CAN SURPRISE LABELS BE THREATENING? A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECTS OF SURPRISE LABELS ON THE CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE
By
LYKE VAN DE WITTE
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT ... 2
ABSTRACT ... 2
1 INTRODUCTION ... 3
2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ... 5
Surprise Labels as a Signal of Threat ... 5
Surprise Response ... 7
Reduction of Surprise Effect ... 9
3 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 11
4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 14
Results ... 14
Discussion ... 15
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 15
REFERENCES ... 18 APPENDICES ... 24 Appendix A ... 24 Appendix B ... 29 Appendix C ... 30 ABSTRACT
While common knowledge has it that it is nice to be surprised, findings in psychology point towards the idea that surprise is associated with potential threat and that the word ‘surprise’ may thus have a negative valence. In this research, I study whether the nonconscious threat response elicited by surprise labels influences the consumption experience. Taken together, I find that surprise labels do not influence consumption levels and compensatory consumption through ethnocentric preference. Furthermore, I discover that misattribution of arousal does not moderate these effects. Theoretically, the word surprise may thus have a more positive valence than psychologists expect.
Keywords: Surprise labels, Threat, Nonconscious response, Consumption experience, Misattribution of arousal
1 INTRODUCTION
Picture yourself dining at your favorite restaurant. You are enjoying a delicious dish and while you do, you look to your right where a large chalkboard states that the restaurant offers ‘surprise menus’ based on the so-called chefs’ choice. Restaurant owners allegedly offer such surprise menus because they assume it will have a positive effect on their guests’ consumption experience. However, in this research, I assume that this might not always be the case by outlining the nonconscious effect of surprise labels on the consumption experience.
During your restaurant visit, your consciousness was not only occupied with enjoying your meal. In fact, your ongoing mental processes were disrupted by an environmental cue, namely surprise. Environmental cues can impact us in meaningful ways (Lowe, Loveland, & Krishna, 2019) but we often react “mindlessly” to cues that trigger automated responses (Dijksterhuis, Smith, van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005). For example, a study by Heilman and colleagues (Heilman, Nakamoto, & Rao, 2002) concluded that consumers who received an in-store coupon by surprise demonstrated an increase in the number and monetary value of unplanned purchases made on that specific shopping trip. Another study by Vanhamme (2008) found that consumers who were surprised by the addition of a comic book to their virtual museum visit were more satisfied than those not surprised by this addition. Both studies imply that surprise stimuli can act outside of our conscious awareness, so we may recognize the surprise but respond to it nonconsciously. Surprising stimuli can therefore evoke a “nonconscious response”.
event to be approaching, meaning that the likelihood of an event loomed, felt more threatened by and negative towards this event. Also, Demaree, Burn, DeDonno, Agarwala & Everhart (2012) and Lowe et al. (2019) found that a nonconscious threat response causes risk-aversion and thus lower consumption. Assuming that surprise labels signify the looming of a potential threat and therefore trigger a nonconscious threat response, it might be that surprise labels lead to lower consumption levels. When consumers respond to threat by longing for products that symbolically compensate for the threat, it is known as compensatory consumption (Kim, 2016). A study by Taylor et al. (2019) revealed that individuals who were exposed to meaning violation expressed greater willingness to pay for products that originate from regions they identify with than individuals who were not exposed to meaning violation. It might thus be that surprise labels (i.e. meaning violation) enhance ethnocentric preference in unrelated consumption domains. To the best of my knowledge, this research is the first to study the effect of surprise labels on the consumption level and ethnocentric preference.
Measuring the nonconscious threat response and the consumption experience (i.e. consumption level and ethnocentric preference) in one study is challenging because all three occur simultaneously. I thus employ the moderator ‘misattribution of arousal’ to discover whether mistakenly attributing the aversive arousal resulting from surprise labels to a non-threatening source (Proulx & Heine, 2008) dampens the nonconscious threat response. Taylor et al. (2019) found that misattributing physiological response to anything other than its original source (i.e. misattribution of arousal) eliminates negative evaluations and alleviates the need to compensate. It might thus be that misattribution of arousal reduces the nonconscious threat response elicited by surprise labels and thus mitigates the effect of surprise labels on consumption level and ethnocentric preference. To the best of my knowledge, this research is the first to examine misattribution of arousal as a moderator of the relation between surprise labels, consumption level, and ethnocentric preference.
misattribution of arousal diminishes the nonconscious threat response and thus mitigates the effects of surprise labels on consumption level and compensatory consumption through ethnocentric preference.
