“Expect the Unexpected: The Influence of
Anticipated Surprise on Consumption
Behavior and the Moderating Role of Need
for Cognitive Closure”
Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Marketing Management
Written by: Brittany van Gils Student number: S3697509
Student email: b.d.j.van.gils@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. A. Schumacher
Management Summary
“The best surprise is no surprise” – Holiday Inn slogan. In the 1970s, Holiday Inn chose this slogan to emphasize that they offer consistent quality across their properties and as a way to highlight that guests would not be surprised or experience any challenges or obstacles (D’Aveni 2010; Grady and Ohlin 2009). This way people knew precisely what to expect when they chose to stay at the Holiday Inn. Nevertheless, other companies still use countless surprises in their campaigns or products, but how do consumers truly respond to the mere anticipation of surprise? This research paper aims to provide managers and marketers with insights into how individuals respond to anticipating a surprise and what influence this has on their actual consumption behavior. More specifically, the focus is on surprise labels, which resemble that a surprise may come but where no surprise has actually occurred. Additionally, I focus on evaluating if individual differences in need for cognitive closure impacts the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption levels. A questionnaire was conducted in order to examine these proposed relationships.
Although responses to surprise and product incongruities and their influence on choice has been a topic that has been vastly studied in research, little is known about the impact of anticipated surprise on actual behavior. An important part of dealing with surprise and product incongruities is the ability to make sense and give meaning to inconsistencies that may arise. Thus, it is important for managers and marketers to take this into account when developing campaigns or bringing new products onto the market.
Preface
This thesis is the final component that needs to be fulfilled before obtaining a MSc in Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. The chosen thesis topic corresponds with my interest in marketing and psychology, and it was a great topic to expand and challenge my knowledge in this area.
What an experience this whole process was, an experience that was not always easy. Foremost, I was often challenged with finding the right way to approach all the different content and connecting the right dots. Also, I did not expect that the last phase of obtaining my diploma would be spent in the comfort of my own home. Nevertheless, it was a great learning experience that has taught me a lot about myself and especially, my resilience and hard-working character.
Table of Contents
Management Summary ... 2
Preface... 4
1. Introduction ... 7
2. Theoretical Framework ... 10
2.1 Meaning and Meaning Violations ... 10
2.2 Anticipated Surprise as a Prospective Violation of Meaning ... 11
2.3 Nonconscious Threat Response and Avoidance Behaviors ... 14
2.4 Anticipated Surprise and Consumption ... 15
2.5 Moderating Role of NFCC... 17
3. Research Design... 20
3.1 Method ... 20
3.1.1 Participants and Design... 20
3.1.2 Procedure and Measures ... 21
4. Results ... 23
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ... 23
4.2 Difference Regular and Bonus Label ... 24
4.3 Testing for Interaction Effect between Anticipated Surprise and NFCC ... 26
4.4 Extending the Moderating Effect to the NFCC Subdimensions ... 27
5. Discussion ... 30
5.1 Theoretical Implications ... 30
5.2 Managerial Implications ... 31
5.3 Limitations ... 31
5.4 Directions for Future Research ... 32
6. Conclusion ... 34
References ... 35
Appendices ... 40
Appendix A – Output: Box Plot and Extreme Values ... 40
Appendix B – Chi-Square Test: Label Distribution ... 41
Appendix C – Label Manipulation ... 42
Appendix D – Hot Air Balloons Photograph Example ... 43
Appendix E – NFCC Scale ... 44
Appendix G – Normal Distribution Assumption ANOVA... 46
Appendix H – Log-Transformed Normal Distribution ... 47
Appendix I – Output: ANOVA and Post-Hoc Comparison – Regular vs. Bonus vs. Surprise 48 Appendix J – Output: Hayes Process Macro – NFCC ... 50
Appendix K – Output: Hayes – Subdimension NFCC: Closed-Mindedness ... 52
Appendix L – Output: Hayes – Subdimension NFCC: Predictability ... 54
1. Introduction
Unexpected events occur on a daily basis. Especially if these unexpected situations are novel, this increases the level of surprise and uncertainty (Mendes et al. 2007). Hence, uncertainty plays a dominating role in our lives. Ironically, one of the few things we can be certain about in our lives is the occurrence of unexpected events (i.e., ‘expect the unexpected’; Hulse et al. 2016). Companies today are often incorporating unexpected elements and surprise ‘labels’ to their campaigns (e.g., Mastercard “Priceless Surprises” campaign), products and/or services. This is done not only to retain or gain the attention of consumers but also for companies to show they will exceed consumer expectations (Lindgreen and Vanhamme 2003; Vanhamme 2000).
Research shows that individuals often seem to believe that they prefer choosing experiences that have some element of surprise because it decreases boredom and increases excitement (Gupta, Eilert, and Gentry 2018; Wadhwa et al. 2019). Wadhwa et al. (2019) demonstrate that when products are framed to have an unintended benefit, desire to choose these products increases. Moreover, in the ‘haute cuisine’ food domain, there is an increase in demand for surprising elements and variety in menus. However, it was demonstrated that when individuals were confronted with food that is unfamiliar (vs. familiar), the actual behavior of consumers shows they end up choosing the familiar (Mielby and Frøst 2010). This suggests there is inconsistency between what individuals believe they desire and what actual behavior shows once confronted with a surprising element. Moreover, the actual behavior indicates a desire for certainty and familiarity.
Oftentimes, unexpected elements and surprise labels – although positive – may at first glance be perceived negatively (Noordewier, Topolinski, and Van Dijk 2016). This is due to the interruption element associated with the word ‘surprise’. Moreover, literature states that at the core of surprise and unexpectedness is the concept of ‘expectations’ (Kim and Mattila 2010). We have expectations that help guide us to make certain predictions for the future. However, when we experience inconsistencies in our expectations, we encounter meaning violations (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). As surprise is a schema-discrepant event, a surprise label will suggest a meaning violation will take place (Gerten and Topolinski 2019; Mendes et al. 2007; Schumacher, Goukens, and Geyskens 2020).
This is because individuals will predominantly start to focus on making sense of the surprising or unexpected information by increasing demands and working memory capacity (Foster and Keane 2015; Mendes et al. 2007). A large part of literature emphasizes that individuals have a need to establish meaning and to restore this meaning when it has been violated. Meaning allows us to make sense of our surroundings (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). When we encounter meaning violations, we have different meaning frameworks and sense-making processes that individuals use (un)consciously in order to restore their meaning (Heine, Proulx, and Vohs 2006; Proulx and Inzlicht 2012; San Martín, Jacobs, and Vervliet 2020).
