How to increase the acceptance of flawed products:
The effect of self-construal and type of display on
acceptance of flawed products
E. M. (Elena) Ianati
Master Thesis
Completion Date: 1
stof September 2017
How to increase the acceptance of flawed products:
The effect of self-construal and type of display on
acceptance of flawed products
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Research Master Marketing
E. M. (Elena) Ianati
Grote Beerstraat 300
9742 SK Groningen
Phone number: +31 (0) 6 38 49 64 05
Email address: e.m.ianati@student.rug.nl
Student number: 2079941
dr. J (Jing) Wan (first supervisor)
A
BSTRACT
Previous research regarding flawed products (i.e., an item has a minor defect but it can still be used for its purpose) has mainly focused on the food domain. This research paper, however, is one of the first to study ways regarding how to increase the acceptance of flawed products in the non-food domain. Across two studies, the current research has several findings regarding ways to increase the acceptance of flawed products. Marginally significant results show that people with an independent self-construal perceive the flawed product as more unique and as making them feel more unique than people with an interdependent self-construal. Furthermore, it is shown that people exposed to multiple flawed products displayed together are more likely to accept the flawed product than people exposed to a flawed product displayed among pristine products, concerning their buying intentions. In addition, results show that self-expressiveness with the flawed product is positively related to the acceptance of the flawed product. In sum, consumers will be more likely to accept a flawed product when they have an independent self-construal, the flawed product is displayed among other flawed products (vs. pristine products) and consumers perceive the product as self-expressive.
PREFACE
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ... 1
PREFACE ... 2
Introduction ... 4
Theoretical background ... 7
Independent versus interdependent self-construal ... 7
Multiple versus single display of the flawed products ... 11
Need for uniqueness ... 13
Self-expression with the flawed product(s) ... 14
Study 1 ... 15 Method Study 1 ... 16 Results Study 1 ... 19 Discussion Study 1 ... 22 Study 2 ... 24 Method Study 2 ... 24 Results Study 2 ... 27 Discussion Study 2 ... 30 General Discussion ... 33 Practical implications ... 35
Limitations and future research directions ... 36
Conclusion ... 38
REFERENCES ... 39
Introduction
Nowadays, a lot of attention is paid to the topic of waste (i.e., unwanted or unusable material, substances or by-products). This topic is highly relevant for both public and academic interest (Briefel, 2017; Perkins, 2017) as the associated costs regarding waste are estimated at 143 billion Euros, which is expected to rise to around 126 million tons by 2020 if no action is taken (EU Commission report). Based on a European Commission report from 2014, the estimated annual food waste generation in the EU, for instance, is approximately 179 kg per capita, or 89 million tons in total. Moreover, in 2015 a documentary called “The True Cost”, filmed in countries all over the world, also draw media’s attention to the topic of waste. This film focused on how clothes were made, how they were being discarded of, considering also the societal impact of these actions. Finally, within the academic sphere, experimental research (e.g., White, Lin, Dahl and Ritchie, 2016) has mainly focused on the food domain and particularly examining how negative contamination is being activated. In addition, Castro, Morales and Nowlis (2013) focused on examining the effect of disorganized shelves on sales (i.e., consumer purchase).
Simonson, and Nowlis, 2000). In this way consumers might tend to accept flawed products as an expression of their personality traits (e.g., Aaker, 1999).
The results suggest that self-expressiveness with the flawed product is positively related to the acceptance of the flawed product. Additionally, it is found that multiple flawed products displayed together are more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products; this effect is found only when considering acceptance from the perspective of buying. The present research paper contributes to a better understanding of how flawed products are being perceived by consumers.
Overall, the aim of this research paper is (1) to examine the extent to which independent versus interdependent self-construal affects the acceptance of flawed product; (2) to investigate the display of the products in relation to the same outcome of acceptance; (3) to test whether individuals’ need for uniqueness impact the acceptance of flawed products; (4) to explore whether self-expression affects the acceptance of flawed products.
Theoretical background
Independent versus interdependent self-construal
Based on previous research, people can establish different relationships with others. Some scholars (e.g., Van Yperen, Brenninkmeijer and Buunk, 2006), have been shown that people can have either a communal or exchange orientation. In their study, Van Yperen et al., (2006) found, for instance, that American subjects were more exchange oriented than Dutch subjects. Furthermore, other scholars distinguished between individuals with a pro-social orientation and individuals with a pro-self orientation (Van Lange and Liebrand, 1991). Whereas individuals with a collective orientation (i.e., pro-social) are oriented towards group outcomes, individuals with an individualistic orientation (i.e., pro-self) are oriented towards own outcomes (Van Lange and Liebrand, 1991, De Cremer, van Lange, 2001). Besides the above-mentioned perspectives on social relationships, in the literature, two perspectives can be mainly identified when it comes to the relationships people establish with others: the independent perspective (i.e., independent self-construal) and the interdependent perspective (interdependent self-construal).
situation (Trafimow, Triandis and Goto, 1991). Thus, an individual can have an independent self-construal in some situations, while an interdependent self-construal in others.
On the one hand, the work by Markus and Kitayama (1991), reveals that Western cultures tend to perceive the self as separate from others. In other words, Western cultures put an emphasis on autonomy and independence. Furthermore, Triandis (1995) defines the independent self-construal (individualism) as a social pattern that consists of individuals who perceive themselves as autonomous and independent. People with this mindset are often motivated by their own preferences. Overall, the independent self-construal includes mental representations of one’s own traits, attitudes, and preferences (Torelli, 2006).
