DO SURPRISE LABELS TRIGGER A THREAT RESPONSE? ON THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF SURPRISE LABELS

DO SURPRISE LABELS TRIGGER A THREAT RESPONSE? ON THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF SURPRISE LABELS

by

NIKKI NUMAN

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Pre-MSc Marketing

June 2020

Taeke Schuilengalaan 62 9231 GW Surhuisterveen

(0512) 364675

(06) 21368857

n.n.numan@student.rug.nl

student number S4186745

DO SURPRISE LABELS TRIGGER A THREAT RESPONSE? ON THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF SURPRISE LABELS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... 2

1 INTRODUCTION ... 3

2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ... 4

Theoretical framework ... 4

Conceptual model ... 8

3 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 9

Method ... 9

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 12

Results ... 12

Discussion ... 14

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 14

REFERENCE LIST ... 17

APPENDIX A ... 22

ABSTRACT

Marketers use the word “surprise” to increase consumers’ consumption, however, the true extent of the effects of surprise has not yet been explored. In this research, I investigate the nonconscious negative effect of surprise labels on consumption quantity. The results reveal no significant differences between the consumption quantity of consumers viewing surprise labels and regular labels, the results tentatively suggest that surprise labels might have a positive effect on consumption quantity. Furthermore, the misattribution of arousal did not mitigate the negative effects of surprise labels as there might be no adverse effects to diminish.

Keywords: Surprise labels, Consumer behavior, Nonconscious response, Misattribution of arousal, Threat

Research theme: Not knowing what you want

Supervisor: Anika Schumacher

1 INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, numerous companies use surprise as a marketing tool to attract consumers and increase their consumption. In 2005, car manufacturer Kia introduced their new slogan “The Power to Surprise” to express their willingness to deliver unexpected experiences. Likewise, restaurants are using surprise menus to welcome consumers. Nevertheless, does explicitly labeling surprise always have positive consequences on consumption? In this research, I outline that it might not always be the case, and specifically focus on the nonconscious influences of surprise appeals on consumption.

A study performed by Lowe, Loveland & Krishna (2019) stated that we may recognize stimuli, but these stimuli may affect our behavior in a way that is outside our awareness. We might, for instance, notice a bad smell, but we may not be aware that this affects our moral judgment (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008). Likewise, we buy French wine, unaware that the French music played in the store is influencing this choice (North, Hargreaves, &

McKendrick, 1999). Diverse stimuli affect our behavior automatically, continuously, mindlessly, and arouse a “nonconscious response” (Dijksterhuis, Smith, van Baaren, &

Wigboldus, 2005; Dijksterhuis & Smith, 2005).

One of the causes of surprise is schema-discrepancy (Reisenzein, Meyer, & Schützwohl, 1996; Reisenzein, 2000; Reisenzein, Horstmann, & Schützwothl, 2017). Schema-discrepancy arises when there is a mismatch between the representation of reality (or existing schemas in mind) and inputs from the environment (Purcell, 1986; Meyer, Reisenzein, & Schũtzwohl, 1997). The discrepancy between expectations and reality causes an increase in uncertainty and unpredictability (Bettencourt, Dill, Greathouse, Charlton, & Mulholland, 1997; Valenzuela, Mellers, & Strebel, 2010). Research has shown that the unpredictable and uncertain nature of surprises elevates anxiety and leads to negative evaluations (Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019).

Similarly, it might be that surprise labels trigger a nonconscious treat response. A threat, subsequently, causes risk aversion (Lowe et al., 2019) and aversive arousal (Proulx, Inzlicht, &

Harmon-Jones, 2012). The feeling of threat might, in turn, also negatively influence consumers’

consumption quantity.

In this research, I focus on whether surprise labels might cause a nonconscious threat

response, and whether this might, in turn, decrease consumers’ consumption quantity. To my

knowledge, this research is the first to investigate the nonconscious negative effects of surprise

labels on consumers’ consumption.