However, it is unclear how prospective meaning violations impact consumption behavior. As previously mentioned, in this paper, the surprise label signals a meaning violation may take place in the foreseeable future. Research shows that when a stimulus is approaching in time – in this case the anticipated surprise during the consumption experience – we perceive this as negative (Hsee et al. 2014). It has been found in literature that when a meaning violation occurs this triggers a nonconscious threat response, which manifests itself in anxiety (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012; Taylor and Noseworthy 2020). It is expected that even a prospective meaning violation triggers this nonconscious threat response. This is because individuals will experience the prospective surprise as a threat because of the associated uncertainty and unpredictability. This threat response is particularly evident when individuals cannot make sense of the surprising element (Noordewier, Topolinski, and Van Dijk 2016; Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). As, individuals cannot make sense of what will come, individuals remain in a state of uncertainty and anxiety. To avoid the potential negative consequences, avoidance behaviors are elicited, and individuals quickly disengage from the consumption experience at hand (Hsee et al. 2014; Loewenstein et al. 2001).
Van Hiel 2008; Wronska et al. 2019). Therefore, I predict that individuals high (but not low) in NFCC will quickly disengage from the consumption experience when presented with a surprise label in order to reduce the associated uncertainty and discomfort.
In an attempt to understand individual response to anticipating a surprise in literature, this study aims to investigate the actual consumption behavior after individuals have been confronted with a surprise label. Thus, I propose that labels of surprise which signal a prospective meaning violation in a consumption experience triggers a nonconscious threat response, which ultimately lowers consumption levels. Moreover, I examine the moderating role of NFCC on this proposed relationship. As such, I study the impact of individual differences in NFCC on the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption levels.
To investigate whether surprise labels affect consumption, an experiment was conducted using a between-subjects design with the product labels manipulated. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: (1) surprise label; (2) regular label; and (3) bonus label. The bonus label control condition was added in order to rule out that the hypothesized effect merely occurred due to the additional word rather than the concept of surprise. Moreover, the moderator, NFCC, was measured.
The contribution I make to literature is through creating a deeper understanding of how surprise labels influence actual behavior. While previous literature has mainly focused on the effect of an actual surprise or incongruities on consumption choice (Gerten and Topolinski 2019; Gupta, Eilert, and Gentry 2018; Mendes et al. 2007; Mielby and Frøst 2010; Noseworthy, Murray, and Di Muro 2018; Taylor and Noseworthy 2020; Wadhwa et al. 2019), this research investigates how surprise labels – and the resulting mere anticipation of surprise – influence actual consumption. I propose that while surprise and unexpected benefits may initially increase desire and choice (Wadhwa et al. 2019), anticipated surprise may not engender high levels of actual consumption. Moreover, the knowledge gained from this research can be used to guide strategic initiatives for firms in terms of how they make use of unexpected elements in their marketing activities.
2. Theoretical Framework
In this section relevant literature on meaning, meaning violations, anticipated surprise, nonconscious threat response, and consumption is discussed. Moreover, the moderating role of NFCC is elaborated on. Based on the literature, I formulated two hypotheses and the conceptual framework is presented in figure 2.
2.1 Meaning and Meaning Violations
In a world filled with uncertainty and unpredictability, individuals have a need to create meaning of the events and experiences around them. As such, we often face situations which are filled with inconsistencies, and when this happens, we attempt to restore meaning (Tullett, Teper, and Inzlicht 2011). Meaning can be defined as “the expected relationships that allow us to make sense of our experiences” (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012, p. 317). It is the schemas we use to process and integrate information and these schemas set our expectations and predictions for the future (Gerten and Topolinski 2019). Moreover, the schema congruity effect implies that individuals actively seek to establish meaning (Taylor and Noseworthy 2020). This relies on individuals’ ability to resolve incongruities within their established set of beliefs. As such, successful evaluations of incongruent products largely depend on the ability to make sense of this incongruity (Noseworthy, Murray, and Di Muro 2018). When consumers have the ability to make sense of this incongruity their evaluations tend to be more favorable (Noseworthy, Murray, and Di Muro 2018; Taylor and Noseworthy 2020).
Moreover, it is the sense-making function that enables individuals to actually make sense of their experiences (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012; Wilson et al. 2005). This sense-making function allows us to understand our surroundings. Understanding appears in two forms: a sense of what is happening and a sense of why this is happening the way it is (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). These understandings lead to expectations, which allow individuals to predict and control their environment or themselves. As mentioned previously, meaning is about relationships and more precisely, it is about expected relationships (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). As such, meaning implies there need to be consistencies in the expected relationships around us. For example, we expect ketchup to be red and mayonnaise to be white.
which are to be internally consistent with their perceptions and allows for predictability and control (Heine, Proulx, and Vohs 2006; Townsend, Eliezer, and Major 2013). People want to establish certainty through creating meaning and do so through linking mental representations of expected relations (Heine, Proulx, and Vohs 2006). The phenomenon that is at the core of the MMM surrounds how individuals respond to the violations in their meaning frameworks and their ability to restore the familiarity of these experiences (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). Meaning violations are the inconsistencies in the expectations individuals experience following from their understanding (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). In reference to the aforementioned example, if ketchup were to be green and mayonnaise black, we encounter inconsistencies in our expectations. These contradictions in our understanding feel unfamiliar and lead us to experience a meaning violation (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). These discrepancies are predominantly present in expectancy-violating information. When individuals’ expectations are violated, it may disrupt their ability to predict and may result in uncertainty (Mendes et al. 2007). As such, there may be meaning threats or meaning violations which establish inconsistencies between our expectations and observations and in turn, create a feeling of anxiousness and uncertainty (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012; Tullett, Teper, and Inzlicht 2011).
2.2 Anticipated Surprise as a Prospective Violation of Meaning
Figure 1: Aspects of Unexpected (vs. Expected) Events (Geraldi, Lee-Kelley, and Kutsch 2010)
make sense of these events, and ultimately, adapt to what is happening around them. Moreover, when meaning or these expected relationships are challenged, the MMM suggests that individuals can resort to five different responses of which some are unconscious and some conscious: “assimilation, accommodation, affirmation, abstraction, and assembly” (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012, p. 318). This suggests that in order to go back to the familiar we need to retain, restore, return, identify and create familiarity.