The remainder of this research begins with a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework is followed by an analysis of the link between surprise labels and the consumption experience (i.e. consumption level and ethnocentric preference) and misattribution of arousal as a moderator of these effects. The research concludes with a discussion in which implications, limitations, and areas for future research are proposed.
2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
This theoretical framework begins by discussing surprise and narrows down further to surprise as a signal of threat eliciting a nonconscious threat response. Subsequently, the possible effect of surprise labels on consumption level and ethnocentric preference is discussed. Finally, the framework discusses how these effects can be mitigated.
Surprise Labels as a Signal of Threat
Gawronski & Strack, 2012). The unexpectedness related to surprise causes a prediction error signal (Alexander & Brown, 2011; Egner, 2011) which we believe is threatening and uncomfortable (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Mendes et al., 2007; Staub, Tursky, & Schwartz, 1971). When we cannot carefully predict our experiences and structure our expectations as the result of such a prediction error, sometimes our experiences do not match our expectations (Proulx et al., 2012). Such incongruity causes us to undergo an experience that is inconsistent with our understanding of the world and our existing beliefs, a phenomenon known as meaning violation (Proulx et al., 2012). In this research, I assume that surprise has a negative valence as it signals threatening constructs like unpredictability and meaning violation.
The nonconscious threat response. In a world full of surprises, we have evolved refined ability to promptly detect and adapt to unpredictability. Psychological research states that when we are in uncertain and unpredictable situations, we evolve an anxious response (Lerner et al., 2001; Lowe et al., 2019; Noseworthy, Di Muro, & Murray, 2014; Taylor et al., 2019). As such, unpredictability activates a threat detection system (Schützwohl & Borgstedt, 2010) and elicits a defensive response (Browning & Harmer, 2012; Ohman, 2005; Schützwohl et al., 2010). Surprises associated with specific dangers (e.g. a braking cyclist in front of you, a fast-approaching car, etc.) possibly elicit a more direct and conscious defensive response, but surprise may as well prime a nonconscious defensive response because of its association with threatening concepts (i.e. unpredictability and meaning violation).
Surprise Response
Many researchers have demonstrated that consumer decision-making is often influenced by factors outside our conscious awareness (Holland, Hendriks & Aarts, 2005; North, Hargreaves & McKendrick, 1999; van Herpen, Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2009). In other words, external stimuli can nonconsciously engender an emotional or behavioral response that drives our consumption (Lowe et al., 2019). Studying nonconscious processes in consumer decision-making has become increasingly popular because a large share of our consumption is driven by such processes and it is easy to see how they affect our daily consumption (Chartrand & Fitzsimons, 2011). For example, a study by Heilman and colleagues (Heilman et al., 2002) concluded that consumers who received an in-store coupon by surprise demonstrated an increase in the number and monetary value of unplanned purchases made on that specific shopping trip. The study mentions the possibility that this increase is driven by an elevated mood as a result of the surprise coupon and thus indicates that the consumption experience may depend on emotional state (Heilman et al., 2002). Based on previous reasoning, it seems logical to assume that surprise may not always result in an elevated mood and that it may even result in a nonconscious threat response when assuming that surprise signals unpredictability and meaning violation (LeDoux, 1998; Ohman, 2005). Surprise may thus elicit different emotional responses and these emotional responses trigger different kinds of behavior in the consumption stage.
Effect of surprise labels on consumption level. The consumption stage is very dynamic
by and negative towards prediction errors and meaning violation and this nonconscious threat response will cause them to consume less. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this research is as follows:
H1a: Surprise labels (compared to regular labels) decrease consumption levels.
Effect of surprise labels on compensatory consumption. Besides demonstrating an
aversive attitude towards unpredictability (Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Staub et al., 1971), humans actively seek meaning (Bruner, 1990). Meanings are beliefs that structure expectations and allow us to forecast and make sense of our experiences (Proulx et al., 2012). However, sometimes our experiences do not match our existing beliefs (i.e. surprise). Such experiences threaten our existing beliefs and jeopardize our sense of meaning. The meaning-maintenance model states that because our desire to maintain sense of meaning is so irresistible, we will often nonconsciously compensate our threatened schema by affirming other beliefs in our memory (Heine et al., 2006; Randles, Proulx & Heine, 2011). To illustrate, a study by Gao, Wheeler, & Shiv (2009) found that consumers whose intelligence was threatened displayed higher preference for products associated with intelligence than for products unassociated with intelligence. As such, people may thus use consumption to repair threats to the self (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982).