As both occur simultaneously, it is difficult to investigate both the nonconscious threat response and consumption quantity in one study. Instead, I made use of the moderator misattribution of arousal to see whether misattributing arousal to a salient source dampens the nonconscious treat response of surprise. Previous research has shown that when individuals face an imbalance between expectations and reality, they nonconsciously compensate in unrelated domains (Proulx, Heine, & Vosh, 2010). However, when arousal is consciously attributed to a salient source, individuals tend not to compensate (Kay, Moscovitch, & Laurin, 2010). Likewise, when consciously attributing arousal, individuals eliminate the negative evaluations of extreme incongruity (Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019). Given these previous findings, it might be that when misattributing arousal to a salient source the potential nonconscious treat response of surprise labels could be diminished.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: first, the research framework is presented including existing literature, concepts, and hypotheses. Secondly, the research design is provided. Afterwards, the results derived from the two-way ANOVA test are presented, analyzed, and discussed. The paper finalizes with a conclusion and discussion section. In this section scientific implications, practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research are given.

2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

This section consists of a review of existing literature and is followed by hypotheses. In the theoretical framework, I first discuss the development of academic approaches to surprise as emotion. Subsequently, I narrow down my focus on the nonconscious threat response that is triggered by surprise labels and discuss its impact on individuals’ consumption quantity. Lastly, the moderator misattribution of arousal will be discussed. In this section, I primarily focus on the effect of misattribution of arousal on the nonconscious threat response. At the end of this section, a conceptual model is provided, Figure 1, which graphically demonstrates the relationships between the hypotheses.

Theoretical framework

Surprise labels decrease consumers’ consumption

Although surprise is considered a neutral and temporary emotion (Meyer et al., 1997; Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007) or even a basic emotion (Ekman & Friesen, 1975;

Plutchik, 1980), the emotion is often followed by another positive or negative emotion

(Valenzuela et al., 2010). Consequently, individuals might perceive surprise as either pleasant or unpleasant (Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014).

Surprise emerges when there is a discrepancy between the representation of reality and inputs from the environment, also called schema-discrepancy (Meyer et al., 1997). Surprise as a schema-discrepant event violates individuals’ expectations (Bettencourt et al., 1997;

Reisenzein et al., 2017). The disconfirmation of expectancy – even if positive – reduces certainty and predictability (Mendes, Blascovich, Hunter, Lickel, & Jost, 2007; Proulx &

Inzlicht, 2012) and stimulates causal thinking (Stiensmeier-Pelster, Martini, & Reisenzein, 1995) with the intention to, eventually, remove the expectation discrepancy (Schützwohl &

Borgstedt, 2005).

In general, surprises are viewed by laymen as something positive. Noordewier &

Breugelmans (2013) confirm the view that surprises have a positive connotation. In their research, they discovered that adding a surprise tag to a face positively influences individuals’

evaluations of this face. Additionally, even though surprises reduce expectancy, individuals appreciate unexpectedness to a certain degree. For example, unexpected lottery outcomes and gamble wins were perceived as more pleasurable than expected wins. More specifically, the effects of surprise cause individuals to experience smaller wins more pleasurable than larger wins (Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997). Wilson, Centerbar, Kermer & Gilbert (2005) state that the unexpectedness of events unconsciously extends positive emotions. Food consumption experiences can be enhanced by unexpectedness as well (Mielby & Frøst, 2010;

Sulmont-Rossé, Chabanet, Issanchou, & Köster, 2008).

The occurrence of surprise has previously been investigated in marketing studies. Hutter

& Hoffmann (2014) stated that consumers are surprised when they encounter unexpected stimuli in a familiar environment. Surprised consumers interrupt their ongoing activities and concentrate on the surprise-evoking event (Schützwohl & Reisenzein, 1999), also known as a behavioral “freeze” (Scherer, Zentner, & Stern, 2004), causing a decrease in reaction time (Reisenzein, 2000).

Furthermore, surprises can provoke a nonconscious response. Nonconscious response is the process in which individuals notice stimuli but not their consequences (Dijksterhuis &

Smith, 2005; Schnall et al., 2008). For example, research performed by Holland, Hendriks &

Aarts (2005) tested whether conscious exposure to citrus-scented cleaning spray influenced the mental accessibility of the participants. Holland and colleagues (2005) discovered that exposure to the cleaning spray influenced their cleaning behavior by enhancing it. Not only scent (e.g.

