Master thesis
“Who gets moved by novel sustainability
information?”
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business M.Sc. Marketing Management December 2016 Sebas Baneke S2787830
Moesstraat 51A 9717 JV Groningen (+31) 63 061 3553 s.p.w.baneke@student.rug.nl / sebas.baneke@live.nl First Supervisor
Dr. Jan Willem Bolderdijk
Preface
A couple of years ago, my academic journey in Groningen began; and after overcoming many obstacles, the end is now in sight. This thesis is the final piece of work from my time at the university. Since I developed an interest in the psychology of marketing during my master programme and became convinced that this aspect is the key to success in persuasion, I chose this subject as the central theme of my examination. What goes on in the mind of a consumer? It is a question that triggers me. In this thesis, I have tried to find an answer to it with regard to the sustainability market. It is an attempt to determine what the label of sustainability does to consumers and their behaviour.
Before I begin the thesis, I would like to extend my warmest gratitude to those who have made a contribution to the quality of this thesis. First of all, I owe credit to Dr. J.W. Bolderdijk. Without his suggestions that helped me to obtain a clear scope, this thesis would still be a mess. Dr. J.W. Bolderdijk not only assisted me regarding the content, but he also pushed me to write on point, ensuring that every sentence is of quality. I look back on our meetings with pleasure: our talks were informal, pleasant and constructive, with a lot of interesting discussions. In addition, I would like to thank my fellow students who researched the same topic. Especially Lukas helped me a great deal. He was always ready to answer my many questions, which regularly began with the words: ‘Do you think that it is possible to..?’.
Finally, I want to thank my friends and family, who were there for me in the times I needed them. They have given me the necessary mental and academic support not only during the creation of this thesis, but also during my entire study, and I could always depend on them when needed.
Groningen, December 2016
Abstract
Sustainability is a buzzword nowadays, including in marketing. But although consumers claim to be willing to contribute to a better environment, they do not (always) buy sustainable products. By confronting consumers with novel information about sustainability, this thesis aims to shed new light on this discrepancy.
Previous studies have shown that people react to novelty in a positive way, and that it increases their interest and purchase intention regarding a product. The present research applies this idea to the sustainability market, and adds the level of cognitive capacity as moderator. It hypothesises that cognitive capacity explains individual differences in the sensitivity to novel information regarding sustainability.
The results of the between-‐subjects experiment design show that all consumers have a greater interest and a higher purchase intention when they are confronted with novel information regarding sustainability. With regard to the intention to buy a particular sustainable product, this novelty effect increases with a higher level of cognitive capacity.
Keywords:
Novelty, Cognitive capacity, Sustainability, Purchase intention, Interest
Table of Content
Preface 2
Introduction
Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Theoretical Background 7
Information regarding sustainability 7 Novelty of information 7 Cognitive capacity 8 Hypotheses 10 Conceptual Model 11
Research Methodology
12
Participants and data collection 12 Design 12 Procedure 13 Stimuli and cover story 13 Measurements 14
Results
17
Randomization check 17 Manipulation check 17 Main effect: interest 17 Moderation effect: interest 18 Main effect: purchase intention 18 Moderation effect: purchase intention 18
Discussion
20
Main effect 20 Moderation effect 21 Conclusion 22Limitations
23
Managerial Implications
24
Introduction
When Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate change documentary ‘Before The Flood’ was released in October of last year, it reached more than 30 million viewers within two weeks. People from all over the world watched (a portion of) the film across linear, digital, and social platforms, making it the best-‐ viewed documentary since 2000 (The guardian, 2016).
As a topic, the endangered environment is hot. People are aware of the fact that the world is not going to sustain itself infinitely and that – if nothing changes – its natural resources will be depleted in the near future (McDonagh & Prothero, 2014). These people want to contribute to the environment and are increasingly interested in sustainable products (Sammer, Katharina & Wüstenhagen, 2006).
Research shows that many consumers seek information about sustainability regarding products and are likely to react favourably to brands that are environmental friendly (Chen & Chang, 2013; Auger, Devinney, Louviere & Burke, 2008). Therefore, companies nowadays are increasingly including sustainable products in their portfolio, and using sustainability as a marketing tool to persuade consumers to buy their goods.
