advantage for a nonequivalent assortment. People with a narrow attentional scope and a low amount of self-control have fewer difficulties in processing information since they are concentrated at the problem at hand and will not be affected by the differences in assortment structure.
When people have a high amount of self-control, acting in a disciplined goal-directed behavior is expected. Therefore, people have the discipline to focus on the problem at hand and will not be affected by the differences in assortment structure. They are expected to make deliberate choices facilitating edge aversion for a narrow attentional scope and edge
Pagina | 14 H4: The interaction effect of attentional scope and assortment structure on product choice
location does depend on state self-control, making people with low self-control show edge aversion for an evidently equivalent assortment and edge advantage for a nonequivalent assortment when having a broad attentional scope. People with high self-control will not be
affected by assortment structure and therefore make choice according to their attentional scope, facilitating edge aversion for a narrow attentional scope and edge advantage for a
broad attentional scope.
Pagina | 15
3. Research methods
3.1 Design and participants
This study was a mixed factorial design using an experiment. The two independent variables both had two levels, which made it a 2 (evidently equivalent assortment vs. nonequivalent assortment) x2 (narrow attentional scope vs. broad attentional scope) mixed design. This design had both between and within subject’s variables, where the assortment structure was the within subject’s variable and the attentional scope measured between subjects. This two-way interaction between attentional scope and assortment structure was expected to vary across the third variable ‘state self-control’, which was measured with the questionnaire after the experiment.
Students of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen participated in the experiment. Participants of the experiment were randomly selected and the participation in this research was fully voluntary. Since mainly students participated in the experiment, the intended age was between 18 and 28, with an approximately equivalent gender distribution.
3.2 Experiment
The experiment contained four games, which the participants of the study had to complete. Participants were randomly selected and asked if they wanted to participate in a small experiment. In advance, the participants were told that they had to play four small games. They were told that the focus was on solving games used to evaluate the students’
performance in various games. This cover story was told to misguide the participants. The performance of every participant was not of relevance for the results of this research. The real focus in the experiment was on the choices made by the participants across the nonequivalent and evidently equivalent assortment. The misguidance was done to make sure participants did not recognize the real focus of the study.
Beforehand, the participants of the experiment were explicitly explained that there were no rewards tied to the points they scored or the score they could obtain when performing the games. This was done to make sure that the participants were not focused on receiving a reward for their efforts in the experiment.
Pagina | 16
was randomized. Half the participants were manipulated by the implicit affective cue color red to get a narrow attentional scope and the other half of the participants were manipulated by the implicit affective cue color blue to get a broad attentional scope. Table 1 shows how many participants per group performed the experiment. For all four cells in this design, 22 respondents performed the experiment so the total sample size was 88.
Table 1: Experiment cells
3.3 Experimental procedure
After participants were randomly selected and asked to voluntary participate in the experiment, they were brought to a private study room to conduct the experiment without being distracted by external impulses. Here they received the information on the experiment from the researcher, who explained that they had to conduct four games and fill in a small questionnaire to complete the experiment. All four games and the small questionnaire were presented on paper.
In the first game (appendix A), the participants of the experiment had two minutes to solve as many of the 25 anagrams, rearranging jumbled letters to form the correct words (Elliot, Maier, Moller, Friedman, and Meinhardt, 2007 experiment 1). The participants of the experiment had to do this test on a paper test form, containing multiple anagrams. For the narrow attentional scope group, the background color of the test form was red, and for the broad attentional scope group, the background color of the test form was blue (Elliot & Maier, 2007).
In the second game (appendix B), the participants of the experiment had to choose one suitcase from a set of 49 suitcases. The frame, in which the suitcases were shown, had the same color as used in the first game with that exact participant, so reinforcement of the colors was used. For half of the participants, the second game showed the evidently equivalent assortment, the other half of the participants started with the nonequivalent assortment (table 1). The second and fourth game were the games in which the actually product choice
Participants Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4
22 Narrow scope Equivalent Narrow scope Nonequivalent
22 Narrow scope Nonequivalent Narrow scope Equivalent
22 Broad scope Equivalent Broad scope Nonequivalent
Pagina | 17
location was measured to see if participants demonstrated edge aversion or edge advantage. Participants were told to choose one suitcase from the suitcases and bags viewed to them and were asked to mark one suitcase on the paper in front of them.