On the other hand, the work by Markus and Kitayama (1991), reveals that Eastern cultures tend to perceive the self as part of a broader context. In other words, Eastern cultures put an emphasis on belongingness and interdependence (Torelli, 2006). Furthermore, Triandis (1995) defines the interdependent self-construal as a social pattern that consists of individuals who perceive themselves as an integral part of one or more communities. People with this mindset are often motivated by norms and duties imposed by society. Overall, Torelli (2006) defines the interdependent self-construal as including mental representations of social norms, group memberships and others’ opinions and is linked to the motivation to maintain harmony.
a story with independent or interdependent themes. Moreover, Hong et al. (2000) activated different cultural meaning systems in subjects’ memories by simply showing Hong Kong residents cultural icons such as an American flag (to represent the United States) or a dragon (to represent China).
Based on the above evidence, I expect that individuals with an independent self-construal to be more likely to accept a flawed product than an individual with an interdependent self-construal. The main underlying mechanism for this expectation is that individuals with an independent self-construal have an independent mindset which means that they are more likely to accept differences in people (Xing and Liu, 2016) than individuals with an interdependent self-construal. In other words, people with an independent mindset perceive and accept different characteristics of individuals which might deviate from the norm and, as such, people can be more likely to accept different identities. This reasoning may also apply to flawed products because the independent type of thinking may determine the consumer to associate different characteristics of individuals with flawed products; this, eventually, results in acceptance of the flawed products by the consumers. In contrast, individuals with an interdependent self-construal are placed within a social pattern that consists of individuals who perceive themselves as an integral part of one or more communities. Thus, they look for harmony (Torelli, 2006), consistency and any disruption from the norm (such as a flaw identified in a product – e.g., a slight color discrepancy which is visible on one side of the clothing item) is perceived as wrong. I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Keeping in mind the above-mentioned reasoning regarding self-construals, another important aspect is the perceived difference between a flawed product and a pristine item. While it might seem counter-intuitive, there are situations when an imperfection of a product might be perceived as a positive aspect and thus make the product seem more appealing. The Wabi Sabi philosophy, for instance, values the idea of beauty in imperfections (Juniper, 2011). Specifically, this philosophy perceives the imperfection as being an expression of the object’s essence. Furthermore, this way of thinking can be understood in the sense that each item is manufactured using a series of processes and changes until the item is final. Following the same reasoning, a person with an independent self-construal could thus perceive the flaw of a product as being unique and an expression of the item’s essence. Keeping in mind that individuals with an independent self-construal are more likely to accept differences in people (Xing and Liu, 2016) than individuals with an interdependent self-construal, I expect that they will perceive the flaw as an item’s essence and thus be more likely to accept it. I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a: An individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be more likely to accept a product than an individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product.
these items are in harmony with the other items from the group and thus in accordance with the interdependent self-construal. I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2b: An individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be less likely to accept a product than an individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a pristine product.
Multiple versus single display of the flawed products
arranged close together, similarly or symmetrically when each product in the group has an equal gain. Additional findings showed that consumers prefer to choose from a group of products that are arranged apart, dissimilarly or asymmetrically when each product in the group has an equal loss.
Based on the above empirical evidence, I expect that multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (i.e., products in their original condition, unspoiled, flawless). The main underlying mechanism for this expectation is that in a context when multiple flawed products are being displayed together there is no possibility to compare (Festinger, 1954; Corcoran, Crusius, and Mussweiler, 2011) a flawed product with a pristine one; only flawed products are being displayed. Having, on the other hand, the possibility to compare a flawed product with pristine ones, the need to psychologically engage in comparing the products among themselves becomes salient; only one single flawed product among pristine ones. In other words, based on insights from the social comparison theory (e.g., Corcoran et al., 2011), people tend to make upward (i.e., comparing a flawed product with a pristine product) or downward (i.e., comparing a pristine product with a flawed product) comparisons to evaluate the acceptance towards the products. I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Need for uniqueness
The above expectation regarding multiple flawed products which are being displayed together in comparison with a single flawed product which is being displayed among pristine products depends also on the individual’s need for uniqueness to increase acceptance. The type of product grouping can be linked to the individual’s need for uniqueness. Previous research defined the need for uniqueness as “an individual's pursuit of differentness relative to others that is achieved through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's personal and social identity” (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter, 2001). Ruvio, Shoham, and Brencic (2008) claim that the need for uniqueness is not culturally bound and thus there are variations within a culture. While individuals having a high need for uniqueness seek experiences and products with unique features, individuals having a low need for uniqueness look for options which allow them to better fit into groups. I expect that need for uniqueness moderates the relationship between the type of displayed products and the likelihood to accept flawed products.
On the one hand, when need for uniqueness is low, the multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. The underlying mechanism is that in a context when individuals have a low need for uniqueness (Simonson, and Nowlis, 2000) they perceive the multiple flawed products as being similar and this triggers more acceptance than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products.
among pristine products. The underlying mechanism is that in a context when individuals have a high need for uniqueness (Simonson, and Nowlis, 2000) they perceive the single flawed product among pristine products as dissimilar which triggers more acceptance than multiple flawed products.