Despite this expansion of companies and marketers, however, consumers still do not behave in a sustainable way (Kim, Oh, Yoon & Shin, 2016; Fowler & Close, 2013). It could be that the information about sustainable products does not meet consumers’ needs, as they do not seem to always pay (sufficient) attention to that information (Peattie, & Crane, 2005; Prothero et. al, 2011; Fowler & Close, 2013). This mismatch would explain the contradiction between the marginal success of sustainable products and consumers’ claims of being willing to change the environment for the better and buy those goods.
A possible explanation of the mismatch in the provided information and attention could be that sustainable products are promoted with slogans and additional information that are largely similar to one another. Instead of convincing consumers into buying their products by distinguishing themselves as being ‘green’, companies have created an overload of sustainable claims and product information (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla & Paladino, 2014; Delmas & Burbano, 2011).
eventually results in a lack of interest (Fisher, 1993; Singh, Kristensen & Villaseñor, 2009; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016).
A possible key to success for marketers in the sustainability market could be the use of novelty. Scholars have found that when a message contains novel information, people react differently than when they are confronted with information that they already know. Novelty provokes attention, curiosity, and interest, factors that can lead to persuasion (Daffner et. al, 2000; Venkatesan, 1973; Cacioppo & Petty, 1979). Regarding the sustainability market, novelty can be used to entice consumers to buy sustainable products.
If and how the consumer responds to new information depends, among other things, on his or her cognitive capacity (Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003; Daffner et. al, 2000; Spassova, 2010). Not everyone reacts to novelty in a positive way; this is a delicate matter. Namely, when exceeding the amount of novelty that one can handle, one may become overloaded, which in turn can lead to erroneous decision-‐making (Van Hiel & Kruglanski, 2013).
Research shows that, in general, the higher one’s cognitive capacity is, the more sensitive one is to novel information (Miller, 1956; Hirschman, 1980; Song & Schwarz, 2009). The current study examines whether this is also the case within the context of sustainability. Does the level of cognitive capacity play a role in people’s response when they are provided with new information about a product?
By analysing consumers individually based on their cognitive capacity, this study aims to discover a link between novel information and persuasion within the sustainability market. It is an attempt to add knowledge to the field of marketing in this market in particular, by searching for a better way to persuade consumers to buy sustainable products.
Including cognitive capacity as a factor, this study will draw conclusions about the way in which consumers react to novel marketing messages (Sweller, Van Merrienboer & Paas, 1998; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). The level of persuasion is established by measuring the consumers’ interest as well as their intention to purchase a particular sustainable product.
This leads to the following research question:
Theoretical background
Information regarding sustainability
The central concept in this study is sustainability, which has different meanings in different fields. In this study, sustainability is defined as the balance between consumers’ satisfaction and their necessity to preserve the environment (Corral-‐Verdugo & Frías-‐Armenta, 2015; Cooper, 2005; OECD, 2002). This definition is commonly known among consumers (OECD, 2002).
In the 1960s, sustainability became a popular subject in research papers (Connelly, Ketchen & Slater, 2011; Homer, 2009). Scholars started to increasingly examine the extent to which the environment is endangered, and tried to make society aware of the fact that the natural climate change is nowhere near as strong and fast as the human-‐caused factors of global warming (NASA, 2016; McMichael, Woodruff & Hales, 2006).
As a result, sustainability became a trending concept among consumers. Step by step, awareness arose of the damaging footprint that mankind leaves behind, and nowadays people are well informed about the inconvenient truth of global warming and the status of the world (Ehrenfeld, 2008).
Therefore, it was hypothesised in general that when companies started advertising with sustainability, it would attract consumers’ attention (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006; Belz, 2006; Peattie & Crane, 2005). Customers feel that it is their moral duty to contribute to a better world, and even state that they are willing to pay more for sustainable products (Sammer & Wüstenhagen, 2006). From that moment, marketers decided to capitalise on this need.
Oddly enough, this advertising strategy was not found to be a qualified success (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006; Fowler & Close, 2013). The big breakthrough of sustainability as a marketing instrument has not yet occurred. Consumers still fail to behave in a sustainable way (Kim, Oh, Yoon & Shin, 2016; Fowler & Close, 2013), and seem to find it difficult to fulfil their self-‐imposed duty to contribute to a better environment (McDonagh & Prothero, 2014; Fowler & Close, 2013).