The different assortment structures used in game two and game four in the experiment were randomly assigned to the participants of the experiment. Both assortment structures (evidently equivalent assortment vs. nonequivalent assortment) will appear in the experiment. Half the participants received the second and fourth game with a blue frame (to manipulate a broad attentional scope with the implicit affective cue color blue), the other half with a red framework (to manipulate a narrow attentional scope with the implicit affective cue color red). To avoid results based on the preference of one particular bag or suitcase, the products in the assortment visualizations were placed in different position, so every assortment structure had five different versions which were randomly selected in the experiment.
In the third game (appendix C), again participants had two minutes to perform a game where the implicit affective color cues blue and red were used as background test sheet colors to narrow or broaden their attentional scope. The color used in this game was the same color used in the first game, in order to reinforce the manipulation of attentional scope. In the third game, the participants had to play a number sequence game (Elliot et al. 2007). In the number sequence game, participants were presented with a series of number strings. They were asked to find the general rule that relates these number in sequence (Numbers 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, ... ; Answer: 18) and solve as many number strings as possible in the two minutes (Korossy, 1998).
Pagina | 18
After performing the four games, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire measuring their current mood (Hirt, Devers & McCrea, 2008), state self-control (Twenge, Muraven & Tice, 2004), behavioral motivation (Carver & White, 2004), perceived similarity (Walsh & Mitchell, 2005), perceived complexity (Van Herpen & Pieters, 2007) and choice satisfaction (Heitman, Lehmann & Hermann, 2007). All the questions were asked using a 9-point likert scale, which ranged from 1 being strongly disagree up to 9 being strongly agree. The average time of the whole experiment, so including the questionnaire, took approximately 15 - 20 minutes per participant.
When the experiment was over, the researcher asked the participants what they thought the research was about. This funneled debriefing with the participants was included to see whether the participant actually guessed the true goal of the experiment. When a participant knew that the focus of the research was on product choice location, his or her results were excluded from the experiment. Zero participants knew that the focus of the research was on product choice location. After the funneled debriefing, the researcher explained to the participants that the goal of the research was about the product choice location. Finally, the participants were instructed not to spread the true purpose of the study.
3.4 Data analysis
The two-way interaction between attentional scope and assortment structure varied across the third variable ‘state self-control’. A three-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the main effects and interaction effect of attentional scope, assortment structure and state self-control. The data collected by the questionnaire was used to gather additional information on the variables and specially to measure the state self-control of the participants of the experiment.
A multi-item scale was used to measure the underlying variable state self-control (Twenge, Muraven & Tice, 2004). The answers of the respondents on the questionnaire were used and combined to generate a score for each respondent on each variable. A median split created two levels of state self-control, namely high state self-control and low state self-control.
Pagina | 19
had to choose one product from the assortment to gather additional data regarding the process of choice.
3.5 Scoring table
Table 2 shows how all the choice options in both the evidently equivalent and the
nonequivalent assortment were scored, combining vertical and horizontal centrality in one. When the mean of one of the groups was high, it indicated that people tended to the middle, showing edge aversion. When the mean of one of the groups was low, it indicated that people tended to the edge, showing edge advantage.
Pagina | 20
4. Results 4.1 Sample
This research started off with a sample size of 88 participants. When searching for
inconsistencies, four outliers were discovered. These four participants did not perceive the available choice options in the evidently equivalent assortment as being similar to each other. These results were not in line with the results of the rest of the participants. The dataset was cleaned and the four participants were discarded from further analysis. The remaining
response set of 84 responses consisted of 49 males and 35 females with an average age of 24. The response set contained of 72 students, ten workers and two participants who were
currently out of work at that time. All participants attended or were still attending university education.
4.2 Manipulation checks
To check if the manipulation of the independent variable ‘assortment structure’ was actually perceived differently by the participants, question regarding similarity were asked to the participants of this research. The sum variable (appendix D) similarity was measured on a scale from 1 to 9, with 1 being ‘Strongly disagree’ and 9 being ‘Strongly agree’. A paired samples t-test was conducted (table 3) to compare the perceived similarity in the evidently equivalent assortment and the nonequivalent assortment. There was a significant difference in the scores for the evidently equivalent assortment (M= 6,73 SD= 1,604) and the nonequivalent assortment (M= 2,83 SD= 1,566); t(83) = 16,307, p = 0,000. These results showed that the perceived similarity was higher for the evidently equivalent assortment.