Schnall et al., 2008) but also sound (e.g. North et al., 1999; Lowe et al., 2019) and other stimuli

can arouse a nonconscious response. Numerous stimuli affect behavior automatically, continuously, and mindlessly (Dijksterhuis & Smith, 2005).

Likewise, individuals might notice the presence of a surprise label in the environment but do not realize that it triggers temporary automatic processes, also known as postconscious automaticity (Bargh, 1994; Bargh, 2006). Heilman, Nakamoto & Rao (2002) investigated whether the presence of surprise coupons (i.e. unexpectedly encountered coupons) in grocery stores influenced consumer behavior. They found that customers with a surprise coupon made significantly more purchases than customers without a coupon. Specifically, consumers with a surprise coupon purchased more products from their planned purchase list and bought more unplanned purchases than consumers without a coupon. However, consumers were unaware of their increased buying behavior.

As stated before, surprises arise when unexpected events occur or when there is an inconsistency between reality and expectations. The imbalance between expectations and reality results in an increase in uncertainty and unpredictability (Bettencourt et al., 1997;

Valenzuela et al., 2010). Research by Vanhamme & De Bont (2008) has shown that when people face a surprise, their level of uncertainty rises. When individuals are unable to make sense of their surroundings, anxiety and negative evaluations arise (Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019). As such, unpredictable and uncertain circumstances develop a response in the form of anxiety and threat responses (Lowe et al., 2019). Without conscious awareness, uncertainty provoking stimuli can activate threat responses (LeDoux, 1998; Öhman, 2005). Even before individuals are aware of potential threats, our amygdala detects and organizes responses to natural dangers (LeDoux, 1998). For example, pictures of possible threats such as snakes can, through activation of the amygdala, unconsciously stimulate threat responses (Öhman, 2005).

Threats provoke both behavioral and emotional responses to increase the likelihood of survival (Blanchard & Blanchard, 2008). Similarly, I expect that surprise labels cause a nonconscious threat response as individuals notice the presence of surprise labels but might not be aware that it stimulates a threat response.

Consumers’ consumption behavior depends on their emotional state. Winkielman, Berridge & Wilbarger (2005) discovered that individuals consume more than twice the amount of beverages after happy primes compared to angry primes. Even though individuals are not aware, environmental cues impact our consumption behavior in terms of decision making, motivation, and emotion (Chartrand & Fitzsimons, 2011). The potential nonconscious treat response caused by surprise could influence consumers’ consumption quantities as well.

Research performed by Demaree, Burn, DeDonno, Agarwala & Everhart (2012) has found that

threat responses cause people to be more risk-aversive. Risk avoidance is the degree to which consumers make decisions and behave to minimize threats (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999;

Raghunathan, Pham, & Corfman, 2006; Kugler, Connolly, & Ordóñex, 2012). Risk-averse consumers buy less and tend to stay with well-known brands (Bao, Zhou, & Su, 2003). The possible nonconscious threat response related to surprise labels might result in risk-avoidant behavior in terms of consumption. Therefore, I expect that surprise labels cause a decrease in consumption quantity. I hypothesize:

H1: A surprise label (compared to a regular label) decreases consumption.

Reduction of nonconscious threat response

Surprises occur when there is a violation of expectations (Reisenzein et al., 2017). The discrepancy between reality and expectations results in a heightened state of uncertainty (Vanhamme & de Bont, 2008) and a sense of unpredictability (Bettencourt et al., 1997;

Valenzuela et al., 2010). These circumstances, in turn, cause anxiety and threat responses (Lowe et al., 2019). LeDoux (1998) stated that uncertainty provoking stimuli trigger a nonconscious treat response. Given this information, as well as the fact that surprise unconsciously influences consumer behavior (Heilman et al., 2002), it might be that surprise labels cause a nonconscious threat response. Individuals notice surprise labels but might not realize that it causes a threat response. However, whether surprise causes a nonconscious threat response (H2) and whether it influences consumption quantity (H1) cannot be investigated in one study as both occur simultaneously. To assess the role of threat, I made use of arousal misattribution manipulation (see also Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019) in order to gain more insights.