The aforementioned study by Gao et al. (2009) contributes to the finding that when we have experiences that are not in line with existing beliefs, we employ a variety of compensatory efforts (Proulx et al., 2012). This happens because the anxiety evoked by meaning violation initiates our need to seek meaning in unrelated domains (Proulx, Heine, & Vohs, 2010). When we respond to anxiety by longing for products that symbolically compensate for the threat, the phenomenon is known as compensatory consumption (Kim, 2016) and aims to manage the psychological threat (Zheng et al., 2014). Our primary motive to compensate for meaning violation is not to resolve it but to reduce a syndrome of aversive arousal induced by meaning violation (Major & Town-send, 2012; Proulx et al., 2012). In case of extreme meaning violation, it cannot be dealt with within existing schemas, so to relieve tension we will compensate for it in unrelated schemas,for example by selecting dominant brands or affirming one’s culture (Taylor et al., 2019). As a result, compensatory consumption helps in understanding irrational consumer behavior (Zheng et al., 2014).
to identify more with their own culture (Proulx et al., 2010). One way in which people affirm their own culture is “ethnocentric consumption”, which is described as consumer behavior showing preference for our cultural in-group (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). A key example of ethnocentric consumption is the country-of-origin effect (Schooler, 1965) in which people indicate a higher willingness to pay for products that come from regions they identify with (Wall & Heslop, 1986). Based on this, a study by Taylor et al. (2019) revealed that in a subsequent compensation task, participants exposed to incongruity between their experience and their existing beliefs (i.e. meaning violation: soft drink in a bag) expressed greater willingness to pay for products that originate from regions they identify with than participants exposed to congruity between their experience and their existing beliefs (i.e. no meaning violation: soft drink in a bottle). Based on this reasoning, I explore an important consequence of surprise labels (i.e. meaning violation): increased preference in unrelated consumption domains for products coming from regions that one identifies with. I suggest that consumers will compensate for aversive arousal (i.e. nonconscious threat response) caused by surprise labels through greater ethnocentric preference in unrelated consumption domains. Therefore, the second hypothesis is as follows:
H1b: Surprise labels (compared to regular labels) enhance ethnocentric preference in
unrelated consumption domains. Reduction of Surprise Effect
Taylor et al. (2019) further explored this possibility by examining whether misattribution of the physiological state could influence evaluations on incongruity. Specifically, they tested whether bringing physiological tension to conscious awareness and attributing it to something other than its original source (i.e. misattribution of arousal) dampened negative evaluations for extreme incongruity. As expected, they discovered that when consumers consciously misattributed their arousal to a different source, negative evaluations for extreme incongruity were eliminated. In their experiments, participants in the no misattribution condition evaluated incongruity less favorably than congruity, but in the misattribution condition, these negative evaluations disappeared. Furthermore, Taylor et al. (2019) explored whether misattribution of the physiological state could influence compensatory consumption. Specifically, they tested whether misattribution of arousal reduced compensatory efforts after extreme incongruity. As expected, they found that when consumers consciously misattributed their arousal to a different source, their need to compensate was alleviated. In their experiments, participants in the misattribution condition showed compensatory efforts at levels similar to the control condition (i.e. congruity condition). This finding is supported by Proulx et al. (2012) who found that students who were told that the placebo pill they were given could arouse anxiety no longer engaged in compensatory efforts. According to Proulx et al. (2008), such behavior occurs because the anxiety is mistakenly attributed to a non-threatening source. Similarly, Inzlicht et al. (2012) state that misattribution of arousal manipulations diminishes the aversive arousal (i.e. anxiety) related to meaning violation. In line with this reasoning, I propose that removing the potential threat associated with surprise labels by causing consumers to misattribute their anxiety to a non-threatening source reduces the nonconscious threat response. Similar to Taylor et al. (2019), I will induce participants to misattribute their arousal to a subliminal, high-frequency sound by informing them that this may lead to an increase in heart rate or feelings of anxiety and nervosity. Assuming that the effect of surprise on consumption level and compensatory consumption through ethnocentric preference is due to a nonconscious threat response, then removing the potential threat associated with surprise labels through misattribution of arousal should mitigate the effect of surprise on both consumption level and ethnocentric preference. Stated formally,
H2a: Misattribution of arousal mitigates the negative effect of surprise labels on consumption level.