Paired Samples Test Mean
difference Std. deviation Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Similarity evidently equivalent assortment – Similarity nonequivalent assortment 3,905 2,195 0,239 16,307 83 ,000
Table 3: Paired samples test similarity
Pagina | 21
‘Strongly agree’. A paired samples t-test (table 4) was conducted to compare the perceived complexity in the evidently equivalent assortment and the nonequivalent assortment. There was a significant difference in the scores for the evidently equivalent assortment (M= 3,62
SD= 1,979) and the nonequivalent assortment (M= 5,16 SD= 2,144); t(83) = -4,742, p =
0,000. These results showed that the perceived complexity was higher for the nonequivalent assortment.
Paired Samples Test Mean
difference Std. deviation Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Complexity evidently equivalent assortment – Complexity nonequivalent assortment -1,544 2,983 0,326 -4,742 83 ,000
Table 4: Paired samples test complexity
4.3 Time
In the experiment, the time durations of product choice for both the evidently equivalent and the nonequivalent assortment were measured. A paired samples t-test was conducted (table 5) to compare the difference in time for the evidently equivalent assortment and the
nonequivalent assortment. There was a significant difference in the scores for the evidently equivalent assortment (M= 11,52 SD= 2,392) and the nonequivalent assortment (M= 13,74
SD= 2,871); t(83) = -5,882, p = 0,000. These results showed that the duration of the product
choice location was higher for the nonequivalent assortment. This confirmed the findings of Bar-Hillel (2015) stated before. A nonequivalent assortment structure requires a certain amount of processing by people to see the differences between the options. The nonequivalent assortment is less similar and more complex to process, therefore people take more time to process this assortment before making their choice.
Paired Samples Test Mean Std.
deviation
Std. Error Mean
t df Sig.
(2-tailed) Time product choice location
evidently equivalent assortment –
Time product choice location nonequivalent assortment
-2,214 3,450 0,376 -5,882 83 ,000
Pagina | 22
4.4 Product choice location
A three-way ANOVA was conducted to measure the interaction effect of attentional scope (broad attentional scope vs. narrow attentional scope), assortment structure (evidently equivalent assortment vs. nonequivalent assortment) and state control (high state self-control vs. low state self-self-control) on product choice location. The three-way ANOVA determines the two main effects, the two-way interaction and the three-way interaction on product choice location (table 6).
H1¹: A broad attentional scope facilitates edge advantage H1²: A narrow attentional scope facilitates edge aversion
There was a marginally significant main effect of attentional scope on product choice location at a 10% significance level F(1, 160) = 3,163 p = 0,077. The means of broad attentional scope (M= 4,21 SD= 1,593) and the narrow attentional scope (M= 4,64 SD= 1,637) indeed shows that people with a narrow attentional scope are more edge averse in comparison with people with a broad attentional scope. As predicted, these results were in line with the findings of Elliot and Maier (2007) who stated that color can be an influencer of a person’s attentional scope. When achievement was at stake, exposure to red narrows a person’s attentional scope.
H2¹: An evidently equivalent assortment facilitates edge aversion H2²: A nonequivalent assortment facilitates edge advantage
There was no statistically significant main effect of assortment structure on product choice location F(1, 160) = 1,530 p = 0,218. This indicated that product choice location was not influenced by the structure of the assortment.
H3: The effect of assortment structure on product choice location does depend on attentional scope, making people with a broad attentional scope more sensitive to assortment structure
There was no statistically significant two-way interaction between attentional scope and assortment structure F(1, 160) = 1,276 p = 0,260. This showed that the effect of assortment structure on product choice location does not depend on attentional scope. The results
Pagina | 23
explorative mindset which makes them more receptive to the assortment structure.
H4: “The interaction effect of attentional scope and assortment structure on product choice location does depend on state self-control, making people with low self-control show edge
aversion for an evidently equivalent assortment and edge advantage for a nonequivalent assortment when having a broad attentional scope.”