Prouxl, Heine & Vohs (2010) state that when individuals face an imbalance between expectations and reality and thus lose predictability and control, they nonconsciously activate a need to compensate in unrelated domains to increase control elsewhere (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012). On the contrary, individuals tend not to compensate when the physiological tension to a source is consciously attributed (Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019), attributing arousal to a salient source is also called a misattribution task (Proulx & Heine, 2008). Similar to Taylor &

Noseworthy (2019), Kay, Moscovitch & Laurin (2010) found that participants in a

misattribution condition (i.e. bringing physiological tension to a salient source consciously)

diminished compensation efforts. Moreover, Taylor & Noseworthy (2019) found that

participants in the misattribution condition eliminated negative evaluations for extreme

incongruent products as these participants rated extremely incongruent products more favourably than participants in the no misattribution condition.

Similar to the study of Taylor & Noseworthy (2019), I used (to the illusory) a high- frequency sound and informed participants in the misattribution condition that it might have a physiological impact. Participants in the no misattribution condition read that the sound has no physiological impact. Given the information described above, I expect that in the no misattribution condition participants still experience the negative effects of surprise. On the other hand, I expect that the misattribution condition reduces the nonconscious threat response caused by surprise labels as people have a reason for their sense of arousal that is non- threatening (i.e. sound).

H2: Misattribution of arousal mitigates the nonconscious threat response caused by surprise labels.

Conceptual model

The conceptual model, shown in Figure 1, illustrates the relationship between the various topics represented in the theoretical framework. As surprises cause a higher level of uncertainty and affect behavior outside someone’s awareness, it might be that surprise labels lead to a nonconscious threat response. This nonconscious threat response might, in turn, affect individuals’ consumption quantity. Ultimately, misattributing arousal to a salient source might moderate this effect. Research has shown that attributing arousal to a salient source diminishes compensation efforts as well as negative evaluations of incongruity (Taylor & Noseworthy, 2019). Likewise, I expect that misattributing arousal mitigates the nonconscious threat response of surprise which, in turn, might stabilize the consumption quantity.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual model

3 RESEARCH DESIGN

This research was designed with two primary hypotheses in mind: First, to explore whether the negative effects of surprise labels (e.g. nonconscious threat response) diminish consumers’

consumption quantity. Second, to explore whether the negative effects of surprise are dampened when physiological tension is consciously attributed to a salient source. Specifically, a misattribution paradigm was used similar to the study of Taylor & Noseworthy (2019) to test this hypothesis.

Method

Participants and design

University students in the Netherlands were the targeted participants for this study. Participants were recruited via their student email addresses as well as through diverse Facebook university communities. In this email and Facebook post, I made sure that everyone received the same information and explanation. First of all, I asked if they want to participate in a study studying

‘how subliminal sound influences photo browsing experience’. Moreover, I highlighted the possibility to participate in the lottery for a € 20,00 bol.com voucher in exchange for their participation. Last but not least, I stated that the participants cannot participate in the online survey through their mobile phones and that they should use Chrome or Firefox to participate.

When participants opened the link to the online survey, they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in a 2 (surprise label vs. regular label) x 2 (yes vs. no misattribution condition) between-subjects design.

The end result was a sample (N) of 280 participants, after deleting one participant and

excluding 71 participants (58% female; M

= 22.03). I had to exclude one participant because

her / his survey results were incomplete. Furthermore, 71 participants were excluded from the

analysis for several reasons. First of all, participants were excluded if they did not pass the

attention check. In the attention check, participants’ misattribution condition should match the

answer to the control question. If these were not in line, the participant did not understand the

condition and was thus excluded (N = 67). Moreover, participants indicating that they have not

used the loudspeakers were also excluded (N = 2), as the use of loudspeakers was necessary to

manipulate the misattribution of arousal. Additionally, participants that browsed longer than

three standard deviations from the mean through the (surprise) photo album appeared to be

extreme outliers and were also excluded (N = 2).