H2b: Misattribution of arousal mitigates the positive effect of surprise labels on
Figure 1 illustrates the hypotheses and central theme of this research on the effects of surprise labels on consumption level and compensatory consumption through ethnocentric preference. These effects are expected to be mitigated when consumers misattribute their arousal to a different source.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
Participants and design.The population of this study consists of students at universities in the Netherlands. The students were recruited via various platforms (e.g. Whatsapp, Gmail, and course coordinators) and participated in this research in exchange for participation in a lottery for a €20 Bol.com voucher. All students were approached via a standard message indicating the aim of the research, the link to the questionnaire, some important requirements for participation, and the possibility to take part in the lottery. This yielded a first sample (N) of 256 participants (57.0% female; Mage = 21.94). One participant was deleted from the dataset because he/she did
not finish the survey. Furthermore, I excluded 95 participants (i.e. participants who failed the reading check (N = 67), participants who did not use loudspeakers (N = 2), participants who did not identify with their country of origin (N = 21), extreme outliers for the consumption measure (N = 2) and extreme outliers for the compensation (N = 3), both based on consumption values more than 3 standard deviations from the mean). Also, in the compensation measure, three
participants rated either one or both WTP’s at €0.00, so to prevent other reasons than ethnocentric preference (e.g. likeability of the product, political reasons) to account for the observed effect, the required analyses were also performed without these participants (see Appendix A). This yielded a second sample (N) of 253 participants (56.5% female; Mage =
21.95). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in a 2 (label: surprise label vs. regular label) x 2 (misattribution of arousal: yes vs. no) between-subjects design.
Procedures. Participants took part in the questionnaire through their own computers. All participants were informed that they were participating in a study on how subliminal sounds influence photo browsing experience. They were then directed to a page intended to get familiar with participants’ country of origin which would later be piped into the compensation task. The choice set consisted of 10 countries, including the Netherlands and 9 nearby countries. The ‘other’ option was included to avoid instances in which participants originate from any country other than those in the choice set. Participants were then directed to a screen with a headphones or loudspeaker test and they were requested to keep the sound on during the entire study. Participants were then exposed to either the surprise photo album or the regular photo album, after which they were informed that they would browse beach photographs. Subsequently, participants read that they will be exposed to a high-frequency sound. While they would not be exposed to any sound, they would believe that they could not hear it and that their subconscious would register it. Participants in the misattribution condition read that the sound may result in increased heart rate and that people report anxiety and nervosity when being exposed to such sound. Contradictory, participants in the no misattribution condition read that the sound had no physiological impact. Participants then moved on to the consumption task where they could stop browsing the beach photographs anytime. After browsing, participants responded to questions on how much they enjoyed viewing the photographs, how much they would like to continue browsing the photo album and whether they consciously heard any sound. Participants were then told that I would like to get to know their tastes in consumption better. In reality, this served as the compensation task. They read that products from the same category, will appear on their screen and they would be asked to report what they would be willing to pay for each product. Two identical pictures of strawberries were shown. The first basket of strawberries was grown in the participants’ country of origin while the second basket of strawberries was grown in a randomly selected country other than the participants’ country of origin. Their WTP was be captured by a slider going from €0.00 to €7.00, down to the cent. Finally, participants responded to a few reading checks and demographic questions and they were thanked for their participation.
4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Results
Time spent browsing. In order to analyze the influence of surprise labels on consumption level (i.e. time spent browsing) and to analyze the moderating effect of misattribution of arousal, a two-way ANOVA was performed on the first sample1 (N = 256) (see Appendix C).
Both effects were not significant. Contradictory to hypothesis 1a, no significant differences
were found between participants’ browsing time in the surprise condition (M = 56.70) and in the control condition (M = 54.73), F(1,252) = .277, p = .599. Contradictory to hypothesis 2a,
no significant differences were found between the browsing time of participants in the surprise condition who misattributed arousal (M = 53.46) and who did not misattribute arousal (M = 60.37). As a result, the interaction effect between label x misattribution of arousal appeared not significant, F(1,252) = .031, p = .861.