There was no statistically significant three-way interaction between attentional scope,
assortment structure and state self-control F(1, 160) = 0,120 p = 0,729. This result found that the state of a reduced strength of self-control, called ego-depletion, has no influence on the interaction effect of attentional scope and assortment structure on product choice location.
Three-way ANOVA df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 1 3297,716 1328,077 ,000
Attentional Scope 1 7,854 3,163 ,077
Assortment Structure 1 3,800 1,530 ,218
State Self-control 1 0,063 0,025 ,874
Attentional Scope * Assortment Structure 1 3,168 1,276 ,260
Attentional Scope * State Self-control 1 27,214 10,960 ,001
Attentional Scope * Assortment Structure * State Self-control
1 0,298 0,120 ,729
Table 6: Three-way ANOVA on product choice location
Notably, a two-way interaction between attentional scope and state self-control was also found F(1, 160) = 10,960 p = 0,001. The estimated marginal means (table 7) showed that the product choice locations means of the broad attentional scope and the narrow attentional scope showed a statistically significant difference when the state self-control was high F(1, 160) = 12,964 p = 0,000.
State Self-control
Attentional scope Attentional scope Mean difference Std. Error Sig. High Broad Narrow Narrow Broad -1,238 1,238 ,344 ,344 ,000 ,000 Low Broad Narrow Narrow Broad ,373 -,373 ,344 ,344 ,281 ,281
Pagina | 24
This indicated that when participants had a high state self-control, they showed a clear
difference in the product choice location mean (figure 1), having edge aversion with a narrow attentional scope (M= 5,07 SD= 0,243) and edge advantage for a broad attentional scope (M= 3,83 SD= 0,243).
Figure 1: Means product choice location with the interaction effect for high state self-control
The other way around, the estimated marginal means (table 8) showed that the product choice location means of high state self-control and low state self-control indicated a statistically significant difference both for the broad attentional scope F(1, 160) = 4,850 p = 0,029 and the narrow attentional scope F(1, 160) = 6,167 p = 0,014.
Attentional Scope
State Self-control State Self-control Mean difference Std. Error Sig. Broad High Low Low High -,768 ,768 ,348 ,348 ,029 ,029 Narrow High Low Low High ,844 -,844 ,340 ,340 ,014 ,014
Table 8: Pairwise comparison two-way interaction Attentional Scope and State Self-control
This result found that when participants had a broad attentional scope, they showed a clear difference in the product choice location mean (figure 2), having edge advantage with a high state self-control (M= 3,83 SD= 0,243) and edge aversion for a low state self-control (M= 4,60
SD= 0,249). When participants had a narrow attentional scope, they had a clear difference in
the product choice location mean, resulting in edge aversion with a high state self-control (M= 5,07 SD= 0,243) and edge advantage for a low state self-control (M= 4,23 SD= 0,238).
2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
Low State Self-control High State Self-control
Me an P roduc t C hoice L oc ati on
Pagina | 25
Figure 2: Mean product choice location with the interaction effect for broad and narrow attentional scope
4.5 Repeated measures
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. This was applicable since respondents were exposed to more than one treatment condition and repeated measures were obtained. The repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean differences between the within-subject factor assortment structure. The main effect of assortment structure was not significant in the three-way ANOVA. In the repeated measures ANOVA, the main effect of assortment structure was also not significant with F(1, 80) = 2,198 p = 0,142. The main effect of attentional scope was significant in the three-way ANOVA at the 10% significance scale. However, in the repeated measures ANOVA, the main effect of attentional scope was not significant with F(1, 80) = 2,426 p = 0,123.
The two-way interaction effect of assortment structure and attentional scope was not significant in the three-way ANOVA and was also not significant in the repeated measures ANOVA with F(1, 80) = 1,832 p = 0,180. The extra interaction between attentional scope and state self-control that was found to be significant in the three-way ANOVA, was also
significant in the repeated measures ANOVA with F(1, 80) = 8,408 p = 0,005. The three-way interaction between assortment structure, attentional scope and state self-control was not significant in the three-way ANOVA and was also not significant in the repeated measures ANOVA with F(1, 80) = 0,172 p = 0,679.