Overall, when making a choice of products in the store, these types of behavior are influenced by latent psychological needs such as need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) when it comes to low need for uniqueness and the need for differentiation (Brewer, 1991) when it comes to high need for uniqueness. I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Need for uniqueness moderates the relationship between the type of displayed products and the likelihood to accept flawed products in such a way that when (1) need for uniqueness is low, the multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (2) need for uniqueness is high, the multiple flawed products displayed together will be less likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products.
Self-expression with the flawed product(s)
self-expressive when the person perceives the product as expressing his/her feelings, thoughts or ideas (Munteanu and Pagalea, 2014). I expect self-expression with the flawed product to be positively related to the acceptance of a flawed product because the underlying mechanism is that self-expressive products reflect own personality characteristics, which are unconsciously transferred to the object in case (i.e., flawed product). In turn, this positively impacts the acceptance of flawed products. To support this reasoning, previous research on consumer behavior and brand preferences, for instance, provided evidence that customers rely on brands with a desirable brand identity to express their own identity (Munteanu and Pagalea, 2014). Moreover, these findings showed that customers tend to prefer brands that are convergent with customers’ identity, being also tools for status signaling (Munteanu and Pagalea, 2014). Applying all these insights, I therefore formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Self-expression with the flawed product will be positively related to the acceptance of a flawed product.
In the next sections of this research paper, two experimental studies will be presented, one after the other; the methodology will be explained and then the results will be presented and discussed. Finally, the research paper will end with a general discussion section and separate sections devoted to practical implications, limitations and future research directions.
Study 1
exposed to a flawed product will be more likely to accept a product than an individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product and 2b) an individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be less likely to accept a product than an individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a pristine product. To test these predictions, one lab experiment was conducted.
Method Study 1
Participants and Design. A total of 262 (133 females, Mage = 21.18) students at a large
Dutch university participated in a 2 (product: flawed vs. pristine) x 2 (self-construal: independent vs. interdependent) factorial between-subjects design, resulting in four conditions.
strategy to use in order to avoid any suspicion regarding the manipulation. In the following section, participants saw the picture of a knitted hat which, depending on the condition, was either pristine (i.e., flawless) or flawed. The flawed version of the hat meant one of the stitches on the side of the hat was of a slightly different color than the rest of the product. This way of presenting a flawed product is in accordance with the definition of flawed products mentioned earlier in this research paper: items with minor defects, having imperfections which do not compromise the functionality of the product, but deviate from the aesthetic norm of “pristine products”. Photos of the hats being used in the study can be found in Appendix A (Questionnaire Study 1). Next, participants answered several questions meant to assess their opinion about the hat (liking, how likely to buy, enjoyment (i.e., enjoy derived from wearing the hat), how unique the hat is and how unique would the hat make them feel). By including these measures, my aim is to assess participant’s attitudes towards the hat, in order to compare them based on them seeing the pristine product or the flawed one. The five measures were chosen in order to offer a good understanding of participants’ attitudes and consequently, of their acceptance level regarding the item. Participants indicated their answers on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = not at all’ to ‘7 = very much’).
population, I begin to use it less.’). The twelve items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’) and were combine into an overall index of need for uniqueness which was highly reliable (α = .878). This way of measuring need for uniqueness is used specifically for consumption contexts, which matches this study’s perspective. Consequently, I chose to examine need for uniqueness in the consumption context (as opposed to general need for uniqueness) because the study concerns a consumption matter: consumer’s acceptance of flawed products in stores.
Then, participants’ mood was measured with four items (‘How do you currently feel?: bad vs. good, negative vs. positive, sad vs. happy, bored vs. excited’) on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’). The items were combined into an overall mood index (α = .842) with higher scores indicating a more favorable mood.
Finally, as a manipulation check for self-construal, participants completed Singelis’s (1994) construal scale which consists of two orthogonal constructs: independent self-construal and interdependent self-self-construal. Specifically, the scale consists of twenty-four items, twelve for each of the two dimensions: independence (e.g. ‘I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards.’ and interdependence (e.g. ‘It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group.’). The twenty-four items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’) and were combined into two overall indexes, one for independence (α = .732) and one for interdependence (α = .761).
Results Study 1
Exclusion criteria
I first excluded the participants who failed the attention check (13 participants) and those who indicated a low level of English (lower or equal to the value 4 on a scale ranging from ‘1 = not fluent’ to ‘7 = very fluent’) because having a good understanding of the requirements is very important in the study. I chose to exclude participants who reported a level lower than 4 because the mean of the scale is 3.5 (which was approximated to 4). Thus, based on the self-reported level of English, I exclude 18 participants. As the questionnaire is in English and most of the respondents are not native English speakers, the language barrier was taken into account as crucial component of the exclusion criteria. The remaining dataset includes a total of 232 participants of which 110 (47.4%) were men and 123 (52.6%) women, with a mean age of 21 years (M = 21.31, SD = 2.76). Hence, for the subsequent analysis the data set post-exclusion criteria was used.