Novelty of information
concerned with the environment and are willing to make (financial) sacrifices to change it for the better, yet they do not buy sustainable products.
A possible way for marketers to improve the sale of such products is with the use of novel information (Sheinin, Varki & Ashley, 2011; Smith, Chen, and Yang, 2008). Novelty is the degree of difference between a consumer’s present perception and his or her past experience (Pearson, 1970; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016). It concerns adding knowledge to what a consumer already knows (Dictionary, 2016).
Although not specifically examined within the sustainability market, novelty has been proven to be a successful strategy in advertising (Sheinin, Varki & Ashley, 2011; Smith, Chen, and Yang, 2008). By formulating and displaying not yet known information on a product, marketers are able to break through the clutter of advertisements with which consumers are confronted today.
Novelty draws attention. As the stimulus in the form of information about the product is not encoded in the mind of the consumer at an earlier moment, the ‘newness’ of the information disconfirms his or her expectations (Åberg & Nilsson, 2001). This results in a response of surprise (Fennis & Stroebe, 2016).
This salience effect could in turn lead to a positive attitude towards the product (Smith et. al, 2007). Novel information triggers the consumer’s interest in the text. Provided that the information is useful, this interest can lead to the intention to buy a particular product (Smith, Chen & Yang 2008; Smith et al. 2007). This study proposes that this phenomenon also applies within the context of the sustainability market.
Cognitive capacity
response after reading persuasive information (Roets, Van Hiel & Kruglanski, 2013; Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003; Sweller 1988). Marketers should therefore be aware of consumers’ cognitive capacity.
Cognitive capacity differs from one person to another. Therefore, so does one’s response to novel information. Marketing and providing information about products is thus highly delicate. In order to draw consumers’ attention and convince them to buy a certain product, marketers should ensure that the (amount of) novelty matches their target’s cognitive capacity (Anderson and Rubin 1986; Sweller, 1994).
Processing novelty requires more mental effort than processing information that is already known (Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2004; Daffner et. al, 2000; Spassova, 2010). According to research by George Miller (1956), the average consumer who is confronted with novel information can only process seven novel items a time. However, more recent theories suggest that it is likelier that consumers can obtain and hold only around three new items (Mayer, 2002; Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003).
When this maximum amount of novelty is exceeded, consumers may become overloaded (Ariely, 2000; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). In the case of overload, a mismatch occurs between the required and the available cognitive resources to fully scrutinise and understand the information provided. This imbalance could lead to erroneous decision-‐making (Van Hiel & Kruglanski, 2013), as the consumer’s cognitive capacity will become dysfunctional, uncertain, and unpredictable (Malhotra, 1984; Ludewig, Geyer, Ramseier & Vollenweider, 2005).
The precise amount of novel information that one can handle – without becoming overloaded – depends on one’s cognitive capacity. Whereas those with a lower cognitive capacity can easily become overwhelmed by novelty, those with a high cognitive capacity can process many novel items (Lynch & Srull, 1982; Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2004).
Because the latter can retrieve information from long-‐term memory more rapidly than less cognitively capable consumers can, they do not need to pay much attention to information that is already known. When a text only comprises known information, then, this can lead to the message being perceived as tedious, which could eventually result in a lack of interest (Fisher, 1993; Singh, Kristensen & Villaseñor, 2009; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016; Daffner et. al, 2000).
cognitive capacity to think about the text of the advertisement, making them more curious, motivated, and, above all, interested (Johnston et al. 1990; Daffner et. al, 2000; Spassova, 2010). Therefore, it could be that novelty also leads to a higher purchase intention among highly cognitive consumers. Interest is namely a condition for persuasion, although it is no guaranty for success (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Peattie, & Crane, 2005; Prothero et. al, 2011; Fowler & Close, 2013). Therefore, marketers must realise that the novelty effect is not unlimited: the risk of overload has to be taken into account.
In summary, consumers with a high cognitive capacity comprehend (novel) information more easily than people with a low cognitive capacity do. Additionally, cognitively capable consumers are more stimulated by novel information. This raises the question of whether this also applies to the sustainability market. It could be that, when consumers are confronted with novel information about a sustainable product, cognitive capacity plays a role in raising their interest and purchase intention with regard to sustainable products.