What was striking in the results, was the contradicting results for the main effect of attentional scope, since it was significant in the three-way ANOVA but not in the repeated measures ANOVA. A two-way MANOVA was conducted to additionally measure the interaction effect
2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5
Narrow Attentional Scope Broad Attentional Scope
Me an P roduc t C hoice L oc ati on
Pagina | 26
of attentional scope (broad attentional scope vs. narrow attentional scope) and state self-control (high state self-self-control vs. low state self-self-control) on product choice location, measured across two different assortment structures (an evidently equivalent assortment vs. a
nonequivalent assortment). Firstly, the two-way MANOVA showed also the significant interaction effect between attentional scope and state self-control across both assortment structures, F(2, 79) = 4,279, p = 0,017; Wilks’ Lambda = ,902, confirming the interaction results mentioned before. Secondly, it explained the contradicting results for the main effect of attentional scope (table 9). The main effect of attentional scope was significant for an evidently equivalent assortment with F(1, 80) = 4,103 p = 0,046 but not for a nonequivalent assortment with F(1, 80) = 0,217 p = 0,642.
Two-way MANOVA Dependent variable Df Mean Square F Sig.
Attentional Scope Evidently equivalent assortment Nonequivalent assortment 1 1 10,499 0,523 4,103 0,217 ,046 ,642
Table 9: Tests of between-subjects effects Attentional Scope
Pagina | 27
5. Discussion
This research seeks an answer to the question if the interaction effect of attentional scope and assortment structure on product choice location is dependent on state self-control. With the use of an experiment, this research attempts to prove that participants show different product choice locations in several conditions. The participants perceived the evidently equivalent assortment as more similar and the nonequivalent assortment as more complex and used more time to choose a product in the nonequivalent assortment. However, the results regarding the interaction effects on product choice location were not significant. The differences in mean product choice location pointed in the right way concerning edge aversion or edge advantage in most of the conditions, but the differences were not high enough to show significant results that would influence product choice location.
Only the main effect of attentional scope, which was manipulated by the implicit affective cue color, on product choice location was significant. This effect showed a clear difference, being more edge averse with a narrow attentional scope in comparison with a broad attentional scope when the assortment was evidently equivalent. This showed that people were
influenced by attentional scope, only if the assortment had choice options that differed on a few attributes, because then the assortment was low in complexity (Kahn & Wansink, 2004). No strategic reasoning was necessary in these kind of decisions, what gives room for the influence of attentional scope.
One interesting finding in this research is the significant interaction of attentional scope and state self-control on product choice location. When participants had a high state self-control, they showed edge aversion with a narrow attentional scope and edge advantage with a broad attentional scope. A result that on the one hand makes sense, since the main effect of
Pagina | 28
But how is it possible that the results of this experiment show the contrary? This research clearly clarifies that state self-control of a participant is not as influential as expected upfront. Beforehand, participants under the condition of ego-depletion were expected to be less willing to exert self-control on a secondary task and would make undeliberated decisions (Baumeister et al., 1998). These people would be more receptive to the stimuli and manipulations in the experiment, which would result in clear differences in product choice locations compared with participants with high state self-control. Job, Dweck and Walton (2010) found that people who viewed their capacity to exert self-control as not limited, did not show a reduced self-control after a depleting experience. They explained that the beliefs about the availability and capacity to exert self-control are often higher than the actual resource depletion of a participant. This is in line with the results from this research, since participants who stated that their state control was low did not show results that accord with low state self-control.
But how come the results do show a significant difference in product choice location for high state self-control? This can be explained by the primacy effect. When people have to recall items, they frequently recall the first items better than the subsequent items (Kelley, Neath and Surprenant, 2015). This explains the interaction effect of attentional scope and state self-control, since people with high self-control are not distracted and will make deliberate decisions according the primacy effect. These decisions are in line with their current attentional scope, since attentional scope did show a significant effect on product choice location. When their attentional scope is broad, products on the edge are seen first which facilitates edge advantage. When their attentional scope is narrow, product in the middle are seen first which facilitates edge aversion. This explanation is related to reachability, the principle that states that the choice option that is easiest to reach is more popular (Bar-Hillel, et al., 2014). This rule holds for mental reachability, the option that runs first through the mind, confirming the primacy effects of choosing the product that was seen first.