Manipulation checks Study 1
To check the manipulation of self-construal constructs, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to account for the overall effect. Although multivariate results showed a non-significant overall effect, F (2,229) = 2.11, p = .12, ɳp2 = .02, checking the
univariate effects, a significant effect for the independence self-construal was found, F (1,230) = 4.23, p = .04, ɳp2 = .02. The interdependence self-construal, however, yielded a non-significant
Acceptance of flawed products (i.e., buying and perception of uniqueness)
The first step of the analysis consists of measuring the effect of self-construals (i.e., independent versus interdependent) on the likelihood to accept a flawed product. Specifically, analyses will be conducted on each of the two dependent variables: buying – i.e., liking, intention to buy, enjoy derived from using the product - and perception of uniqueness – i.e., perceived uniqueness of the product, uniqueness of self as a result of owning the product.
To test the first hypothesis, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. Results showed a non-significant main effect of self-construal, F (1,230) = .87, p = .35, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, participants in the independent self-construal
condition scored higher than participants in the interdependent self-construal condition, (M = 3.15; SD = 1.18 vs. M = 3.00; SD = 1.18); results are also not-significant when controlling for gender and age.
Conducting a univariate analysis of variance with the second dependent variable, i.e.,
perception of uniqueness, results showed a marginally significant main effect of self-construal,
F (1,230) = 3.87, p = .06, ɳp2 = .02. Specifically, participants in the independent self-construal
condition tended to score higher than participants in the interdependent self-construal condition, (M = 2.60; SD = 1.20 vs. M = 2.30; SD = 1.17); results showed not-significant effects when controlling for gender and age (Hypothesis 1 not confirmed).
To test the second hypothesis (i.e., 2a), a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of self-construal and type of product, F (1,228) = 1.97, p = .16, ɳp2 = .01, ns. Specifically, post
exposed to a flawed product scored higher than participants having an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product, (M = 3.27; SD = 1.24 vs. M = 3.02; SD = 1.12); results are also not-significant when controlling for gender and age.
I next conducted a univariate analysis of variance with the second dependent variable, i.e., perception of uniqueness. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of self-construal and type of product, F (1,228) = .01, p = .91, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, post hoc
comparisons (LSD; p = .23) showed that participants having an independent self-construal exposed to a flawed product scored higher than participants having an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product, (M = 2.73; SD = 1.36 vs. M = 2.47; SD = 1.02); results are also not-significant when controlling for gender and age (Hypothesis 2a not confirmed).
To test the second hypothesis (i.e., 2b), a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of self-construal and type of product, F (1,228) = 1.97, p = .16, ɳp2 = .01, ns. Specifically, post
hoc comparisons (LSD; p = .40) showed that participants having an interdependent self-construal exposed to a flawed product scored lower than participants having an interdependent self-construal exposed to a pristine product, (M = 2.91; SD = 1.10 vs. M = 3.10; SD = 1.28); results are also not-significant when controlling for gender and age.
I next conducted a univariate analysis of variance with the second dependent variable, i.e., perception of uniqueness. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of self-construal and type of product, F (1,228) = .01, p = .91, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, post hoc
self-construal exposed to a pristine product, (M = 2.41; SD = 1.35 vs. M = 2.18; SD = 0.93); results are also not-significant when controlling for gender and age (Hypothesis 2b not confirmed).
Discussion Study 1
In Study 1 the main aim was to test hypothesis 1 (i.e., An individual with an independent self-construal will be more likely to accept a flawed product than an individual with an interdependent construal), hypothesis 2a (i.e., An individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be more likely to accept a product than an individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product. ) and hypothesis 2b (i.e., An individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be less likely to accept a product than an individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a pristine product.).
hand, the pattern of results was in the predicted direction, which could be an indication of a solid theoretical reasoning.
Study 2
The goal of this second study is to test the last three hypotheses: 3) multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products and 4) need for uniqueness moderates the relationship between the type of displayed products and the likelihood to accept flawed products in such a way that when (a) need for uniqueness is low, the multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (b) need for uniqueness is high, the multiple flawed products displayed together will be less likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products and 5) self-expression with the flawed product will be positively related to the acceptance of a flawed product.
Method Study 2
Participants and Design. A total of 251 (129 females, Mage = 22.14) students at a large
Dutch university participated in a 2 (self-construal: independent vs. interdependent) x 2 (type of display: single vs. multiple) factorial between-subjects design, resulting in four conditions.
condition, included either one (i.e., single condition) or five (i.e., multiple condition) flawed items. The flawed version of the flower pot meant the top edge of the clay was not completely even. This way of presenting a flawed product is in accordance with the definition of flawed products mentioned earlier in this research paper: items with minor defects, having imperfections which do not compromise the functionality of the product, but deviate from the aesthetic norm of “pristine products”. Photos of the flower pots being used in this study can be found in Appendix B (Questionnaire Study 2). Next, participants answered several questions meant to assess their opinion about the second flower pot from the row of five (liking, how likely to buy, enjoyment (i.e., enjoyment derived from using the flower pot), how unique the flower pot is, how unique would the flower pot make them feel, how noticeable is the flaw in the flower pot and how annoyed they would be with the flaw of the flower pot). By including these measures, my aim is to assess participant’s attitudes towards the flower pot, in order to compare them based on them seeing the single or multiple type of display. The seven measures were chosen in order to offer a good understanding of participants’ attitudes and consequently, of their acceptance level regarding the item. Participants indicated their answers on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = not at all’ to ‘7 = very much’).
scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’) and were combine into an overall index of need for uniqueness which was highly reliable (α = .887).