TABLE 1

Descriptive statistics participants gender Frequency Percent

Male 116 41.4

Female 163 58.2

Other / decline to state 1 0.4

Total 280 100.0

TABLE 2

Descriptive statistics participants age

Frequency Percent

Age 16 1 .4

17 3 1.1

18 22 7.9

19 28 10.0

20 44 15.7

21 44 15.7

22 34 12.1

23 41 14.6

24 25 8.9

25 11 3.9

26 6 2.1

27 4 1.4

28 1 .4

29 1 .4

30 5 1.8

31 4 1.4

33 4 1.4

35 1 .4

40 1 .4

Total 280 100.0

Stimuli

The stimuli chosen for the surprise manipulation was a photo album with or without a surprise label on it (see Appendix A). Whereas participants could make expectations about the photo album without a surprise label, the photo album with a surprise label could cause a violation of expectations. The content of the photo album, 24 diverse holiday pictures, remained in all conditions the same. Only the cover changed between conditions; in the surprise condition participants saw the “Surprise Photo Album” and in the control condition the “Photo Album”.

After being exposed to the (surprise) photo album, arousal was manipulated by bringing physiological tension to (un)conscious awareness. Participants in the misattribution condition were told that the high-frequency sound might give some physiological tension, whereas participants in the no misattribution condition were not be made consciously aware of this physiological tension. The dependent variable (consumption quantity) was measured by the time participants spend on browsing through the photo album.

Procedures

Participants took part in the study through their individual computers. As an introduction to this study, all participants were informed that they participate in a consumer survey to evaluate a vacation brochure and to measure the impact of subliminal sound on the photo browsing experience. Afterwards, the participants were directed to the next page where they were randomly exposed to one of the four conditions. First, they saw a photo album with or without a surprise label. Moreover, they received the information that they were exposed to a high- frequency sound. In fact, the high-frequency sound served to manipulate arousal and was not actually present. In the misattribution condition, participants were told that they cannot hear the sound but that it has a physiological impact (e.g. temporary increased heart rate). In the no misattribution condition, participants read that the high-frequency sound has no physiological impact. The no misattribution condition serves as a control condition, to see the impact of misattributing arousal to a salient source.

Afterwards, participants immediately proceeded to the main task. This task allowed

participants to browse through the (surprise) photo album, containing 24 holiday pictures, as

long as they liked and stop whenever they wanted. This browsing experience is linked to the

dependent variable; consumption quantity. The browsing experience was followed by a

questionnaire, participants then indicated their enjoyment of browsing (0 = I hated it; 100 = I

loved it) and their willingness to continue browsing (0 = not at all; 100 = very much) and

whether they perceived any sound (“yes/no”). Participants were also asked some control

questions (e.g. “Have you been using loudspeakers …?” and “Please indicate what is true about the high-frequency sound you were listing to …?”) to see if the participant understood their condition. The survey concluded with basic demographic questions (e.g. age).

Data analysis

The first hypothesis, whether a surprise label (compared to a regular label) decreases consumption, and the second hypothesis, whether the misattribution of arousal moderates the nonconscious threat response caused by surprise labels were analyzed by using a two-way ANOVA. The two-way ANOVA allows one to scrutinize if the control condition differs from the experimental condition.

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Results

In order to analyze the influence of a surprise label on consumers’ consumption quantity and to analyze the effect of the moderator misattribution of arousal, a two-way ANOVA test was performed. Both effects proved not to be significant. Conflicting with Hypothesis 1, no significant differences were found between the browsing time of the “Surprise Photo Album”

(M = 55.76) and the regular “Photo Album” (M = 54.81), F (1, 276)= .07, p = .789. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, no significant differences were found between the browsing time of participants in the “Surprise Photo Album vs. no misattribution of arousal” condition (M = 57.69) and in the “Surprise Photo Album vs. misattribution of arousal” condition (M = 53.96). The interaction effect, between label x misattribution of arousal, appeared not significant, F (1, 276)= .01, p = .931.

The most important conclusion is that the surprise label did not lead to a decrease in consumption quantity, as there were no significant differences between the browsing time of participants viewing the “Surprise Photo Album” compared to the regular “Photo Album”.

Likewise, I expected that individuals in the misattribution condition, thus bringing

physiological tension to a salient source, would decrease the possible negative effects of

surprise and therefore would increase the consumption quantity. However, no significant

differences were found between the browsing time of participants in the misattribution

conditions vs. no misattribution while viewing the “Surprise Photo Album”.