However, when individuals are confronted with a surprise label, they expect that a meaning violation will take place (Schumacher, Goukens, and Geyskens 2020). More specifically, no actual violation of meaning has occurred yet. The fact that this is a prospective meaning violation, suggests that there is nothing to make sense of yet, because the source of the surprise is unknown. Research shows that merely contemplating whether expectations will be contradicted can cause us to end up in a state of aversive arousal (Proulx and Inzlicht 2012). Proulx and Inzlicht (2012) state that aversive arousal can occur even in situations where expectations cannot be entirely formed. This suggests that the anticipation of a meaning violation alone can trigger a nonconscious threat response. In the case of anticipated surprise, individuals cannot set expectations other than the expectation that a surprise may take place in the foreseeable future. However, individuals cannot make sense of what will come, and this causes individuals to remain in a state of uncertainty and anxiety.
2.3 Nonconscious Threat Response and Avoidance Behaviors
Considering the dependence individuals place on meaning frameworks, experiencing incongruity is problematic (Randles, Proulx, and Heine 2011). Taylor and Noseworthy (2020) state that anxiety is provoked when individuals are unable to make sense of incongruent products. Therefore, when individuals cannot make sense of what is happening, and cannot understand the what or why of their experiences, there will be psychological and physiological discomfort in the form of a nonconscious threat response (McGregor, Prentice, and Nash 2012; Proulx and Inzlicht 2012; Townsend, Eliezer, and Major 2013). Mendes et al. (2007) suggest that people make use of nonverbal responses to threat states. As such, people may take an avoidance stance which means individuals have a closed body posture and turn away from the stimulus they perceive as threatening. Furthermore, confrontation with a threat or novel stimulus may cause motoric freezing. When individuals freeze, this will disrupt the ongoing activity performed.
turn away and thus, disengage from the stimulus to not cause further increase in our state of uncertainty.
2.4 Anticipated Surprise and Consumption
During choice making, consumer behavior is often shaped by desire and optimism. This is primarily because people have a tendency to be overoptimistic about a future outcome which derives from their desire for that outcome (Krizan and Windschitl 2007). Moreover, research has shown that once consumers are given a choice where a hedonic product was framed to have an unexpected benefit, individuals’ desire for this product increases because they anticipate there to be additional unexpected benefits (Wadhwa et al. 2019). The anticipation for additional unexpected benefits may be perceived by individuals as pleasant, which increases positive evaluation of the given product (Wadhwa et al. 2019).
and associated uncertainty. When people experience risk they often start to rely on affective reactions, which then tend to dominate cognitive evaluations (Loewenstein et al. 2001). Risk-as-feelings suggests individuals’ “emotions often produce behavioral responses that depart from what individuals view as the best course of action” (Loewenstein et al. 2001, p. 271). As such, individuals use their emotions to make distinctions in approach or avoidance behaviors. As there is no going back in actual consumption, disengagement aids in the prevention of possible negative events (Loewenstein et al. 2001). During a consumption experience, the fact that a surprise is coming closer in time and moving towards us influences our motivational approach-avoidance reactions (Hsee et al. 2014). Even though the valence of this stimulus is technically unknown, the associated uncertainty is threatening. The approaching and thus, nearing of a potential negative stimulus – in this case the anticipated surprise – increases the likelihood that individuals will avoid and thus, disengage from this stimulus (Hsee et al. 2014).
To summarize, literature suggests that when individuals are confronted with a surprise, they experience a meaning violation and will make use of sense-making processes to restore their sense of meaning. However, in this case the surprise label suggests a prospective violation of meaning. This means no actual meaning violation has yet occurred. Nevertheless, the anticipation alone brings uncertainty and leads individuals to experience a nonconscious threat response, which manifests itself in anxiety. Consequently, the provoked anxiety of the potential negative approaching stimulus elicits avoidance behaviors and disengagement. As such, people will want to avoid the potential negative consequences, and this will have an impact on individuals’ consumption levels.
Therefore, I predict that even when individuals anticipate for a surprise to occur, which is induced by a surprise label (vs. regular label and bonus label), they will experience a nonconscious threat response, which will decrease their consumption levels.
H1: Individuals who anticipate a surprise (surprise label condition) will display lower levels of
2.5 Moderating Role of NFCC
“Why do some people like to come up with multiple possibilities, whereas others stick to the first solution that comes to their mind?” (Wronska et al. 2019, p. 172). The answer to this question is concerned with the motivational concept of NFCC (Kruglanski 1989). NFCC can be defined as a strong desire for a definite answer or solution to a question and is characterized by an aversion to uncertainty (Kruglanski 1989; Roets et al. 2015). The individual differences in response to uncertainty is the starting point of NFCC (Roets and Van Hiel 2008). There are two tendencies that underlie the construct of NFCC: the urgency tendency, which suggests those with a strong NFCC tend to ‘seize’ on fluent and easily processed information and the permanency tendency, which suggests that high NFCC individuals who have made a judgement then tend to ‘freeze’ on this judgement (Kosic 2002; Schumpe et al. 2017; Wu, Shah, and Kardes 2020). NFCC manifests itself in five ways: preference for order (i.e., avoiding disorder), preference for predictability (i.e., need for consistency/stability), discomfort with ambiguity (i.e., avoiding confusion), closed-mindedness (i.e., unwillingness to have their knowledge challenged) and decisiveness (i.e., quick decisions and avoiding indecision; Calogero, Bardi, and Sutton 2009; Kruglanski 1989; Roets et al. 2015; Roets and Van Hiel 2011).
is conflicting (Baker and Anderman 2020; Sankaran et al. 2017; Wronska et al. 2019). As such, when understanding and predictability of a certain situation is challenged due to inconsistencies and the absence of closure deviates from the desired state, individuals with a high NFCC will experience a strong discomfort (Doherty 1998; Kashima et al. 2017; Kruglanski 1989; Roets et al. 2015; Roets and Van Hiel 2008; Wronska et al. 2019). For example, Roets and Van Hiel (2008) show that in the absence of a solution, those high in NFCC experienced increased stress levels. Moreover, in a study conducted by Wronska et al. (2019), they found that people with a high NFCC felt less competent and experienced more negative emotions in tasks that did not give these individuals the opportunity to reach closure. Furthermore, Taylor and Noseworthy (2020), imply that especially people with a high NFCC have a strong sense-making impulse.