Then, participants’ mood was measured with four items (‘How do you currently feel?: bad vs. good, negative vs. positive, sad vs. happy, bored vs. excited’) on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’). The items were combined into an overall mood index (α = .870) with higher scores indicating a more favorable mood.
Next, as a manipulation check for self-construal, participants completed Singelis’s (1994) self-construal scale which consists of two orthogonal constructs: independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal. As previously mentioned in the description of Study 1, the scale consists of twenty-four items, twelve for each of the two dimensions: independence (e.g. ‘I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards.’ and interdependence (e.g. ‘It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group.’). The twenty-four items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 = strongly agree’) and were combined into two overall indexes, one for independence (α = .726) and one for interdependence (α = .772).
Results Study 2
Exclusion criteria.
I first excluded the participants who failed the attention check (21 participants); the full attention check description can be found in Appendix B (Questionnaire Study 2). Next, I excluded participants who indicated their level of English was lower than 50 (on a scale ranging from ‘1 = very poor’ to ‘100 = excellent’) because the instructions needed a good understanding of English; 3 participants were excluded based on this criterion. The remaining dataset includes a total of 227 participants of which 107 (41.1%) were men and 120 (52.9%) women, with a mean age of 22 years (M = 21.31, SD = 14.54). Hence, for the subsequent analysis the data set post-exclusion criteria was used.
Manipulation checks Study 2
To check the manipulation of self-construal constructs, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to account for the overall effect, which showed a non-significant overall effect, F (2,224) = .95, p = .38, ɳp2 = .00. Checking the univariate effects, the
independent self-construal yielded a non-significant effect, F (1,225) = 1.87, p = .17, ɳp2 = .00.
Additionally, the interdependence self-construal also yielded a non-significant effect, F (1,225) = .00, p = .95, ɳp2 = .00. Overall, the manipulation was not successful.
To test the third hypothesis, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. Results showed a significant main effect of type of display, F (1,225) = 13.25, p = .00, ɳp2 = .06. Specifically, participants exposed to multiple flawed products
Conducting a univariate analysis of variance with the second dependent variable, i.e.,
perception of uniqueness, results showed a significant main effect of type of display, F (1,225)
= 64.69, p = .00, ɳp2 = .22. Specifically, participants exposed to multiple flawed products
displayed together scored lower than participants exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (M = 1.91; SD = 1.20 vs. M = 3.51; SD = 1.74).
Next, a univariate analysis of variance with the third dependent variable, i.e., general
attitudes, was conducted. The results showed a non-significant main effect of the type of
display, F (1,225) = .60, p = .44, ɳp2 = .44. Specifically, participants exposed to multiple flawed
products displayed together scored lower than participants exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (M = 3.99; SD = .97 vs. M = 4.10; SD = 1.16) (Hypothesis 3 partially confirmed).
To test the fourth hypothesis, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. In order to differentiate between low and high need for uniqueness, a new dummy variable was created and was split on the mean of the need for uniqueness (i.e., 3.81), the new variable is 0 if the value is below the mean and 1 if the value is above the mean. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of type of display and need for uniqueness, F (1,223) = .67, p = .41, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, post hoc comparisons (LSD;
than participants having a high need for uniqueness exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (M = 3.75; SD = 1.46 vs. M = 3.25; SD = 1.44).
A univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the second dependent variable, i.e.,
perception of uniqueness. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of type of display
and need for uniqueness, F (1,223) = .16, p = .70, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, post hoc
comparisons (LSD; p = .00) showed that participants having a low need for uniqueness exposed to multiple flawed products displayed together scored lower than participants having a low need for uniqueness exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products, (M = 1.73; SD = 1.06 vs. M = 3.43; SD = 1.82). Additionally, the post hoc comparisons showed that participants having a high need for uniqueness exposed to multiple flawed products displayed together scored lower than participants having a high need for uniqueness exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (M = 2.05; SD = 1.28 vs. M = 3.59; SD = 1.68).
A univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the third dependent variable, i.e.,
general attitude. Results showed a non-significant interaction effect of type of display and need
for uniqueness, F (1,223) = .70, p = .40, ɳp2 = .00, ns. Specifically, post hoc comparisons (LSD;
among pristine products (M = 3.93; SD = .95 vs. M = 4.15; SD = 1.16) (Hypothesis 4 not confirmed).
To test the fifth hypothesis, a univariate analysis of variance was conducted with the first dependent variable, i.e., buying. Results showed a positive significant effect of self-expression with the acceptance of the flawed product F (1,225) = 16.75, p = .00, ɳp2 = .07. Next, a univariate
analysis of variance was conducted with the second dependent variable. i.e., perception of
uniqueness. Results showed a positive significant effect of self-expression with the acceptance
of the flawed product F (1,225) = 30.67, p = .00, ɳp2 = .12. Furthermore, a univariate analysis of
variance was conducted with the third dependent variable i.e., general attitudes. Results showed a positive significant effect of self-expression with the acceptance of the flawed product F (1,225) = 5.40, p = .02, ɳp2 = .23 (Hypothesis 5 confirmed).