TABLE 3

Between-Subjects Factors

Value N

Label 0 Regular label 139

1 Surprise label 141

Misattribution of arousal 0 No misattribution 135

1 Misattribution 145

TABLE 4

Descriptive statistics two-way ANOVA Dependent variable: consumption measure

Label Misattribution of arousal

Mean Std.

Deviation

N

Regular No misattribution 57.0751 32.94946 67

Misattribution 52.6985 28.99590 72

Total 54.8081 30.92920 68

Surprise No misattribution 57.6937 33.07725 68

Misattribution 53.9560 27.41375 73

Total 55.7586 30.22603 141

Total No misattribution 57.3867 32.89194 135

Misattribution 53.3316 28.11934 145

Total 55.2867 30.52597 280

TABLE 5

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum

of Squared

Df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Corrected Model 1219.835

3 406.612 434 .729

Intercept 856855.560 1 856855.560 913.936 .000

IVlabel 61.515 1 61.515 .066 .798

IVmisattribution of arousal 1150.701 1 1150.701 1,227 .269

IVlabel*IVmisattribution of arousal 7.134 1 7.134 .008 .931

Error 258762.122 276 937.544

Total 1115835.222 280

Corrected Total 259981.957 279

a

R Squared = ,005 (Adjusted R Squared = -,006).

FIGURE 2

Graph consumption quantity per condition

Discussion

The results of the two-way ANOVA do not support the prediction that a surprise label will decrease consumers’ consumption quantity caused by the potential nonconscious threat response brought about by the surprise label (H1). The findings show that there are no significant differences between the consumption quantity of participants in the surprise label condition and regular label condition. Similarly, the prediction that the moderator misattribution of arousal will diminish the negative effects of surprise and thus increases consumption quantity (H2) is likewise not supported by the results. On the contrary, the results indicate no significant differences between the consumption quantity of participants in the misattribution of arousal condition and the no misattribution of arousal condition while viewing the “Surprise Photo Album”.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I hypothesized that surprise labels might cause a nonconscious threat response and, in turn, this negative effect of surprise might decrease consumers’ consumption quantity. This prediction was based on existing literature that surprises already cause negative effects such as increased uncertainty (Vanhamme & de Bont, 2008) and influence consumer behavior unconsciously (Heilman et al., 2002). I also hypothesized that consciously attributing arousal to a salient source (e.g. misattribution of arousal) would eliminate the negative effects (e.g. nonconscious

52.70

57.08

53.96

57.69

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Misattribution No misattribution

Consumption quantity

Regular label Surprise label

threat response) of surprise and, in turn, increase consumers’ consumption quantity. This prediction was based on the study of Taylor & Noseworthy (2019) who discovered that misattributing arousal decreases negative evaluations of extremely incongruent products.

To test these hypotheses, a two-way ANOVA was performed to see whether participants in the surprise label vs. regular label x yes/no misattribution of arousal conditions consumed differently. The analysis revealed results contradictory to what was expected; no significant differences were found between the consumption quantity of participants in the surprise label condition and regular label condition. Similarly, the results demonstrate no significant differences between the consumption quantity of participants browsing through the “Surprise Photo Album” facing the misattribution condition and no misattribution condition. Therefore, the results support neither hypothesis. Even though the effects appear not significant, the results tentatively suggest that surprise labels might cause the exact opposite. A potential explanation for this phenomenon could be that the positive connotations of surprise labels, as described by Noordewier et al. (2013), surpass the negative effects of surprise. If this is true, it explains the result that possible negative effects of surprise labels on consumption quantity are not mitigated by misattribution of arousal as there may not be significant negative effects to diminish. These thoughts should be further investigated in order to draw reliable conclusions.

From a theoretical perspective, this research intended to increase the understanding of the effect of surprise labels on consumers’ consumption behavior. Existing studies have shown that surprise could be perceived negatively as it reduces expectancy (Bettencourt et al., 1997), increases uncertainty (Vanhamme & De Bont, 2008), and elevates anxiety (Taylor &

Noseworthy, 2019). As surprise unconsciously influences consumers’ buying behavior (Heilman et al., 2002), this research suggested that the negative effects of surprise labels (i.e.

nonconscious threat response) might negatively affect consumers’ consumption quantity.