The finding that the main effect of attentional scope is significant for an evidently equivalent assortment, but not for a nonequivalent assortment can be explained by the theory of
Pagina | 29
choice. The choice options in the evidently equivalent assortment are perceived as similar and have no decisive differences in advantages, making people choose according to their
Pagina | 30
6. Limitations and future research recommendations
This research contains a number of limitations. By stating these limitations, it is possible to tackle these limitations for future research projects in the same research area.
There are shortcomings in the procedure which affect the outcomes of this paper. A sample of only 84 respondents is used for this research, which is rather low for experimental research. Due to time limitations was the time invested in data collection rather low, which resulted in this small sample group. The research should contain a larger sample and the timeframe should be extended to conduct proper research. A longer time frame gives the possibility to gather more and better data, which will improve the results of this research and makes it more generalizable. Thereby, the participants of this experiment have an average age of 24 and 72 of 84 participants are students, which make the results biased and not generalizable for the whole population.
The second limitation is the setting of the research, which could be improved to increase the internal validity. The experiments were performed in the lobby of a university. Although the actual experiments were performed in a private room, there were still a lot of impulses from the outside. Recommended for the future is to conduct a similar research in a research laboratory where the participants of the experiment will not be influenced by factors outside of the research stimuli and manipulations.
The third limitation is the choice of the assortment used in the experiment. The assortment chosen for this research should be modified to see if this gives different results, since the amount of product involvement could be influential in this research. The amount of involvement with products can lead to greater perception of attribute differences and a
perception of greater product importance when choosing from the assortments (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The amount of product involvement with suitcases and/or bags could be low among the participants. However, this is not tested so that is a limitation. Recommended for future research is to use an assortment that contains products with which people are highly involved, so they will make deliberate decisions and have more difficulties controlling their urges.
For future research, manipulations should be improved to make them more influential.
Pagina | 31
Pagina | 32
References
Andreasen, N. J., & Powers, P. S. 1975. Creativity and psychosis: An examination of conceptual style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32(1): 70-73.
Attali, Y., & Bar-Hillel, M. 2003. Guess where: The position of correct answers in multiple-choice test items as a psychometric variable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(2): 109–128.
Bar-Hillel, M. 2015. Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays A Conundrum Solved. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4): 419-433.
Bar-Hillel, M., Peer, E., & Acquisti, A. 2014. Heads or tails?—A reachability bias in binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(6): 1656.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. 1996. Self-regulation failure: An overview.
Psychological inquiry, 7(1): 1-15.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. 2007. The strength model of self-control.
Current directions in psychological science, 16(6): 351-355.
Basso, M. R., Schefft, B. K., Ris, M. D., & Dember, W. N. 1996. Mood and global-local visual processing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2(03): 249-255.
Bertrams, A., Baumeister, R. F., Englert, C., & Furley, P. 2015. Ego depletion in color
priming research self-control strength moderates the detrimental effect of red on cognitive test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Pagina | 33
Carver, C. 2003. Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition & Emotion, 17(2): 241-261.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. 1994. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 67: 319-333.
Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. 2015. Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2): 333-358.
Christenfeld, N. 1995. Choices from identical options. Psychological Science, 6(1): 50-55.
Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. 2011. Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food intake. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4): 333–342.
Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(2): 215-231.
Easterbrook, J. A. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological review, 66(3): 183.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. 2007. Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 16(5): 250-254.
Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. 2007. Color and psychological functioning: the effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of
experimental psychology, 136(1): 154.
Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. 2010. GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3): 175-197.
Pagina | 34
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3): 218.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & emotion, 19(3): 313-332.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. 2010. Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 136(5): 875.
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. 2002. Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological science, 13(1): 34-40.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. 2010. Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(4): 495.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Gable, P. A. 2008. Incorporating motivational intensity and direction into the study of emotions: Implications for brain mechanisms of emotion and cognition-emotion interactions. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 64(4): 132-142.
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. 2011. Toward an understanding of the influence of affective states on attentional tuning: Comment on Friedman and Förster, 2010.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(3): 508-512.
Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Herrmann, A. 2007. Choice goal attainment and decision and consumption satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 44(2): 234-250.
Hirt, E. R., Devers, E. E., & McCrea, S. M. 2008. I want to be creative: exploring the role of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood-cognitive flexibility link. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 94(2): 214.