Discussion Study 2
Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed, showing that indeed participants exposed to multiple flawed products displayed together are more likely to accept the flawed product than those exposed to a single product displayed among pristine products. This is true for one of the dependent variables (i.e., buying) but not for the other two (i.e., perception of uniqueness and general attitude). As predicted, this effect is due to participants not having other options to compare the product to in the multiple situation condition. Previous research found that consumers often compare different products, stating which they like better and why (Feldman, Fresco, Goldenberg, Netzer and Ungar, 2007). On one hand, in the single condition, the flawed product is not accepted because there are pristine options which seem better. On another hand, in the multiple condition, all products have the same flaw, which makes comparisons more difficult and thus increases the acceptance of the flawed product. Interestingly, when considering the perception of uniqueness, results showed a significant main effect of type of display, meaning that participants exposed to multiple flawed products displayed together scored lower than participants exposed to a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. This effect is in opposition with my prediction. A possible explanation for this is that, on one hand, in the single condition participants could compare the flawed product with the pristine ones and thus perceived it as more unique. On another hand, the multiple condition offered only flawed products, without an option to compare them to. This, in turn, did not show the unique characteristics of the flawed product and individuals perceived it at less unique and as making them feel less unique.
dependent variable, the general pattern of results was in the predicted direction. This lack of significant results might be explained from a methodological and /or theoretical perspective. From a methodological perspective, the flaw of the flower pot was perhaps not obvious enough in the image presented and thus was not perceived as a unique feature, which means it did not tap into participants’ need for uniqueness. From a theoretical perspective, when need for uniqueness is low, I expected that the multiple flawed products displayed together would be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. I based this expectation on the idea that individuals with a low need for uniqueness would perceive the multiple flawed products displayed together as providing similar options and thus trigger more acceptance than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products (i.e., a dissimilar option). However, if the flawed product is not perceived in line with my expectation than the theoretical reasoning does not hold. Furthermore, my prediction for the individuals with high need for uniqueness was that the multiple flawed items displayed together will be less likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. I thus expected that the single flawed product would be perceived as dissimilar and thus trigger more acceptance than the multiple flawed products. However, if individuals do not perceive the single flawed product as holding any unique features, then my theoretical reasoning is not valid.
Hypothesis 5 was confirmed, showing that self-expression with the flawed product is positively related to the acceptance of the flawed product. This means that if a product is
accept it more because they are accepting themselves and thus the flawed product with which they identify.
General Discussion
Previous research has mainly focused on studying waste and flawed products in the food domain and particularly examining how negative contamination is being activated (e.g., White at al., 2016, Castro et al., 2013). This research paper, however, opted for the non-food domain and introduced concepts such as self-construal and the type of display. More specifically, this research paper’s aim is to advance the understanding on how to increase acceptance of flawed products. It was expected that people with an independent self-construal will be more likely to accept a flawed product than those with an interdependent self-construal. Also, two hypotheses (i.e., 2a and 2b) were formulated regarding self-construal and the acceptance of a flawed product compared to the acceptance of a pristine product. Additionally, the type of display concept was introduced and it was expected that multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. Furthermore, I expected need for uniqueness to moderate the relationship between type of display and the likelihood to accept flawed products. Finally, it was expected that self-expression with the flawed product will be positively related to the acceptance of the item.
Second, regarding the partially confirmed hypothesis (Hypothesis 3), it was shown that multiple flawed products displayed together will be more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. This is true when considering acceptance from the buying perspective, but not from the perception of uniqueness or general attitude perspectives. One possible explanation as to why this is true for only one of the acceptance measures is the perceived quality associated with the intrinsic attributes of the product. Previous research found that the perceived quality associated with the intrinsic attributes of the product has a positive and significant influence on buying intentions (Fandos and Flavian, 2006). Future research could further investigate the differences between the three ways to account for acceptance of flawed products considering the intrinsic attributes of the product.
Third, regarding the hypothesis which was confirmed (Hypothesis 5), it was shown that self-expression with the flawed product is positively related to the acceptance of the flawed product. This finding suggests that one way to increase the acceptance of flawed items is to increase people’s perceived self-expressiveness with those items. In other words, when consumers perceive the flawed product as an expression of themselves, they will accept it more because they are accepting themselves and thus the flawed product with which they identify. This can, in turn, decrease the waste of flawed products.
making them feel more unique than people with an interdependent self-construal. Furthermore, when considering hypothesis 2a (i.e., An individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be more likely to accept a flawed product than an individual with an independent self-construal exposed to a pristine product), the results were not significant but their pattern was in line with my prediction for both ways to look at acceptance: buying and perception of uniqueness. In other words, people’s self-construal could play an important role in the acceptance of a flawed product. When considering hypothesis 2b (i.e., An individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a flawed product will be less likely to accept a flawed product than an individual with an interdependent self-construal exposed to a pristine product), the results were not significant, but their pattern was in line with my prediction when considering the buying perspective. These results indicate that it is worth for future research to investigate the effect of self-construal on the acceptance of flawed products. The fourth hypothesis was also not confirmed. Even though I had theoretical reasoning accounting for my expectation, I did not find the link between need for uniqueness and type of display. As in this research paper I used the need for uniqueness measure for the consumption context (and not the general need for uniqueness) future research should further investigate this link, accounting for the general need for uniqueness.