Hypotheses
From the theory described in the previous paragraphs, four hypotheses are derived. First, as novelty in general leads to more purchasing behaviour, the following hypothesis is formulated to examine whether this idea also applies within the context of sustainability:
H1a: Novel sustainability information will have a positive effect on consumers’ interest.
H1b: Novel sustainability information will have a positive effect on consumers’ purchase intention.
In addition, previous research shows that cognitive capacity plays a role in processing novel information. To examine whether varieties in cognitive capacity lead to different reactions to novelty, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2a: Novel sustainability information will have a stronger impact on the interest of consumers with a higher cognitive capacity.
Conceptual model
Based on the literature review, it is possible to create a meaningful conceptual framework (Figure 1) to visually reflect the present research. From this framework, it is possible to extract the effect of cognitive capacity, novelty, and the moderation of those two factors on consumers’ interest, as well as the effect of cognitive capacity, novelty, and the moderation of those two factors on consumers’
purchase intention – all within the sustainability market.
Research methodology
Participants and data collection
To achieve the aim of this study, an online survey was conducted (see appendix A for a copy of the survey). The questionnaire was accessible for two weeks and participation was voluntary: individuals could stop at any given moment. The survey was distributed through online channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, and carried out at different schools. These two channels of distribution were chosen to reach a large amount of participants in a short amount of time, and to ensure that people with different backgrounds filled out the survey. It was necessary to include a group of participants with a wide variety of cognitive capacities, as cognitive capacity is an important variable in this study.
In total, 245 participants started the survey. Unfortunately, however, some irregularities were found. Some individuals missed the attention check, did not find the survey clear overall, failed the manipulation check, or did not finish the survey. Furthermore, some participants filled out the survey in less than a minute or did not look at the warning text for longer than 3 seconds, which is simply too short to fully read and comprehend the text. After excluding these cases, the final sample consisted of 192 participants whose answers were suited for analysis. Of these participants, most were between 21 and 30 years old (74%); and had finished a master’s degree (43.2%). Moreover, 90 were female (46.9%) and 102 were male (53.1%). All of them had the Dutch nationality (see appendix B for the socio-‐demographics).
Design
The data collection in this study was done with the use of an experiment with a between-‐subjects design. The independent variable consisted of two levels: novel versus already known information. The moderator, cognitive capacity, ranged on a scale from 1 (low cognitive capacity) to 12 (high cognitive capacity).
The online survey tested these variables in multiple ways, by changing the direction of the question or asking for the same information in a reversed manner. This strategy revealed whether participants had read the questions thoroughly. All questions in the survey were formulated in Dutch, as it was expected that the survey would reach mainly inhabitants of the Netherlands, and reading information that is written in one’s native language generally requires the least amount of cognitive capacity.
Procedure
The online survey started by asking the participants for their informed consent. After that, they were shown several words and instructed to remember them. After 10 seconds, the words disappeared and the participants were asked to write down as many of them as they could remember. The next page included a measure that checked their perspectives on sustainability and their purchase behaviour with regard to sustainable products.
Thereafter, the participants were confronted with the cover story and the stimulus. They were randomly assigned a version of the stimulus: one with novel information on sustainability or one with already known information on the topic. After the participants had read the text, several pages with questions followed that measured the participants’ perception of the stimulus and the potential influence on their purchase intention. Then, in the midst of the questions about their purchase intention, a check was done to ensure that the participant was paying attention. On the final pages, the participants had to answer some questions about their socio-‐demographics and about whether they had found the total survey clear.
Stimuli and cover story
information, and whether it stimulated the participants to change their future consumption and thus their purchase intention.
After constructing the stimuli and the survey, the questionnaire was pre-‐tested (n=15) among fellow students. This pre-‐test was conducted to determine whether the questionnaire, and the manipulation check in particular, was correctly perceived. It was important that the participants received the novel information as in fact being novel, and the already known information as being information that they already knew. Figure 2 presents both stimuli, with the novel and already known information underlined for clarity. In the real stimuli, this information was not underlined.
Measurements
Independent variable: In this study, the independent variable – information regarding sustainability – has two levels: novel versus already known, making it a dichotomous variable. It was manipulated by randomly presenting the participant with either the known or the novel information.
Moderator: The moderator in this study is cognitive capacity, which was established with the aid of a recall test that has been used in several previous studies (Miller, 1956; Mayer, 2002; Goldstein, 2007). In this study, recall was measured using the amount of words that a participant could remember (Lynch & Srull, 1982; Thiede, 1996).