Pagina | 35
Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. 2004. The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research ,30(4): 519-533.
Kelley, M. R., Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. 2015. Serial position functions in general knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology, 41(6): 1715-1727.
Korossy, K. 1998. Solvability and uniqueness of linear-recursive number sequence tasks.
Methods of Psychological Research Online, 3(1): 43-68.
Mednick, S. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological review, 69(3): 220.
Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. J. 2009. Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science, 323(5918): 1226-1229.
Mukherjee, S., & Srinivasan, N. 2013. Attention in preferential choice. Prog. Brain Res, 202: 117-134.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological bulletin, 126(2): 247.
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. 2010. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3): 409-425.
Schwarz, N. 1994. Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. Advances in experimental social psychology, 26: 123-123.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. 1996. Feelings and phenomenal experiences. Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles, 2: 385-407.
Pagina | 36
Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. 2001. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2): 141-167.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. 2004. High self‐control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
personality, 72(2): 271-324.
Teigen, K. H. 1983. Studies in subjective probability: I. Prediction of random events.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
Van Herpen, E., & Pieters, R. 2007. Anticipated identification costs: Improving assortment evaluation by diagnostic attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(1): 77-88.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. 2014. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(5): 883-898.
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. 2000. Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological science, 11(3): 249-254.
Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. W. 2005. Consumer vulnerability to perceived product similarity problems: scale development and identification. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2): 140-152.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 341-352.
Book references
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. 1994. Losing control: How and why
Pagina | 37
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. 1994. Motivating the focus of attention. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Iyengar, S. 2010. The art of choosing. Twelve.
Panitz, B. 2000. Reading between the lines: The psychology of menu design. Restaurants USA.
Schwartz, B. 2004. The paradox of choice. New York: Ecco.
Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: informational and motivational functions of
affective states. Guilford Press.
Twenge, J., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. 2004. Measuring state self-control: Reliability,
Pagina | 38
Appendix A – Game one of the experiment
Game 1: Anagram test with implicit affective cue color red to manipulate people to get a narrow attentional scope.
Pagina | 39
Game 1: Anagram test with implicit affective cue color blue to manipulate people to get a broad attentional scope.
Pagina | 40
Appendix B – Assortment structures used in game two and four Assortments used for game two and four in the experiment.
Evidently equivalent assortment with a reinforcement of the color blue to manipulate a broad attentional scope.
Evidently equivalent assortment with a reinforcement of the color red to manipulate a narrow attentional scope.
Nonequivalent assortment with a reinforcement of the color blue to manipulate a broad attentional scope.
Pagina | 41
Appendix C – Game three of the experiment
Game 3: Number sequence test with implicit affective cue color red to manipulate people to get a narrow attentional scope.
Task: Find the general rule that relates the series of number and give the next number in the sequence.
Time: 2 minutes
Number sequence Answer
Pagina | 42
Game 3: Number Sequence test with implicit affective cue color blue to manipulate people to get a broad attentional scope.
Task: Find the general rule that relates the series of number and give the next number in the sequence.
Time: 2 minutes
Number sequence Answer
Pagina | 43
Appendix D – Computing sum variables
Sum variable similarity for evidently equivalent and nonequivalent assortment The variable similarity for the equivalent assortment was measured using six questions. A correlation analysis showed that question 1 to 4 did correlate significantly and question 5 and 6 correlate significantly. Question 5 and 6 were more focused on complexity and were therefore not used in further analysis on similarity. Reliability analysis on the four questions measuring similarity for the equivalent assortment showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,750. Therefore, a sum variable was computed using question 1 to 4. The variable similarity for the nonequivalent assortment was measured using six questions. A correlation analysis showed that question 1 to 4 did correlate significantly and question 5 and 6 correlate significantly. Question 5 and 6 were more focused on complexity and were therefore not used in further analysis on similarity. Reliability analysis on the four questions measuring similarity for the equivalent assortment showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,879. Therefore, a sum variable was computed using question 1 to 4.