Ethnocentric preference. In order to analyze the influence of surprise labels on compensatory consumption (i.e. ethnocentric preference) and to analyze the moderating effect of misattribution of arousal, a two-way ANOVA was performed (see Appendix C). Both effects were not significant. Contradictory to hypothesis 1b, no significant differences were found
between participants’ ethnocentric preference in the surprise condition (M = 0.33) and in the control condition (M = 0.42), F(1,252) = 1.103, p = .295. Contradictory to hypothesis 2b, no
significant differences were found between the ethnocentric preference of participants in the surprise condition who misattributed arousal (M = 0.40) and who did not misattribute arousal (M = 0.29). As a result, the interaction effect between label x misattribution of arousal appeared not significant, F(1,252) = .000, p = .983.
Important conclusions in these analyses are that surprise labels do not decrease the consumption level and that surprise labels do not increase ethnocentric preference, contradictory to what was hypothesized. Other important conclusions are that misattribution of arousal does not mitigate the effect of surprise labels on the consumption level nor does it mitigate the effect of surprise labels on ethnocentric preference.
Discussion
The results did not support the prediction that surprise labels decrease consumption levels (H1a). Neither did the results support the prediction that surprise labels increase ethnocentric
preference (H1b). Furthermore, the results did not support the prediction that misattribution of
arousal mitigates the effect of surprise labels on the consumption level (H2a) and ethnocentric
preference (H3a). As specified, the findings in this research contradict all the aforementioned
hypotheses. A possible explanation for this might be that surprise labels do not elicit a nonconscious threat response causing consumers to respond more positively to surprise labels than expected. This thought is further discussed in the following section.
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To reiterate, this research was designed with two objectives in mind. The first objective was to test the prediction that surprise labels have a negative effect on consumption level and a positive effect on compensation through ethnocentric preference. This prediction was based on the assumption that surprise labels loom prediction errors and meaning violation (Alexander et al., 2011; Egner, 2011; Proulx et al., 2012) and elicit a nonconscious threat response (LeDoux, 1998; Ohman, 2005; Windmann et al., 1998) which subsequently reduces the consumption level (Hsee et al., 2014; Demaree et al., 2012, Lowe et al., 2019) and increases ethnocentric preference (Proulx et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2019). The second objective was to test the prediction that misattribution of arousal reduces the nonconscious threat response to surprise and thus mitigates the effect of surprise on consumption level and ethnocentric preference. This prediction was based on the assumption that misattribution of arousal diminishes aversive arousal (i.e. nonconscious threat response) and thus eliminates negative evaluations for incongruity and reduces compensation through ethnocentric preference (Proulx et al., 2012, Taylor et al., 2019). Contradictory to what was expected, evidence from this research did not support these predictions.
consumption level and ethnocentric preference because there was no nonconscious threat response to diminish. It might thus be that the positive connotation, as explained by Noordewier et al. (2013), overshadows the negative connotation of the word ‘surprise’ causing consumers to respond more positively to surprise labels than expected. These thoughts create opportunities for further research to eventually draw reliable conclusions on the effects of surprise on the consumption experience.
From a theoretical perspective, this work contributes to surprise effect literature. Where previous studies focused on pre- and post-consumption implications of surprise (Hutter et al., 2014, Lindgreen et al., 2003, Vanhamme et al., 2003), the findings in this research focus on the ongoing consumption experience implications of surprise labels and demonstrate that surprise labels do not (negatively) influence consumption level and do not (positively) influence compensation through ethnocentric preference. Furthermore, this work contributes to existing research on nonconscious threat responses. It provides evidence that misattribution of arousal does not mitigate the effects of surprise labels on consumption level and compensation through ethnocentric preference. This leads us to believe that surprise labels do not elicit a nonconscious threat response and that such responses are not the underlying mechanism that translates the perception of surprise labels into specific consequences for the consumption level and compensation through ethnocentric preference.
university) limits the generalizability of the findings. A third limitation is the choice for the compensation measure stimuli as confounding variables (e.g. loving/hating strawberries, allergies) may have impacted the willingness to pay for the basket of strawberries such that the observed effect is not only caused by ethnocentric preference. This could have been prevented by selecting a compensation measure stimuli which is less prone to personal preferences.