During the survey, participants were exposed to 12 words for 10 seconds, which they were asked to remember (Yorkston & Menon, 2004; Goldstein, 2007). Miller’s (1956) cognitive load theory states that the maximum number of words that individuals can remember after looking at them for 10
Figure 2. – Already known warning text (left) and novel information (right)
seconds is around seven. Based on this theory, it can be assumed that the task that participants were asked to complete was impossible to do (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966; see the survey in appendix A for the entire glossary). After the 10 seconds had expired, the words disappeared and participants were asked to recall as many words as they could (Mayer, 2002; Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003). The more correct words the participant memorised, the lower the cognitive load was, meaning that they had a higher cognitive capacity, and vice versa: the fewer correct words they recalled, the higher the cognitive load was, implying a lower cognitive capacity (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000).
The answers of the recall test were analysed manually, by counting the words that the participant had remembered. The number of correct answers ranged logically on a progressive scale from 1 to 12, as the test consisted of 12 words. As stated in the previous paragraph, the more words the participant remembered, the higher his or her cognitive capacity was. Participants in the study showed a moderate cognitive capacity (M = 5.41, SD = 2.19). In appendix C a table is shown with the total amount of words recalled.
Dependent variables: One of the dependent variables is interest. Participants’ interest was measured using duration. In the manipulation of the stimuli (see figure 2), one can see that both texts have the same length. Therefore, it can be assumed that both would take the same amount of time to read. Assuming that looking at a text longer means that one reads the information more thoroughly, thinks about it, and has a greater interest in the information (Lohse, 1997, James & Kover, 1992), participants’ interest was measured by recording the duration of time for which they stayed on the page of the information.
The other dependent variable is purchase intention. Participants’ purchase intention was measured with the use of a question on a 7-‐point bipolar scale. Participants were asked to indicate which of the following products they were most likely to buy: a large amount of unsustainable shrimps or a small amount of sustainable shrimps.
In addition, the participants were confronted with three statements on a 7-‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree): ‘I will buy less but sustainable shrimps in the future’; ‘I will buy more but unsustainable shrimp in the future’; and ‘I will buy sustainable shrimps next time’. The second question, which focuses on unsustainable shrimp, was reverse-‐coded for the analysis.
statements showed a strong, significant correlation (see appendix D). This was confirmed by the reliability test, indicating that the items could be combined into a single variable that measures the construct ‘purchase intention’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.928, M = 4.408, SD = 1.504). The scale mean shows that participants score slightly above average on the 7-‐point Likert scale, indicating they tend to purchase sustainable shrimps; regardless from the stimulus they saw.
Manipulation check: A manipulation check was added to the online survey to assess whether all participants received the novel or the already known information in the manner that was intended. This check was done by confronting the participants with the following four statements on a 7-‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree): ‘I experienced the text as novel’; ‘The text pushed me to think’; ‘The information was already known’; ‘The information draws my attention’. After reverse coding the opposite question (regarding already known information) into the same direction, a Spearman’s Rho was performed. This revealed a strong, significant correlation (see appendix E). A reliability test indicated that the four items could be combined into a single variable measuring novelty (Cronbach’s α = 0.888, M = 4.320, SD = 1.468). The scale mean indicates that participants perceived the stimuli on average slightly more novel than already known. Again, regardless from the stimulus they saw.
Randomization check: With the randomization check this study tries to found out if the participants with different perspectives on sustainability and purchase behaviours with regard to sustainable products are randomly allocated to the stimuli. The participants had to indicate to which extent they agreed to the following statement on a 7-‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree): ‘I consider myself environmentally conscious’; ‘ I never read information about sustainability’; ‘I regularly buy sustainable products’: ‘I often read sustainable information’. The second question, which is about never reading information about sustainability, is reverse coded. The results of the Spearman’s Rho showed a moderate correlation (see appendix F). The reliability analysis showed the same result, indicating the items can be combined in a single variable measuring the preference and behaviour of participants towards sustainability (Cronbach’s α = 0.818, M = 4.130, SD = 1.239). The scale mean reveals that participants are neither sustainable nor unsustainable.
Results
Randomization check
The output of the independent sample T-‐test reveals the stimulus conditions do not differ in terms of participants preference and behaviour towards sustainability t(190) = 1.603, p = .524. Therefore, the randomization check can be deemed as successful.