Sum variable complexity for evidently equivalent and nonequivalent assortment The variable complexity for the evidently equivalent assortment was measured using six questions. A correlation analysis showed that question 1 to 6 did correlate significantly. Reliability analysis on the six questions measuring complexity for the evidently equivalent assortment showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,914. Therefore, a sum variable was computed using question 1 to 6. The variable complexity for the nonequivalent assortment was
measured using six questions. A correlation analysis showed that question 1 to 6 did correlate significantly. Reliability analysis on the six questions measuring complexity for the
nonequivalent assortment showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,943. Therefore, a sum variable was computed using question 1 to 6.
Sum variable state self-control
Pagina | 44
Appendix E – Presentation slides defense
Product choice location,
does it even matter?
EX PERIMENTAL RESEARCH TO EX PLORE T HE INFLUENC ES OF AT T ENT IONAL SCOPE, ASSORT MENT ST RUCT URE AND STAT E SELF-CONT R OL ON A PERSON’ S PRODUCT CHOICE LOCAT ION.
Mart Klifman S2809877 MSc Thesis Defense Marketing Management
Introduction
Decision makingPredict consumer behavior
Product choice location(Attali & Bar-Hillel, 2003)
Edge aversion
Edge advantage
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 2
Theoretical framework (1/2)
Product choice location
Attentional Scope
Narrow vs. broad attentional scope(Förster & Dannenberg, 2010)
Implicit affective cues (Friedman & Förster, 2010)
Red and blue (Elliot & Maier, 2007)
Pagina | 45
Theoretical framework (2/2)
Assortment structure(Bar-Hillel, 2015)
Evidently equivalent assortment vs. Nonequivalent assortment
Variety of an assortment(Kahn & Wansink, 2004)
State self-control (Tangney, Baumeister & Boone, 2004)
High state self-control vs. low state self-control
Ego-depletion(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven & Tice, 1998)
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 4
Conceptual model & research question
“Is there an interaction between attentional scope and the structure of an assortment, across different states of self-control, influencing the product choice location?”
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 5
Research methods
Sample
Experiment
Experiment
Game 1 and 3 manipulation
Game 2 and 4 product choice
Questionnaire
Pagina | 46
Results – Three-way ANOVA (1/4)
“Is there an interaction between attentional scope and the structure of an assortment, across different states of self-control, influencing the product choice location?”
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 7 H1
H2
H3
H4
Results – Estimated marginal means (2/4)
Significant interaction between attentional scope and state self-control
Only when state self-control is high
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 8
Results – Repeated measures ANOVA (3/4)
Main effect of attentional scope not significant
Pagina | 47
Results – Two-way MANOVA (4/4)
Two dependent variables
Based on Assortment structure
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 10
Discussion (1/2)
No significant results for hypotheses
Only for main effect attentional scope
Two interesting findings:
1. Main effect of attentional scope only significant for a evidently equivalent assortment
2. Two-way interaction between attentional scope and state self-control when state self-control is high
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 11
Discussion (2/2)
Main effect attentional scope
Only in a evidently equivalent assortment
Preference uncertainty(Dhar, 1997)
Postponing the decision
Two-way interaction
Opposite of expectations
Beliefs about self-control (Job, Dweck and Walton, 2010)
Primacy effect (Kelley, Neath and Surprenant, 2015)
Pagina | 48
Future research recommendations
Research setting
Sample size
Generalizability
Assortment
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 13
Thank you for your attention!
Are there any questions?
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 14
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis
July 2016 First Supervisor: S.A. Sadowski Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr. B.M. Fennis
Mart Klifman Westersingel 19-1 9718 CA Groningen Telephone: +31 6 5330 1977 Email: m.klifman@student.rug.nl Student number: S2809877
References
1-7-2016 MSC MARKETING MANAGEMENT THESIS 15
• Attali, Y., & Bar-Hillel, M. 2003. Guess where: The position of correct answers in multiple-choice test items as a psychometric variable. Journal
of Educational Measurement, 40(2): 109–128.
• Bar-Hillel, M. 2015. Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays A Conundrum Solved. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4): 419-433.
• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74: 1252–1265.
• Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2): 215-231.
• Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. 2007. Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5): 250-254. • Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. 2010. GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3): 175-197. • Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. 2010. Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 136(5): 875. • Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. 2010. Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect
self-regulation. Psychological science.
• Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. 2004. The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer
Research ,30(4): 519-533.
• Kelley, M. R., Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. 2015. Serial position functions in general knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology, 41(6): 1715-1727.