To my knowledge the effect of individual differences in NFCC has not been tested in the context of surprise labels. The prospective meaning violation associated with an anticipated surprise causes challenges for individuals high in NFCC, because the anticipation alone is uncertain, unpredictable and suggests their meaning and understanding will be challenged. Moreover, in the case of anticipated surprise, there is nothing to make sense of yet. Consequently, the desired certainty is threatened for high NFCC individuals. The inability to find a solution for a potential meaning violation causes these individuals to experience stress and negative emotions. To avoid these feelings, it is expected that people will disengage from the consumption experience at hand. As such, I predict that when those high in NFCC (but not low) are confronted with a surprise label, they will quickly disengage from the consumption experience because their intolerance towards uncertainty. However, in the control conditions (i.e., regular label and bonus label), I expect that individual differences in NFCC will not influence consumption levels.
H2: Individuals’ NFCC moderates the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption
such that individuals high (but not low) in NFCC will show significantly lower consumption levels when confronted by a surprise label than when confronted with a regular/bonus label.
more information to reduce uncertainty and reach the desired closure (Roets et al. 2015). As mentioned previously, those with a high NFCC have a strong sense-making impulse (Taylor and Noseworthy 2020). This could suggest that even though there is nothing to make sense of, it may be that those individuals with high NFCC will have higher consumption levels because they wait for more information to advance the sense-making process.
H2alt: Individuals’ NFCC moderates the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption
such that individuals high (but not low) in NFCC will show higher consumption levels when confronted with the surprise label than when confronted with a regular/bonus label.
3. Research Design
To examine the prediction that anticipated surprise will result in lower consumption levels and that NFCC will moderate this relationship, an appropriate research design must be set up and meaningful data must be collected. This section elaborates on the participants, design, procedure and measures.
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants and Design
Three hundred fifty four participants were recruited through personal networks and social platforms by using two non-probability sampling techniques, convenience and snowballing (Malhotra 2009). To encourage participation, participants had the opportunity to partake in a draw for a €10 Bol.com voucher. Prior to conducting the analyses, 25 participants were excluded that failed the attention checks, one participant was excluded that experienced technical issues and four participants were deemed as outliers. To examine for outliers, a box plot was generated, and this was compared to the extreme values (see appendix A), between the independent variable, anticipated surprise (coded: regular label = 0, surprise label = 1, and bonus label = 2), and the dependent variable, consumption. Participants were excluded when the extreme values were three standard deviations away from the mean consumption value (Meyvis and Van Osselaer 2018). When considering all the participants that were excluded, 11respondents were excluded from the regular label condition, 11 respondents from the surprise label condition, and eight respondents from the bonus label condition. As a consequence, 30 respondents were excluded from the data set, leaving a sample of 324 participants (53% female; Mage = 29.37, SD = 11.32). To ensure the
population was equally distributed among all three conditions, a Chi-Square test indicated there was no significant difference in distribution if all participants were included (2 = .22, df = 2, p =
.896), in comparison to when the 30 participants were excluded (2 = .24, df = 2, p = .887; see
appendix B).
one of the three conditions (Aronson, Wilson, and Brewer 1998). The bonus label condition is included to rule out that the effect which may occur in the surprise label condition was due to the additional word ‘surprise’. It is expected that the results obtained from the bonus label condition will not differ from the regular label condition.
3.1.2 Procedure and Measures
The Qualtrics generated questionnaire was distributed to participants online to fill in on their computer. In the introduction, participants read that the questionnaire could only be conducted on a computer and not on their mobile devices or tablets, or they would be excluded from the study. This was because these devices could have an impact on how the questionnaire would be displayed. Moreover, all participants read that they would be completing a study about the evaluation of photographs (i.e., cover story) and they were asked to carefully follow the instructions given to them.
Each condition was composed of a different label manipulation (see appendix C). In the surprise label condition, participants were shown a ‘surprise photo album’ label. In the regular label condition, individuals received the ‘photo album’ label and in the bonus label condition, respondents saw the ‘bonus photo album’ label. Once participants were exposed to one of the labels for four seconds, they were given the ability to click the arrow to proceed. The only difference across the three conditions was that the participants saw a different label before viewing the photographs in the photo album. As such, all participants had the opportunity to see the same 24 hot air balloon photographs (see appendix D for an example). There was little variation between the photographs and hot air balloons were shown because they are typically perceived as nonthreatening and trigger positive affect. The photographs are nonthreatening to ensure that the participant does not feel the need to apply defensive/avoidance mechanisms (Ekehammar, Zuber, and Simonsson-Sarnecki 2002). This way I had the ability to establish that the effect was due to the label and not due to the photographs.
browsing or stopped browsing the photo album, they were directed to two questions regarding the enjoyment of browsing the photo album. This ensured there was a link to the cover story of why participants were conducting this questionnaire.
Afterwards, the moderator, individuals’ NFCC (a = .96), was measured. A validated self-reported 15-item scale was included, which is a revised version from the original 41-item scale (Appendix E; Kruglanski 1989; Roets and Van Hiel 2011). A 6-point Likert scale was used to evaluate this measure (1 = completely disagree; 6 = completely agree). An overall score was computed by taking the means of all items, where higher scores on the scale suggest that individuals have a high NFCC. Moreover, a separate composite score for each of the five subdimensions (i.e., preference for order, preference for predictability, discomfort with ambiguity, closed-mindedness, and decisiveness) was computed.
4. Results
Within this section, the results are presented. Descriptive statistics are summarized, and the proposed relationships are tested by applying the appropriate statistical methods. To extract meaningful and insightful information, SPSS IBM was used.
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
In order to ensure randomization was effective and individual differences were kept constant between the three conditions, a randomization check was conducted (see table 1). Consequently, the number of participants in each condition was evaluated by performing a Chi-Square test (see section 3.1.1). Moreover, a Chi-Square crosstabulation was performed to ensure gender was equally distributed among the different conditions (see appendix F). The results showed the proportion of males and females did not significantly differ across the three conditions (2 = 4.95,
df = 4, p = .293). As such, randomization between the conditions was successful.
Table 1: Condition Distribution
Condition Regular Label Surprise Label Bonus Label Total
Male 42 54 56 152
Female 62 57 52 171
Other 0 0 1 1
Distribution 104 111 109 324
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Y and W on X Y Consumption (seconds) W NFCC (scale from 1 to 6) Regular Label (X = 0) Mean SD 41.82 26.81 3.44 0.86 Surprise Label (X = 1) Mean SD 19.75 20.18 4.40 1.09 Bonus Label (X = 2) Mean SD 49.39 29.71 3.61 0.94 Mean SD 36.80 28.71 3.83 1.06
4.2 Difference Regular and Bonus Label
further analysis. This is because ANOVA is considered to be a robust method and tolerant to these two violations, especially if the sample size is reasonably large and distribution of the conditions is equal (see table 1; Field 2013; Schmider et al. 2010).