Contradictory to these predictions, the results indicate no significant differences between the consumption quantities of surprise labels and regular labels. Additionally, this paper contributes to contemporary literature on nonconscious threat responses. The results disclose that the effects of surprise labels on consumption quantity are not mitigated by the misattribution of arousal. As such, it seems that surprise labels do not cause a nonconscious threat response, or might even cause the exact opposite. Both findings are in line with lay beliefs expressing positive connotations of surprises (Noordewier & Breugelmans, 2013) and that unexpectedness can trigger positive effects (Mellers et al., 1997; Wilson et al., 2005).

From a managerial perspective, this research provides important insights for marketers.

Whereas numerous companies already use surprise as a marketing tool, the (negative) consequences of labeling surprise on consumers’ behaviour have remained largely unexplored.

Even though the results reveal no significant differences between the consumption quantity of surprise labels and regular labels, the findings slightly suggest that surprise labels may increase consumers’ consumption quantity. Nevertheless, this field of research should be further investigated before marketers implement surprise labels as a marketing tool. Likewise, the results suggest that positive connotations of surprise labels might overshadow the negative ones. If further research supports this claim, marketers can take advantage of the positive connotations of surprises to create, potentially nonconsciously, positive consumer experiences.

This research has its limitations. One limitation is the sampling method, I only used convenient samples (e.g. university students in the Netherlands) and therefore the results cannot be generalized. Secondly, 71 participants had to be excluded from the analysis resulting in 280 participants and therefore this research is based on a relatively small sample size for a 2 x 2 design. Future research could investigate whether replicating this study with a larger sample size generates significant results between surprise labels, nonconscious threat response, and consumption quantity.

Moreover, although no significant differences were observed, the results marginally suggest that surprise labels might have positive consequences on consumers’ consumption quantity, which future research can investigate. On top of that, it might be interesting to explore how the effect of surprise labels develop during consumption as it could be that both positive and negative effects of surprise influence consumers’ consumption.

Word count: 4549

REFERENCE LIST

Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face Consciousness and Risk Aversion: Do They Affect Consumer Decision-Making? Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733 - 755.

Bargh, J. A. (1994). The Four Horsemen of Automaticity: Awareness, Intention, Efficiency, and Control in Social Cognition. In R. S. Wyer, & T. K. Srull, Handbook of Social Cognition: Volume 1: Basic Processes (pp. 1 - 42). New York: Psychology Press.

Bargh, J. A. (2006). ''What Have We Been Priming All These Years?'' On the Development, Mechanisms and Ecology of Nonconscious Social Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 147 - 168.

Bettencourt, B. A., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., & Mulholland, A. (1997).

Evaluations of Ingroup and Outgroup Members: The Role of Category-Based Expectancy Violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 244-275.

Blanchard, C. D., & Blanchard, R. J. (2008). Defensive Behaviors, Fear, and Anxiety. In R. J.

Blanchard, C. D. Blanchard, G. Griebel, & D. Nutt, Handbook of Behavioural Neuroscience, Vol 17: Handbook of Anxiety and Fear (pp. 63 - 79). Amsterdam:

Academic Press.

Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2011). Nonconscious Consumer Psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 1 - 3.

Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., DeDonno, M. A., Agarwala, E. K., & Everhart, D. E. (2012).

Risk dishabituation: In repeated gambling, risk is reduced following low probability, ''surprising'' events (wins or losses). motion, 12(3), 495 - 502.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Smith, P. K. (2005). What Do We Do Unconsciously? And How? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 225 - 229.

Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2005). The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193 - 202.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18, 1050 - 1057.

Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (2002). Pleasant Surprises: Consumer Response to Unexpected In-Store Coupons. Jounal of Marketing Research, 242-252.

Holland, R., Hendriks , M., & Aarts, H. (2005). Smells like clean spirit: Nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behaviour. Psychological Science, 16(9), 689 - 693.

Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, Surprise, Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93 - 110.

Kay, A. C., Moscovitch, D. A., & Laurin, K. (2010). Randomness, Attributions of Arousal, and Belief in God. Psychological Science, 21(2), 216 - 218.

Kugler, T., Connolly, T., & Ordóñex, L. D. (2012). Emotion, Decision, and Risk: Betting on Gambles versus Betting on People. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 25(2), 123- 134.