Practical implications
self-expressiveness with the product can increase which, in turn, will also increase the acceptance with of flawed product. Furthermore, by increasing the acceptance of flawed products, less items will be discarded, decreasing waste. This can have important implications from a financial and environmental perspective, as explained in the introduction of this research paper. Second, results suggest that multiple flawed products displayed together are more likely to be accepted than a single flawed product displayed among pristine products. This is true when acceptance is considered from the buying perspective. For instance, retailers could use these insights by displaying all flawed products together in order to increase their acceptance.
Limitations and future research directions
One limitation of this research paper is the way self-construal was manipulated in both studies that were conducted. In the first study, the manipulation was partially successful, while in the second study the manipulation failed. Another way to manipulate self-construal was developed by Trafimow et al. (1991) and it consists of participants reading an anecdote. On one hand, in the independent condition, the text refers to the concept of I, a procedure that is supposed to activate personal cognitions and therefore an independent self-construal. On the other hand, in the interdependent condition, the text refers to the concept of family, which is supposed to activate collective cognitions and therefore an interdependent self-construal. This manipulation method has been validated and applied extensively (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel and Lee, 1999; Gardner, Gabriel and Hochschild, 2002).
having no flaw. For instance, a pair of bleached jeans in a Zara shop can be considered with no defect, as the jeans were meant to be like that. Accordingly, future research may differentiate between the two perspectives: flaw as a negative concept (e.g., imperfections) and as a positive concept (e.g., Zara jeans).
The perspective to view the flaw (positive vs. negative) can also be related to the intentionality of the flaw (i.e., the product was meant to be produced with the flaw). While this aspect was not addressed in this research paper, future research may focus on how does intentionality influence people’s acceptance of the flaw. As some of the products can become more desirable because of an intentional flaw (e.g. Zara jeans), while others are discarded because of un-intentional flaws. Thus, future research could address this concern in order to better understand the acceptance of flawed products.
Another limitation of this study is that in my research I used Singelis’s 1994 self-construal scale (two orthogonal constructs). Future research can consider the 2 constructs as continuous, having independent self-construal at one end of the continuum and interdependent self-construal at the other end of the continuum. This way of considering self-construal can provide a different perspective over the concept and thus offer additional insights.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 45-57.
Aaker, D. A. and Biel, A. L. (1993). Brand equity & advertising: advertising's role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aggarwal, P., and McGill, A. L. (2007). Is the car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4). 468-479.
Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulleting, 117 (3), 497-529.
Bern, D. J. and Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting More of the People More of the Time: Assessing the Personality of Situation. Psychological Review, 85 (11), 485-501.
Bio Intelligence Service (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27. European Commission.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
Castro, I. A., Morales, A. C. and Nowlis, S. M. (2013). The influence of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 118-133.
Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., and Mussweiler, T. (2011). Social comparison: motives, standards, and mechanisms. In D. Chadee (Ed), Theories in social psychology, 119-139. Oxford, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.
De Cremer, D., and Van Lange, P.A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 5-18.
Escalas, J. E., and Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 378- 389.
European Commission (2014). Impact Assessment on Measures Addressing Food Waste To Complete SWD 207 Regarding The Review Of EU Waste Management Targets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/IA_Summary.PDF
Feldman, R., Fesco, M., Goldenberg, J., Netzer, O., and Ungar, L. (2007). Extracting product comparisons from discussion boards. Sevents IEEE Conference on Data Mining (ICDM, 2007), Omaha. 469-474.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Gallup (2015). Environment Survey . Retrieved from
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are "we", you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). "I" value freedom, but "we" value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgement. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.
Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., van Otterdijk R. and Meybeck A. (2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Hong, Y, Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural Minds: A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognition. American Psychologist, 55 (7), 709–720.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhata-Tat. P. (2012). What a waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Retrieved from
http://www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388
Ikea Report (2017). Retrieved from http://www.ikea.com/nl/nl/
Juniper, A. (2003). Wabi Sabi: The Japanese Art of Impermanence. Tuttle Publishing
Knack, O. (2015). 3 types of manufacturing defects in different products. Retrieved from
Krishna, A., Elder, R. S. and Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 410-418.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (4), 224–253.
——— (1994). A Collective Fear of the Collective: Implications for Selves and Theories of Selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (10), 568–579.
Mattila, A. S. and Wirtz, J (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77 (2), 273-289.
Mishra, A. (2009). Influence of Contagious versus Noncontagious Product Groupings on Consumer Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 73-82.
Munteanu, C.C., and Pagalea, A. (2014). Brands as a mean of consumer self-expression and desired personal lifestyle. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 103-107.
Ogilvy, D. (1983). Confessions of an Advertising Man. New York: Dell
Perkins, C. (2017). Nothing is wasted: The mirror’s writing woman. Meanjin, 76(2), 184-194. Prentice, D. A. (1987). Psychological Correspondence of Possessions, Attitudes and Values.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 993-1004.
Ruvio, A., Shoham, A. and Brencic (2008). Consumers' need for uniqueness: short‐form scale development and cross‐cultural validation. International Marketing Review, 25 (1), 33-53.
Seats and Sofa Report (2017). Retrieved from https://www.seatsandsofas.nl/
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. and Smith, R. B. (1997). Store Environment and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of Consumer Emotions. Psychology & Marketing, 14 (4), 361-378.
Simonson, I. and Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 49-68.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 580-591.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O. and Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 50-66.