Future research can expand on the findings in this work by investigating whether replicating the study with a larger sample size will yield any significant results in the relations between surprise labels, consumption level, and compensatory consumption through ethnocentric preference. Future research can also investigate other compensation domains, since consumers may also compensate for meaning violations by choosing category dominant brands (Taylor et al., 2019) or by affirming their self-esteem (Mandel, Rucker, Levav, & Galinsky, 2017). Another interesting area for future research is to explore other consumption experiences that may threaten meaning and may thus leed to unforeseen consequences in the consumption experience, like viewing absurd art that violates expectations about the world (Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, & Moskowitz, 2011).
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W., Newcomb, T., Rosenberg, M., & Tannenbaum, P. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Alexander, W. H., & Brown, J. W. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome
predictor. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1338-1344.
Baiocchi, D., & Fox, D. S. (2013). CHAPTER THREE Research Objective, Definitions, and Initial Conceptual Models. In Surprise!: From CEOs to Navy SEALs: How a Select Group of Professionals Prepare for and Respond to the Unexpected (pp. 7-20). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face Consciousness and Risk Aversion: Do They Affect Consumer Decision-Making? Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733 - 755.
Berger, C. R. (1993). Uncertainty and Social Interaction. Annals of the International Communication Association, 16, 491-502.
Browning, M., & Harmer, C. J. (2012). Expectancy and surprise predict neural and behavioral measures of attention to threatening stimuli. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1942-1948.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2011). Editorial Note: Nonconscious Consumer Psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 1-3.
Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., DeDonno, M. A., Agarwala, E. K., & Everhart, D. E. (2012). Risk dishabituation: in repeated gambling, risk is reduced following low-probability "surprising" events (wins or losses). Emotion, 12(3), 495-502.
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193-202.
Egner, T. (2011). Surprise! A unifying model of dorsal anterior cingulate function? Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1219-1220.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). In Emotion in the Human Face: Guidelines for Research and an Integration of Findings. New York: Erlbaum.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-394.
Fiske, J. E. (2002). Judgments under Uncertainty: Representativeness or Potential Surprise? British Journal of Psychology, 94(4), 431-449.
Flannery, M. C. (1984). The Element of Surprise. American Biology Teacher, 46(2), 125-128. Gao, L., Wheeler, C. S., & Shiv, B. (2009). The 'Shaken Self': Product Choices as a Means of
Restoring Self-View Confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(June), 29-38. Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social
cognition. New York, NY:: Guilford Press.
Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and inter-group discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 926-940. Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (2002). Pleasant Surprises: Consumer Response
to Unexpected In-Store Coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 242-252.
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The Meaning Maintenance Model: On the Coherence of Social Motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88-110.
Holland, R. W., Hendriks, M., & Aarts, H. (2005). Smells Like Clean Spirit Nonconscious Effect of Scent on Cognitive Behavior. Psychological Science, 16(9), 689-93.
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93-110.
Inzlicht, M., & Al-Khindi, T. (2012). ERN and the placebo; a misattribution approach to studying the arousal properties of the error-related negativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 141(4), 799-807.
Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., & Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing New Product Acceptance by Facilitating Resolution of Extreme Incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(April), 247-259.
Kim, J. K. (2016). A Circumplex Model Perspective of Compensatory Consumption. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
LeDoux, J. (1998). Fear and the Brain: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Biological Psychiatry, 44(12), 1229-1238.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, Anger and Risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146-159.
Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). To Surprise Or Not To Surprise Your Customers: The Use Of Surprise As A Marketing Tool. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 2(2), 219-242. Lowe, M. L., Loveland, K. E., & Krishna, A. (2019). A Quiet Disquiet: Anxiety and Risk Avoidance due to Nonconscious Auditory Priming. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 159-179.
Major, B., & Townsend, S. S. (2012). Meaning making in response to unfairness. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 361-366.
Mandel, N., Rucker, D. D., Levav, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). The compensatory consumer behavior model: how self-discrepancies drive consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27, 133-146.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Threatened by the Unexpected: Physiological Responses During Social Interactions With Expectancy-Violating Partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 698-716. Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June), 39-54.
Noordewier, M. K., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2013). On the valence of surprise. Cognition & Emotion, 27(7), 1326-1334.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The Influence of In-Store Music on Wine Selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 271-276.
Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The Role of Arousal in Congruity-Based Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1108-1126.