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the surprise label condition, bonus label condition, and regular label condition on consumption (see appendix I). There was a significant difference in the effect of the three different labels on consumption (F(2, 321) = 39.09, p = .000, np2 = .20). This suggests that the mean consumption value is different for the different categories of the independent variable. In order to evaluate which means are statically different, a post-hoc comparison test was conducted. A Games-Howell test was applied because it is an appropriate multiple comparison test when equal variances cannot be assumed (Jaccard, Becker, and Wood 1984). The Games-Howell test denotes that the mean score for the surprise label condition (M = 19.75, SD = 20.18) was significantly different from the regular label condition (p = .000, M = 41.82, SD = 26.81) and bonus label condition (p = .000, M = 49.39, SD = 29.71). An illustration of the mean consumption per condition can be found in figure 3. Consistent with the expectation, there was no significant difference between the regular label condition and bonus label condition (p = .127). As the bonus label does not differ from the regular label, it can be assumed that the observed effect of the surprise label cannot be attributed to the additional word ‘surprise’. Moreover, because the bonus and regular label condition do not differ these were pooled for subsequent analysis.
The results show that when individuals are presented with a surprise label, it will negatively affect their consumption levels (i.e., time spent browsing). As such, support is found for H1, suggesting individuals who anticipated a surprise displayed lower levels of consumption compared to those who did not anticipate a surprise.
4.3 Testing for Interaction Effect between Anticipated Surprise and NFCC
A moderation analysis was performed with consumption as dependent variable, anticipated surprise as independent variable, and NFCC as moderator. A simple moderation analysis was conducted using PROCESS SPSS macro (Hayes 2018; model 1; 10,000 bootstrapping samples; see appendix J). The model is statistically significant (F(3, 320) = 31.16, p = .000, R2 = .23),
Figure 4: Graphical Representation Interaction Effect Label * NFCC
4.4 Extending the Moderating Effect to the NFCC Subdimensions
Roets and Van Hiel (2011) state that NFCC can be expressed in five ways. As these five subdimensions reflect various underlying motivations of NFCC, it is interesting to investigate if these different subdimensions moderate the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption. As such, a simple moderation analysis was performed for each of the five subdimensions using PROCESS SPSS macro (Hayes 2018; model 1; 10,000 bootstrapping samples).
For the subdimension closed-mindedness, the model is statistically significant (F(3, 320) = 31.79, p = .000, R2 = .23), suggesting further results can be interpreted (see appendix K). Further
individual differences in closed-mindedness did not have an impact on consumption levels, when individuals were confronted with a regular/bonus label.
Figure 5: Graphical Representation Interaction Effect Label * Closed-mindedness
Moreover, for the subdimension preference for predictability, the model is also statistically significant (F(3, 320) = 29.99, p = .000, R2 = .22), suggesting further results can be interpreted
Figure 6: Graphical Representation Interaction Effect Label * Predictability
5. Discussion
This paper examines the actual consumption behavior after individuals have been confronted with a surprise label and thus, anticipated a surprise during consumption. Additionally, it investigates if NFCC moderates the relationship of anticipated surprise on consumption. As such, two hypotheses were tested. The initial results of the experiment demonstrate that surprise labels, compared to regular and bonus labels, decrease the consumption levels of individuals. This can be explained by the fact that surprise labels suggest a schema-discrepant event may occur and as such, individuals expect a meaning violation to take place (Gerten and Topolinski 2019; Mendes et al. 2007; Schumacher, Goukens, and Geyskens 2020). Although the schema-discrepant event has not occurred yet, there is this so-called ‘looming’ threat, meaning the threat of the event occurring is coming closer (Haikal and Hong 2010). Thus, when individuals anticipate a surprise, a nonconscious threat response is elicited, which manifests itself in anxiety and triggers avoidance behaviors.
Furthermore, it is shown that NFCC somewhat moderates the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption. The conducted experiment reveals that those individuals high (but not low) in NFCC had lower consumption levels when confronted with the surprise label compared to the regular/bonus label. This is likely to have occurred because those with a high NFCC are aversive and intolerant to feelings of uncertainty (Roets et al. 2015; Roets and Van Hiel 2008). Moreover, after separate analyses of the five subdimensions of NFCC, it was revealed that the two subdimensions, preference for predictability and closed-mindedness significantly moderate the relationship between anticipated surprise and consumption. An explanation for the significant moderating effect of only these two subdimensions can be established by linking the meaning of anticipated surprise to the meaning of these subdimensions.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
that confrontation with surprise labels and thus, anticipating a surprise to take place do not contribute to high levels of actual consumption. Moreover, by adding a bonus label condition, this study clearly demonstrates that the proposed relationship of anticipated surprise on consumption can be attributed to the concept of surprise. Additionally, this study shows individual differences in NFCC are highly relevant in the context of anticipated surprise and actual consumption. Although, it could be suggested that those with high NFCC may take more time to make meaning when they are in uncertain situations (Roets et al. 2015; Taylor and Noseworthy 2020), this paper clearly established that high (but not low) NFCC individuals will display lower levels of consumption when anticipating a surprise. Furthermore, this paper shows that preference for predictability and closed-mindedness are important subdimensions of NFCC that need to be considered in the context of anticipated surprise.
5.2 Managerial Implications
This paper makes important practical and managerial contributions. This study illustrates that surprise labels can have negative consequences in the actual consumption experience of customers. As such, it is essential that marketers are extremely careful in using surprise labels when marketing their products. It is essential that the surprise label given to a particular product matches the expectations of the customer and allows the customer to give meaning to it. If this is not the case, it may initially result in more purchases, but customers may not return for additional purchases after the consumption experience has occurred. Moreover, it is important for marketers to consider that when they are confronting individuals who score high on preference for predictability and closed-mindedness with a surprise label, that this can negatively influence the actual consumption levels. As such, it is necessary for marketers to offer ways that expectations and meaning can be established. Therefore, transparency and communication are extremely important when targeting these types of individuals. For example, a restaurant can give insights into the surprise menu items beforehand. This way these consumers are able to predict what is to come and do not feel their knowledge is being challenged.