Manipulation check
An independent sample T-‐test was conducted for the manipulation check. The results show that when participants were asked to rate the novelty of the information presented, participants in the novel condition rated the information as significantly more novel (N = 92, M = 4.8777, SD = 1.252) than the participants in the already known condition did (N = 100, M = 3.807, SD = 1.45), t(190) = -‐5.420, p = .000. This difference is visually illustrated in the appendix (see appendix G). Although the difference is smaller than expected, it is possible to proceed with the analysis.
Main effect: interest
Some outliers needed to be excluded from the dataset. As participants looked at the stimuli for an average of 23 seconds (M = 22.869 SD = 16.798), staring at the information for more than 60 seconds seemed unreasonably long. Therefore, two participants who looked at the already known information and five participants who were confronted with the novel text were excluded.
Comparing the residual plot of the one with seven outliers and the one without them, one can see the data are better fitted to the regression line in the latter (see appendix H and I). This raised the coefficient of determination from 4.9% (R2 =.049) to 10.0% (R2 = 0.100). By conducting an
independent sample T-‐test on the data without those outliers, it could be seen that participants in fact look longer with novel information (N = 87, M = 23.439, SD = 8.632) than with already known information (N = 98, M = 17.483, SD = 9.229).
Moderation effect (interest)
With regard to the output of the multiple regression (see table 1), it is possible to determine that the model is overall significant (F(3,181)= 7.164, p =.000). However, the interaction effect was found not to be significant (b = -‐.628, p = .309), suggesting that the level of cognitive capacity has no significant influence on the relation between the way in which information is presented and the interest of a participant. The variance explained in the model is 10.6% (R2=.106).
Constant 17.51**
Novelty of information 5.94**
Cognitive capacity mean centered (words correct)
0.354
Novel information x cognitive capacity (interaction effect)
-‐0.628 F 7,16 P .000 R2 .106 Adjusted R2 .091
Main effect
Participants who were confronted with novel information (N = 92, M = 4.910, SD = 1.426) stated that they would almost certainly buy the sustainable shrimps, whereas the individuals who saw the text containing already known text (N = 100, M = 3.945, SD = 1.430) were fairly neutral regarding their purchase intention regarding these sustainable animals.
A simple regression showed that the type of information (b = .965, p = .000) indeed has a significant effect on a participant’s purchase intention (F(1,190) = 21.899, p = .000). The variance explained in this model is 10.3% (R2 = .103).
Moderation effect
In the output of the multiple regression (see table 2), one can see the interaction effect between cognitive capacity and novel information on the purchase intention of participants (b = .313, p = .001). The results suggest that the level of cognitive capacity has a significant influence on the
relation between the way in which information was presented and a participant’s purchase intention (F(3,188) = 11.481, p = .000). This implies that when a participant was confronted with novel information, a high level of cognitive capacity had a positive effect on his or her purchase intention. The variance explained in the model is 15.5% (R2 = .155).
Constant 3,939**
Novelty of information .956**
Cognitive capacity mean centered (words correct)
-‐ .095
Novel information x cognitive capacity (interaction effect)
.313** F 11,481 P .000 R2 .155 Adjusted R2 .141
Table 2. –Regression analysis results Dependent: Purchase intention
Discussion
In the context of marketing, research shows that novelty moves (Sheinin, Varki & Ashley, 2011; Smith, Chen, and Yang, 2008). By formulating and displaying not yet known information on a product, marketers are able to persuade consumers to buy that product.
The present study examined whether the novelty effect is also applicable within the sustainability market. If so, the use of novel information could be a strategy to improve the success of sustainable products. Although consumers claim that they are concerned with the environment and want to change it for the better, the breakthrough of sustainable goods has not yet happened (Kim, Oh, Yoon & Shin, 2016; Fowler & Close, 2013). People do not always seem to pay (sufficient) attention to the information on sustainable products (Peattie, & Crane, 2005; Prothero et. al, 2011; Fowler & Close, 2013).
Because scholars have concluded that cognitive capacity plays a role in the way in which consumers respond to (novel) information (Anderson and Rubin, 1986; Sweller, 1994), this study hypothesised that the novelty effect is influenced by one’s level of cognitive capacity. The higher that level is, the stronger the impact of novel sustainability information is on persuasion.