LeDoux, J. (1998). Fear and the Brain: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?

Biological Psychiatry, 44(12), 1229 - 1238.

Lowe, M. L., Loveland, K. E., & Krishna, A. (2019). A Quiet Disquiet: Anxiety and Risk Avoidance due to Nonconscious Auditory Priming. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 159 - 179.

Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423-429.

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy- violating partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 698-716.

Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R., & Schũtzwohl, A. (1997). Toward a Process Analysis of Emotion: The Case of Surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251-274.

Mielby, L. H., & Frøst, M. B. (2010). Expectations and surprise in a molecular gastronomic

meal. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 213-224.

Noordewier, M. K., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2013). On the valance of surprise. Cognition &

Emotion, 27(7), 1326-1334.

North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The Influence of In-Store Music on Wine Selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 271 - 276.

Öhman, A. (2005). The Role of the Amygdala in Human Fear: Automatic Detection of Threat.

Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 953 - 958.

Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.

Proulx, T., & Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter affirmation of a morla schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19, 1294 - 1300.

Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five 'A's of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense making. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 317 - 335.

Proulx, T., Heine, S. J., & Vosh, K. D. (2010). When is the unfamiliar the uncanny? Meaning affirmation after exposure to absurdist literature, humor and art. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 817 - 829.

Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a parlliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 285 - 291.

Purcell, A. T. (1986, January). Environmental Perception and Affect: A Schema Discrepancy Model. Environment and Behavior, 18(1), 3-30.

Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Infleunces of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 79(1), 56 - 77.

Raghunathan, R., Pham, M. T., & Corfman, K. P. (2006). Informational Properties of Anciety and Sadness. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 596 - 601.

Reisenzein, R. (2000). Exploring the strength of assocation between the components of emotion

syndromes: The case of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 1 - 38.

Reisenzein, R., Horstmann, G., & Schützwothl, A. (2017). The cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise: A review of the evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 50 - 74.

Reisenzein, R., Meyer, W.-U., & Schützwohl, A. (1996). Reactions to surprising events: A paradigm for emotion research. Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for Research on Emotions (pp. 1-6). Toronto: ISRE Publications.

Scherer, K. R., Zentner, M. R., & Stern, D. (2004). Beyond Surprise: The Puzzle of Infants' Expressive Reactions to Expectancy Violation. Emotion, 4(4), 389 - 402.

Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096 - 1109.

Schützwohl, A., & Borgstedt, K. (2005). The Processing of Affectively Valenced Stimuli: The Role of Surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 583 - 600.

Schützwohl, A., & Reisenzein, R. (1999). Children's and Adults' Reactions fo a Schemadiscrepant Event: A Developmental Analysis of Surprise. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 23(1), 37 - 62.

Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Martini, A., & Reisenzein, R. (1995). The Role of Surprise in the Attribution Process. Cognition and Emotion, 9(1), 5 - 31.

Sulmont-Rossé, C., Chabanet, C., Issanchou, S., & Köster, E. P. (2008). Impact of the arousal potential of uncommon drinks on the repeated exposure effect. Food Quality and Preference, 19(2), 412-420.

Taylor, N., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2019). Compensating for Innovation: Extreme Product Incongruity Encourages Consumers to Affirm Unrelated Consumption Schemas.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 - 19.

Valenzuela, A., Mellers, B., & Strebel, J. (2010). Pleasurable Surprises: A Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer Responses to Unexpected Incentives. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 792 - 805.

Vanhamme, J., & de Bont, C. J. (2008). ''Surprise Gift'' Purchases: Customer Insights from the

Small Electrical Appliances Market. Journal of Retailing, 3, 354-369.

Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., Kermer, D. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). The pleasures of uncertainty: Prolonging positive moods in ways people do not anticipate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 5-21.

Winkielman, P., Berridge, K. C., & Wilbarger, J. (2005). Unconscious Affective Reactions to

Masked Happy Versus Angry Faces Influence Consumption Behaviour and Judgments

of Value. Personality and Social Psychology Buleltin, 31(1), 121 - 135.

APPENDIX A Stimuli

Stimuli for surprise vs. regular label

Surprise label Regular label