5.3 Limitations
because those high in trait-anxiety already are more anxious individuals, which suggests that when they experience threatening situations, they may experience these even more intensive (Spielberger et al. 1983). As such, it may have been that those high in trait anxiety experienced the surprise label as even more intensive and could have resulted in even lower consumption levels. Second, as this study only focused on one experiment, it was not possible to rule out the disappointment theory (see Bell 1985). For example, it may be that participants had set expectations when clicking through the photographs in the ‘surprise photo album’. However, based on the disappointment theory, it may have been that because no actual surprise occurred, individuals were simply disappointed because it did not match prior set expectations and therefore, disengaged earlier from the consumption experience. Third, there is quite some debate surrounding the topic of assumptions that should be met in order to conduct an ANOVA. On the one hand, research has shown ANOVA to be a robust method and tolerant to violations of normality and homogeneity of variances (Field 2013; Schmider et al. 2010). On the other hand, literature also points to consequences of using ANOVA when these assumptions have been violated (Field 2013; Hoekstra, Kiers, and Johnson 2012; Lix, Keselman, and Keselman 1996). As such, as ANOVA is still performed in the analyses, it must be considered that this could have potentially influenced the validity of the results.
5.4 Directions for Future Research
6. Conclusion
References
Ajzen, Icek (1991), “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.
Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Marilynn B. Brewer (1998), “Experimentation in Social Psychology,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, 99–142. Baker, Amanda R. and Lynley H. Anderman (2020), “Are epistemic beliefs and motivation associated with belief revision among postsecondary service-learning participants?,” Learning and Individual Differences, 78, 101843.
Bell, David E. (1985), “Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty,” Operations Research, 33 (1), 1–27.
Bidart, Claire (2019), “How plans change: Anticipation, interferences and unpredictabilities,” Advances in Life Course Research, 41, 100254.
Bublatzky, Florian, Georg W. Alpers, and Andre Pittig (2017), “From avoidance to approach: The influence of threat-of-shock on reward-based decision making,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, 96, 47–56.
Calogero, Rachel M., Anat Bardi, and Robbie M. Sutton (2009), “A need basis for values: Associations between the need for cognitive closure and value priorities,” Personality and Individual Differences, 46 (2), 154–59.
Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2015), “A Sign of Things to Come: Behavioral Change through Dynamic Iconography,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1426– 46.
D’Aveni, Richard (2010), “How to escape the differentiation proliferation trap,” Strategy & Leadership, 38 (3), 44–49.
Di Santo, Daniela, Marina Chernikova, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Antonio Pierro (2020), “Does inconsistency always lead to negative affect? The influence of need for closure on affective reactions to cognitive inconsistency,” International Journal of Psychology, ijop.12652.
Doherty, Kathleen T. (1998), “A Mind of Her Own: Effects of Need for Closure and Gender on Reactions to Nonconformity,” Sex Roles, 38 (9/10), 801–19.
Ekehammar, Bo, Irena Zuber, and Margareta Simonsson-Sarnecki (2002), “The Defence Mechanism Test (DMT) revisited: experimental validation using threatening and non-threatening pictures,” European Journal of Personality, 16 (4), 283–94.
Field, Andy P. (2013), Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: and sex and drugs and rock “n” roll, Los Angeles: Sage.
Foster, Meadhbh I. and Mark T. Keane (2015), “Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty,” Cognitive
Psychology, 81, 74–116.
Gawrysiak, Michael J., Shirley H. Leong, Stevie N. Grassetti, Mara Wai, Ryan C. Shorey, and Michael J. Baime (2016), “Dimensions of distress tolerance and the moderating effects on mindfulness-based stress reduction,” Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29 (5), 552–60. Geraldi, Joana G., Liz Lee-Kelley, and Elmar Kutsch (2010), “The Titanic sunk, so what?
Project manager response to unexpected events,” International Journal of Project Management, 28 (6), 547–58.
Grady, John and Jane Boyd Ohlin (2009), “Equal access to hospitality services for guests with mobility impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Implications for the hospitality industry,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28 (1), 161–69. Gupta, Aditya, Meike Eilert, and James W. Gentry (2018), “Can I surprise myself? A conceptual
framework of surprise self-gifting among consumers,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, S0969698918302546.
Haikal, Muhammad and Ryan Y. Hong (2010), “The effects of social evaluation and looming threat on self-attentional biases and social anxiety,” Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24 (3), 345–52.
Han, DaHee, Adam Duhachek, and Derek D. Rucker (2015), “Distinct threats, common remedies: How consumers cope with psychological threat,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (4), 531–45.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, Methodology in the social sciences, New York: Guilford Press.
Heine, Steven J., Travis Proulx, and Katheleen D. Vohs (2006), “The Meaning Maintenance Model: On the Coherence of Social Motivations,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2), 88–110.
Hoekstra, Rink, Henk Kiers, and Addie Johnson (2012), “Are Assumptions of Well-Known Statistical Techniques Checked, and Why (Not)?,” Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
Howell, David C. (2013), Statistical methods for psychology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Hsee, Christopher K., Yanping Tu, Zoe Y. Lu, and Bowen Ruan (2014), “Approach aversion: Negative hedonic reactions toward approaching stimuli.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106 (5), 699–712.
Hulse, David, Allan Branscomb, Chris Enright, Bart Johnson, Cody Evers, John Bolte, and Alan Ager (2016), “Anticipating surprise: Using agent-based alternative futures simulation modeling to identify and map surprising fires in the Willamette Valley, Oregon USA,” Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 26–43.
Jaccard, James, Michael A. Becker, and Gregory Wood (1984), “Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: A review.,” Psychological Bulletin, 96 (3), 589–96.
Kashima, Emiko S., Theresa Greiner, Giovanni Sadewo, Sutarimah Ampuni, Linah Helou, Vinh An Nguyen, Ben Chun Pan Lam, and Kai Kaspar (2017), “Open- and closed-mindedness in cross-cultural adaptation: The roles of mindfulness and need for cognitive closure,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 59, 31–42.
Kim, Min Gyung and Anna S. Mattila (2010), “The impact of mood states and surprise cues on satisfaction,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29 (3), 432–36.
Kosic, Ankica (2002), “Need for cognitive closure and coping strategies,” International Journal of Psychology, 37 (1), 35–43.
Krizan, Zlatan and Paul D. Windschitl (2007), “The influence of outcome desirability on optimism.,” Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 95–121.
Kruglanski, Arie W. (1989), Perspectives in Social Psychology. Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge Cognitive and Motivational Bases., New York: Plenum Press.
Lindgreen, Adam and Joëlle Vanhamme (2003), “To Surprise or Not To Surprise Your
Customer: The Use of Surprise as a Marketing Tool,” Journal of Customer Behavior, 2 (2), 219–42.