Ohman, A. (2005). The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 953-958.
Plutchik, R. (2001). The Nature of Emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American Scientist, 89(4), 344-350.
Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19, 1294-1300.
Proulx, T., Heine, S. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny? Meaning affirmation after exposure to absurdist literature, humor, and art. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 817-829.
Randles, D., Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters: Non-conscious perception of incongruous word pairings provokes fluid compensation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 246-249.
Ratter, B. M. (2013). Surprise and Uncertainty—Framing Regional Geohazards in the Theory of Complexity. Humanities, 2, 1-19.
Schützwohl, A., & Borgstedt, K. (2010). The processing of affectively valenced stimuli: The role of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 583-600.
Schooler, R. D. (1965). Product bias in the central American common market. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 394-397.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280-289.
Staub, E., Tursky, B., & Schwartz, G. (1971). Self-control and predictability: Their effects on reactions to aversive stimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 57-162.
Taylor, N., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2019). Compensating for Innovation: Extreme Product Incongruity Encourages Consumers to Affirm Unrelated Consumption Schemas. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 77-95.
Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., Parker, K. C., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2011). The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 19-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 302-312.
Vanhamme, J., & Snelders, D. (2003). What If You Surprise Your Customers... Will They Be More Satisfied? Findings from a Pilot Experiment. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 48-55.
Wall, M., & Heslop, L. A. (1986). Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, 27-36.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic Self-Completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Windmann, S., & Krüger, T. (1998). Subconscious Detection of Threat as Reflected by an Enhanced Response Bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 603-633.
Winkielman, P., Berridge, K. C., & Wilbarger, J. (2005). Unconscious Affective Reactions to Masked Happy Versus Angry Faces Influence Consumption Behaviour and Judgments of Value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 121-135.
APPENDICES Appendix A
Results excluding participants rating one or both WTP’s at €0.00
Time spent browsing. In order to analyze the influence of surprise labels on consumption level (i.e. time spent browsing) and to analyze the moderating effect of misattribution of arousal, a two-way ANOVA was performed. Both effects were not significant. Contradictory to hypothesis 1a, no significant differences were found between participants’ browsing time in
the surprise condition (M = 58.10) and in the control condition (M = 55.03), F(1,249) = .601, p = .439. Contradictory to hypothesis 2a, no significant differences were found between the
browsing time of participants in the surprise condition who misattributed arousal (M = 53.46) and who did not misattribute arousal (M = 63.35). As a result, the interaction effect between label x misattribution of arousal appeared not significant, F(1,249) = .127, p = .722.
Ethnocentric preference. In order to analyze the influence of surprise labels on compensatory consumption (i.e. ethnocentric preference) and to analyze the moderating effect of misattribution of arousal, a two-way ANOVA was performed. Both effects were not significant. Contradictory to hypothesis 1b, no significant differences were found between
participants’ ethnocentric preference in the surprise condition (M = 0.33) and in the control condition (M = 0.39), F(1,249) = .603, p = .438. Contradictory to hypothesis 2b, no significant
differences were found between the ethnocentric preference of participants in the surprise condition who misattributed arousal (M = 0.40) and who did not misattribute arousal (M = 0.24). As a result, the interaction effect between label x misattribution of arousal appeared not significant, F(1,249) = .157, p = .692.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics participants gender
Frequency Percent
Male 109 43.1
Female 143 56.5