Torelli, C. J. (2006). Individuality or conformity? The effect of independent and interdependent self-concepts on public judgements. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 240-248.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., and Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Van Lange, P. A. M.,and Liebrand, W. B. G. (1991). Social value orientation and intelligence: A test of the goal prescribes rationality principle. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4), 273-292.
Van Yperen, N. W., Brenninkmeijer, V., Buunk, A. P. (2006). People’s responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The role of the individual’s effort-performance expectancy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 519-533.
White, K., Lin, L., Dahl, D. W. and Ritchie, R. J. B. (2016). When do consumers avoid imperfections? Superficial packaging damage as a contamination cue. Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (2), 110-123.
Whitson, J. A. and Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322 (5898), 115-117.
APPENDICES
A. Questionnaire Study 1
Block 1 - Introduction
Please enter your subject ID (from the yellow sticky note):
Dear participant,
At this time, please ensure your cell phone is turned off/on silent. There are no right or wrong answers -- we are interested in your thoughts and opinions. Be aware that once you click on the "next" button, you cannot return to previous pages, so please read each page carefully. Thank you!
Block 2 - Manipulations
Condition 1: Independent self-construal
My Own Life
Please write a few sentences about your thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying your life is what it is really all about". Think about times when you really enjoyed being on your own and living your life the way you want.
My Family and Friends
Please write a short essay about your thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying relationships with your family and friends is what it is really all about". Think about times when you really enjoyed being with your family and/or friends and maintaining your relationship with them.
Thank you for your responses! Please continue on to the next study.
Block 3 – Dependent variables measures
Condition 1: Pristine hat
How much do you like this hat?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very much
How likely would you buy this hat if you saw it in a store?
1: Not likely 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very likely
How much would you enjoy wearing this hat?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very much
To what extent do you think this hat is unique?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very unique
How unique do you think you would be if you wore this hat?
1: Not at all unique 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very unique
Condition 2: Flawed hat
How much do you like this hat?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very much
How likely would you buy this hat if you saw it in a store?
1: Not likely 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very likely
How much would you enjoy wearing this hat?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very much
To what extent do you think this hat is unique?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very unique
How unique do you think you would be if you wore this hat?
1: Not at all unique 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very unique
How noticeable do you think the different-coloured stitch would be?
1: Not at all noticeable 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very noticeable
Would you be annoyed or unhappy with the different-coloured stitch?
1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very much
Block 3 – Scales
Need for uniqueness scale
1: strongly disagree 2 3 4: neither agree nor disagree 5 6 7: strongly agree
I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that
cannot be duplicated. (1)
I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products
because I enjoy being original. (2)
I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or
brands. (3)
Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in
establishing a distinctive image. (4)
When it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, I have
broken customs and rules. (5)
I have often violated the understood rules of my social group regarding what
to buy or own. (6)
rules of my social group regarding when and how certain products are properly
used. (7)
I enjoy challenging the prevailing taste of people I know by buying something
they would not seem to accept. (8)
When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to
use it less. (9)
I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general
population. (10)
As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are customarily bought by everyone.
(11)
The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less interested I am in buying it. (12)
Current mood
How do you currently feel?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Self-construal scale
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
1: strongly disagree 2 3 4: neither agree nor disagree 5 6 7: strongly agree
I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact. (1)
It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. (2)
My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me. (3)
I would offer my seat on a bus to my professor. (4)
I respect people who are modest about themselves. (5)
I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of group I am in. (6)
I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more
important than my own accomplishments. (7)
I should take into consideration my parents' advice when making education /
career plans. (8)
It is important to me to respect decisions made by the group. (9)
I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I'm not happy with the group.
(10)
If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible. (11)
Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument.
(12)
I'd rather say "No" directly, than risk being misunderstood. (13)
Speaking up during a class is not a problem for me. (14)
Having a lively imagination is important to me. (15)
I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards. (16)
I am the same person at home that I am at school. (17)
Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me. (18)
I act the same way no matter who I am with. (19)
I feel comfortable using someone's first name soon after I meet them, even when
they are much older than I am. (20)
I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I've just met. (21)
I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects. (22)
My personal identity independent of others, is very important to me. (23)
I value being in good health above everything. (24)
Block 4: Control variables
Please indicate your gender: Male
Female
How old are you?
_______________________
Where did you grow up (i.e., spent more than 10 years in one place)?
________________________
How fluent are you in English?
1: Not fluent 2 3 4 5 6 7: Very fluent
Attention check
Product evaluation Opinions
Personality Health
None of the above
B. Questionnaire Study 2
Block 1 - Introduction
Please enter your participant number that you received from the experimenter: ____________
Dear participant,
At this time, please put away your cellphone and ensure that it is on silent. Your responses will be contributing to our research in further understanding human behaviour. There are no right or wrong answers -- we care about your thoughts and opinions! Be aware that once you click on the "next" button, you cannot return to previous pages. Please read all of the instructions carefully. Your responses are important to us! If you have finished reading all of these instructions, please type in the word "continue" in the space below and then click on the ">>" button to begin the study. Thank you!
_______
Block 2 - Manipulations
Condition 1: Independent self-construal
My Own Life
Please write a few sentences about your thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying your life is what it is really all about". Think about times when you really enjoyed being on your own and living your life the way you want.
Condition : Interdependent self-construal My Family and Friends