Lix, Lisa M., Joanne C. Keselman, and H. J. Keselman (1996), “Consequences of Assumption Violations Revisited: A Quantitative Review of Alternatives to the One-Way Analysis of Variance ‘F’ Test,” Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 579.
Loewenstein, George F., Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee, and Ned Welch (2001), “Risk as feelings.,” Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 267–86.
Lowe, Michael L, Katherine E Loveland, and Aradhna Krishna (2019), “A Quiet Disquiet: Anxiety and Risk Avoidance due to Nonconscious Auditory Priming,” Journal of Consumer Research, (E. Fischer, A. Kirmani, and A. C. Morales, eds.), 46 (1), 159–79. Malhotra, Naresh K. (2009), Marketing research: an applied orientation, Boston Amsterdam
Dubai: Pearson.
McGregor, Ian, Mike Prentice, and Kyle Nash (2012), “Approaching Relief: Compensatory Ideals Relieve Threat-Induced Anxiety by Promoting Approach-Motivated States,” Social Cognition, 30 (6), 689–714.
Mendes, Wendy Berry, Jim Blascovich, Sarah B. Hunter, Brian Lickel, and John T. Jost (2007), “Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 698–716.
Meyvis, Tom and Stijn M J Van Osselaer (2018), “Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size,” Journal of Consumer Research, (D. Darren, E. Fischer, G. Johar, and V. Morwitz, eds.), 44 (5), 1157–73.
Mielby, Line Holler and Michael Bom Frøst (2010), “Expectations and surprise in a molecular gastronomic meal,” Food Quality and Preference, 21 (2), 213–24.
Noordewier, Marret K. and Seger M. Breugelmans (2013), “On the valence of surprise,” Cognition & Emotion, 27 (7), 1326–34.
———, Sascha Topolinski, and Eric Van Dijk (2016), “The Temporal Dynamics of Surprise: The Temporal Dynamics of Surprise,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10 (3), 136–49.
Noseworthy, Theodore J, Kyle B Murray, and Fabrizio Di Muro (2018), “When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, (G. Johar and P. Moreau, eds.), 44 (6), 1379–96.
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (2009), “Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.
Pittig, Andre, Alex H.K. Wong, Valentina M. Glück, and Juliane M. Boschet (2020), “Avoidance and its bi-directional relationship with conditioned fear: Mechanisms, moderators, and clinical implications,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, 126, 103550. Proulx, Travis and Michael Inzlicht (2012), “The Five ‘A’s of Meaning Maintenance: Finding
Meaning in the Theories of Sense-Making,” Psychological Inquiry, 23 (4), 317–35. Randles, Daniel, Travis Proulx, and Steven J. Heine (2011), “Turn-frogs and careful-sweaters:
Raykos, Bronwyn C., Susan M. Byrne, and Hunna Watson (2009), “Confirmatory and
exploratory factor analysis of the distress tolerance scale (DTS) in a clinical sample of eating disorder patients,” Eating Behaviors, 10 (4), 215–19.
Reisenzein, Rainer, Gernot Horstmann, and Achim Schützwohl (2019), “The Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence,” Topics in Cognitive Science, 11 (1), 50–74.
Roets, Arne, Arie W. Kruglanski, Malgorzata Kossowska, Antonio Pierro, and Ying-yi Hong (2015), “The Motivated Gatekeeper of Our Minds,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier, 221–83.
——— and Alain Van Hiel (2008), “Why Some Hate to Dilly-Dally and Others Do Not: The Arousal-Invoking Capacity of Decision-Making for Low- and High-Scoring Need for Closure Individuals,” Social Cognition, 26 (3), 333–46.
——— and ——— (2011), “Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale,” Personality and Individual Differences, 50 (1), 90–94. Rosen, Dana, Rebecca B. Price, and Jennifer S. Silk (2019), “An integrative review of the
vigilance-avoidance model in pediatric anxiety disorders: Are we looking in the wrong place?,” Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 64, 79–89.
San Martín, Consuelo, Bart Jacobs, and Bram Vervliet (2020), “Further characterization of relief dynamics in the conditioning and generalization of avoidance: Effects of distress
tolerance and intolerance of uncertainty,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, 124, 103526.
Sankaran, Sindhuja, Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska, Agnieszka Strojny, Pawel Strojny, and Malgorzata Kossowska (2017), “Rising up to the ‘challenge’? The role of need for closure and situational appraisals in creative performance,” Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 136–45.
Schmider, Emanuel, Matthias Ziegler, Erik Danay, Luzi Beyer, and Markus Bühner (2010), “Is It Really Robust?: Reinvestigating the Robustness of ANOVA Against Violations of the Normal Distribution Assumption,” Methodology, 6 (4), 147–51.
Schumacher, Anika, Caroline Goukens, and Kelly Geyskens (2020), “Surprise labels increase indulgent food portion size choice,” Food Quality and Preference, 83, 103919. Schumpe, Birga M., Ambra Brizi, Mauro Giacomantonio, Angelo Panno, Catalina Kopetz,
Matilda Kosta, and Lucia Mannetti (2017), “Need for Cognitive Closure decreases risk taking and motivates discounting of delayed rewards,” Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 66–71.
Spielberger, Charles D., R.L. Gorsuch, R. Lushene, P.R. Vagg, and G.A. Jacobs (1983), “State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Aduals: Sampler Set. Manual, Instrument and Scoring Guide.,” Consulting Psychology Press, 1–70.
Taylor, Nükhet and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2020), “Compensating for Innovation: Extreme Product Incongruity Encourages Consumers to Affirm Unrelated Consumption
Schemas,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1), 77–95.
Townsend, Sarah S. M., Dina Eliezer, and Brenda Major (2013), “The embodiment of meaning violations.,” in The psychology of meaning., K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, and M. J. Lindberg, eds., Washington: American Psychological Association, 381–400.
Vanhamme, Joëlle (2000), “The Link Between Surprise and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research on how best to Measure Surprise,” Journal of Marketing Management, 16 (6), 565–82.
Wadhwa, Monica, Jeehye Christine Kim, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Wenbo Wang (2019), “Unexpected-Framing Effect: Impact of Framing a Product Benefit as Unexpected on Product Desire,” Journal of Consumer Research, (V. G. Morwitz, L. L. Price, and C. Janiszewski, eds.), 46 (2), 223–45.
Wilson, Timothy D., David B. Centerbar, Deborah A. Kermer, and Daniel T. Gilbert (2005), “The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 5–21.