Other / decline to state 1 0.4
Total 253 100.0
TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics participants age
Frequency Percent Age 16 1 0.4 17 3 1.2 18 17 6.7 19 29 11.5 20 41 16.2 21 38 15.0 22 31 12.3 23 38 15.0 24 22 8.7 25 10 4.0 26 6 2.4 27 3 1.2 28 1 0.4 29 1 0.4 30 5 2.0 31 3 1.2 33 3 1.2 40 1 0.4 Total 253 100 TABLE 3 Between-Subjects Factors Value N
Label 0 Regular label 125
1 Surprise label 125
Misattribution of arousal 0 No misattribution 119
TABLE 4
Descriptive statistics two-way ANOVA Dependent variable: consumption measure
Label Misattribution of arousal Mean Std. Deviation N Regular No misattribution 58.7120 34.19215 59 Misattribution 51.7432 29.23775 66 Total 55.0325 31.73553 125 Surprise No misattribution 63.3528 39.03557 60 Misattribution 53.4620 27.56470 68 Total 58.0983 33.66445 128 Total No misattribution 61.0519 36.63279 119 Misattribution 52.6154 28.30704 134 Total 56.5836 32.69682 253 TABLE 5
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent variable: consumption measure
Source Type III Sum
of Squared Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 5225.532a 3 1741.844 1.642 .180 Intercept 813755.260 1 813755.260 766.987 .000 IVlabel 637.196 1 637.196 .601 .439 IVmisattribution of arousal 4478.175 1 4478.175 4.221 .041 IVlabel*IVmisattribution of arousal 134.509 1 134.509 .127 .722 Error 264183.184 249 1060.977 Total 1079439.12 253 Corrected Total 269408.716 252
FIGURE 2
Graph consumption level per condition
TABLE 6
Descriptive statistics two-way ANOVA Dependent variable: compensation measure
TABLE 7
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent variable: compensation measure
Source Type III Sum
of Squared Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 2.740a 3 .913 1.976 .118 Intercept 31.508 1 31.508 68.154 .000 IVlabel .279 1 .279 .603 .438 IVmisattribution of arousal 2.385 1 2.385 5.160 .024 IVlabel*IVmisattribution of arousal .073 1 .073 .157 .692 Error 115.115 249 .462 Total 150.436 253 Corrected Total 117.855 252
R Squared = .023 (Adjusted R Squared = .011). FIGURE 3
Graph compensation level per condition
Appendix B Stimuli Stimuli for Surprise Manipulation
Surprise Photo Album Regular Photo Album
Stimuli for Compensation Task – Ethnocentric Products
Appendix C
Results including participants rating one or both WTP’s at €0.00
TABLE 8
Descriptive statistics participants gender
Frequency Percent
Male 109 42.6
Female 146 57.0
Other / decline to state 1 0.4
Total 256 100.0
TABLE 9
Descriptive statistics participants age
Frequency Percent Age 16 1 0.4 17 3 1.2 18 18 7.0 19 28 10.9 20 41 16.0 21 39 15.2 22 33 12.9 23 38 14.8 24 22 8.6 25 10 3.9 26 6 2.3 27 3 1.2 28 1 0.4 29 1 0.4 30 5 2.0 31 3 1.2 33 3 1.2 40 1 0.4 Total 256 100 TABLE 10 Between-Subjects Factors Value N
Label 0 Regular label 128
1 Surprise label 128
Misattribution of arousal 0 No misattribution 121
TABLE 11 Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of items
.821 2
TABLE 12
Descriptive statistics two-way ANOVA Dependent variable: consumption measure
Label Misattribution of arousal Mean Std. Deviation N Regular No misattribution 57.6340 34.13684 61 Misattribution 52.0944 29.15749 67 Total 54.7344 31.62399 128 Surprise No misattribution 60.3710 33.84509 60 Misattribution 53.4620 27.56470 68 Total 56.7006 30.74058 128 Total No misattribution 58.9912 33.87845 121 Misattribution 52.7833 28.26858 135 Total 55.7175 31.13979 256 TABLE 13
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent variable: consumption measure
Source Type III Sum
of Squared Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 2748.764a 3 916.255 .944 .420 Intercept 797234.858 1 797234.858 821.618 .000 IVlabel 268.740 1 268.740 .277 .599 IVmisattribution of arousal 2471.890 1 2471.890 2.547 .112 IVlabel*IVmisattribution of arousal 29.911 1 29.911 .031 .861 Error 244521.297 252 970.323 Total 1043006.76 256 Corrected Total 247270.061 255
FIGURE 4
Graph consumption level per condition
TABLE 14
Descriptive statistics two-way ANOVA Dependent variable: compensation measure
TABLE 15
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent variable: compensation measure
Source Type III Sum
of Squared Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 2.202a 3 .734 1.526 .208 Intercept 34.165 1 34.165 71.055 .000 IVlabel .530 1 .530 1.103 .295 IVmisattribution of arousal 1.683 1 1.683 3.500 .063 IVlabel*IVmisattribution of arousal .000 1 .000 .000 .983 Error 121.169 252 .481 Total 158.476 256 Corrected Total 123.370 255
R Squared = .018 (Adjusted R Squared = .006). FIGURE 5
Graph compensation quantity per condition