Using a between-‐subjects experiment design, the impact of already known versus novel sustainability information was measured and connected to cognitive capacity among 245 participants. In the context of this study, impact was analysed by measuring the participants’ interest and purchase intention.
Main effect
Concerning the main effects, this study concludes that the sustainability market is similar to the market in general: novelty has a ‘positive’ effect on consumers. As expected, the results of this experiment revealed that novel sustainability information had a greater impact on the purchase intention than already known information did. This result is similar regarding the influence of novel information on interest and purchase intention.
existing theories on novelty in the field of marketing in general, which state that novelty triggers consumers’ interest (Smith, Chen & Yang 2008; Smith & Yang 2004).
The results regarding the changes in the purchase intention of consumers who are confronted with novel information are also in line with previous research. Existing literature has shown that when the novel information in a text like advertisement is useful, it can lead to the intention to buy a particular product (Smith, Chen & Yang 2008; Smith & Yang 2004; Smith et al. 2007). The present study reveals that this idea also applies to the sustainability market. Participants who saw the text with already known information were less eager to buy the sustainable product than those who were confronted with the novel text.
Moderation effect
Novel sustainability information has a positive effect on consumers’ interest and purchase intention. By considering the level of cognitive capacity, this study aimed to go even further and reveal whether it plays a role in consumers’ sensitivity to novelty. As novel information takes more brainpower to fully comprehend, previous research has found that it stimulates people with a high cognitive capacity more than already known information does (Johnston et al. 1990; Daffner et. al, 2000; Spassova, 2010). Consumers with a low cognitive capacity, on the other hand, become more easily overwhelmed by novel information (Lynch & Srull, 1982;
Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2004). Therefore, this study hypothesised that the higher the cognitive capacity is, the stronger the novelty effect will be.
This was not found to be unambiguously true. In contrast to what was expected, highly cognitively capable participants who were confronted with the novel information did not spend significantly more time scrutinising the text than individuals with a lower cognitive capacity did. This finding suggests that the level of cognitive capacity in this research cannot be connected to the interest of consumers who read the text containing novel sustainability information. Contrary to what previous research on cognitive capacity has suggested, within the sustainability market the present study did not find that highly cognitively capable consumers were stimulated by novelty to a greater extent than individuals with a lower cognitive capacity, making them more curious, motivated, and interested.
confronted with the novel version of the text, the purchase intention of those who were more highly cognitively capable was found to be stronger than that of those who were less cognitively capable. Thus, the results support the hypothesis that the higher the level of cognitive capacity is, the stronger the novelty effect will be.
Conclusion
The results provide empirical support for the statement that novel information has an impact on consumers in the sustainability market. When confronted with a text that contains novel sustainability information, consumers respond in a more positive manner than when they see a marketing text that provides information that they already know. Regarding persuasion, novelty simply has a greater impact. Not only do consumers spend more time reading novel sustainable product information, which implies a higher interest, but their intention to buy that particular sustainable product is also greater with novelty than with already known information. These results suggest that consumers do not always pay (sufficient) attention to the (already known) information about sustainability in the texts like advertisements that marketers use nowadays (Peattie, & Crane, 2005; Prothero et. al, 2011; Fowler & Close, 2013).
This study, however, went deeper than the impact of novelty in the sustainability market: it also examined whether the cognitive capacity of an individual has an impact on his or her response to novel sustainability information. The main research question was: ‘Does cognitive capacity explain individual differences in the sensitivity to novel information?’
The results show that this question cannot be answered conclusively. Cognitive capacity does have an impact on the effect that novel information can have on consumers, but only regarding their intention to purchase a sustainable product. When confronted with novel sustainability information, consumers who are cognitively capable to a greater extent seem to be more eager to buy the particular product than individuals who have a lower cognitive capacity do. Regarding interest, the results provide no significant evidence that the level of cognitive capacity plays a role in the effect of novel sustainability information. One cannot conclude that the interest of a highly cognitively capable consumer is triggered by novel sustainability information more than an individual whose cognitive capacity is lower. Nor can any conclusion be drawn about the statement of scholars that interest is a condition but no guarantee of consumers’ purchase intention (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Peattie, & Crane, 2005; Prothero et. al, 2011; Fowler & Close, 2013).