Wronska, Marta K., Aleksandra Bujacz, Małgorzata A. Gocłowska, Eric F. Rietzschel, and Bernard A. Nijstad (2019), “Person-task fit: Emotional consequences of performing divergent versus convergent thinking tasks depend on need for cognitive closure,” Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 172–78.
Wu, Ruomeng, Esta D. Shah, and Frank R. Kardes (2020), “‘The struggle isn’t real’: How need for cognitive closure moderates inferences from disfluency,” Journal of Business Research, 109, 585–94.
Appendices
Appendix A – Output: Box Plot and Extreme Values
Calculation Outliers = M + (3 * SD)
Regular label: M = 44.06 and SD = 35.21 44.06 + (3 * 35.21) = 149.69
Surprise label: M = 22.89 and SD = 27.69 22.89 + (3 * 27.69) = 105.96
Appendix B – Chi-Square Test: Label Distribution All participants included:
Appendix E – NFCC Scale A NFCC items: 1 5 4 5 2 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 1 5 2 2 1 5 4 4 4 1 1 5 1 4 5 4 5 2 1
I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential for success.
Even after I’ve made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion. R
I don’t like situations that are uncertain.
I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways.
I like to have friends who are unpredictable. R
I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament.
When dining out, I like to go to places where I have been before so that I know what to expect.
I feel uncomfortable when I don’t understand the reason why an event occurred in my life. I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes.
I hate to change my plans at the last minute.
I don’t like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it. When I have made a decision, I feel relieved.
When I am confronted with a problem, I’m dying to reach a solution very quickly.
When I am confused about an important issue, I feel very upset.
I would quickly become impatient and irritated if I would not find a solution to a problem immediately.
I would rather make a decision quickly than sleep over it.
Even if I get a lot of time to make a decision, I still feel compelled to decide quickly. I think it is fun to change my plans at the last moment. R
I enjoy the uncertainty of going into a new situation without knowing what might happen. R My personal space is usually messy and disorganized. R
In most social conflict, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong. I almost always feel hurried to make a decision, when there is no reason to do so.
I believe that orderliness and organization are among the most important characteristics of a good student. When considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides could be right. R
I don’t like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions.
I prefer to socialize with familiar friends because I know what to expect from them.
I think that I would learn best in a class that lacks clearly stated objectives and requirements. R When thinking about a problem, I consider as many different opinions on the issue as possible. R I like to know what people are thinking all the time.
I dislike it when a person’s statement could mean many different things.
It’s annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind.
I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life.
I prefer interacting with people whose opinions are very different from my own. R I like to have a place for everything and everything it its place.
I feel uncomfortable when someone’s meaning or intention is unclear to me. I always see many possible solutions to problems I face. R
I’d rather know bad news than stay in a state of uncertainty.
I do not usually consult many different options before forming my own view. I dislike unpredictable situations.
I dislike the routine aspects of my work (studies). R
Column A: 1 = order, 2 = predictability, 3 = decisiveness, 4 = ambiguity 5 = closed-mindedness R= reverse-coded Note: Items in bold are part of the revised 15-item scale
Appendix J – Output: Hayes Process Macro – NFCC Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4755 .2261 644.1359 31.1560 3.0000 320.0000 .0000
Model
Coeff SE t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 57.3950 7.0122 8.1850 .0000 43.5991 71.1909 IV Label (X) -.8434 12.2464 -.0689 .9451 -24.9372 23.2503 NFCC_composite (W) -3.3150 1.9243 -1.7227 .0859 -7.1009 .4709 Interaction (X*W) -5.0570 2.9359 -1.7225 .0859 -10.8331 .7190
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):
R2-Change F df1 df2 p
X*W .0072 2.9670 1.0000 320.0000 .0859
Conditional Effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
NFCC_composite Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
2.7715 -14.8592 4.8917 -3.0376 .0026 -24.4832 -5.2353 3.8267 -20.1954 3.2779 -6.1610 .0000 -26.6444 -13.7464 4.8819 -25.5316 4.0933 -6.2374 .0000 -33.5848 -17.4784
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman Significance Region(s):
Value % below % above
2.2331 4.9383 95.0617
Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator:
NFCC_composite Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
Appendix K – Output: Hayes – Subdimension NFCC: Closed-Mindedness Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4792 .2296 641.1795 31.7915 3.0000 320.0000 .0000
Model
Coeff SE t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 42.7285 5.7109 7.4819 .0000 31.4928 53.9642 IV Label (X) 7.5214 9.4193 .7985 .4252 -11.0102 26.0530 NFCC_ closed-mindedness (W) .8993 1.6509 .5547 .5863 -2.3487 4.1473 Interaction (X*W) -8.2431 2.3756 -3.4699 .0006 -12.9169 -3.5694
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):
R2-Change F df1 df2 p
X*W .0290 12.0403 1.0000 320.0000 .0006
Conditional Effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
NFCC_closed-mindedness
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
2.3346 -11.7233 4.5776 -2.5610 .0109 -20.7293 -2.7174 3.5895 -22.0674 3.1542 -6.9962 .0000 -28.2792 -15.8618 4.8444 -32.4114 4.0886 -7.9272 .0000 -40.4554 -24.3674
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman Significance Region(s):
Value % below % above
2.1038 11.7284 88.2716
Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator:
NFCC_ Closed-mindedness
Appendix L – Output: Hayes – Subdimension NFCC: Predictability Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4685 .2195 649.6108 29.9945 3.0000 320.0000 .0000
Model
Coeff SE t p LLCI ULCI
Constant 45.8568 5.8229 7.8753 .0000 34.4009 57.3127 IV Label (X) 4.9509 10.3359 .4790 .6323 -15.3841 25.2858 NFCC_ predictability (W) -.0490 1.6556 -.0296 .9764 -3.3062 3.2081 Interaction (X*W) -7.1732 2.5235 -2.8426 .0048 -12.1379 -2.2085
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):
R2-Change F df1 df2 p
X*W .0197 8.0804 1.0000 320.0000 .0048
Conditional Effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
NFCC_predictability Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
2.4583 -12.6834 4.8387 -2.6212 .0092 -22.2031 -3.1637 3.6790 -21.4396 3.2542 -6.5884 .0000 -27.8418 -15.0373 4.8997 -30.1958 4.0918 -7.3795 .0000 -38.2461 -22.1455
Moderator value(s) defining Johnson-Neyman Significance Region(s):
Value % below % above
2.1717 10.1852 89.8148
Conditional effect of focal predictor at values of the moderator:
NFCC_ predictability
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
1.0000 -2.2224 7.9757 -.2786 .7807 -17.9139 13.4691
