Master Thesis ~ Marketing MSc Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Marketing

(1)

Master Thesis ~ Marketing MSc

Faculty of Economics and Business

Department of Marketing

The ‘darker side’ of salience and the

mediating effect of embarrassment on

willingness to buy

Written by Beau X. Huisman

Completion date: 15th of June, 2019

Supervisor 1: Dr. Martijn Keizer Supervisor 2: M.H. van Dijk

(2)

Page | 1

Abstract

Increasingly, studies are focusing on the role embarrassment plays in consumer behaviour and the barriers this emotion can create to marketers. This thesis aims to explore the relationship between salience and willingness to buy a product, namely when this product is embarrassing to purchase. Further, the underlying rationale of salience is explored by introducing two influencing factors of perceived salience: the notability of the package and the notability of the purchase method itself. This study contributes to the relatively new subtopic of research on embarrassment and particularly provides insights into the negative effects of salience. It explores these relationships regarding the offline purchase of products available in regular drugstores that could prevent and remedy the discomfort. The samples of this study are mainly collected from students. Results suggest both perceived salience and perceived embarrassment have a negative, significant effect on willingness to buy. Additionally, perceived salience positively influences perceived embarrassment. However, perceived embarrassment does not mediate the effects of perceived salience on willingness to buy. Furthermore, results indicated that neither purchase method nor packaging based on colour had a significant effect on salience. These results indicate the importance of both salience and embarrassment in the modern retail environment.

(3)

Page | 2

Preface

Before you lies my thesis research “The ‘darker side’ of salience and the mediating effect of embarrassment on willingness to buy”. It was written to fulfil the graduation requirements of the Master's programme in Marketing, with a specialization in Marketing Management, at the University of Groningen (RUG).

The basis for this thesis research originally stems from my interest in consumer behaviour and the influences marketing techniques have on this. My aim to develop a deeper understanding of the options marketing can provide but also of the barriers it creates, has motivated me to conduct research on the topic of embarrassment.

I would like to give special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Martijn Keizer for his guidance, and support throughout the process of writing this thesis. In addition, I wish to thank my thesis group, with whom I have enjoyed taking on this challenge. It has been helpful to share ideas concerning my research and receiving feedback from different perspectives. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support, advice, and for the motivation they managed to provide me with during the more ‘challenging’ moments of this research process (a.k.a. during moments of procrastination).

I hope you enjoy your reading,

Beau Huisman

(4)

Page | 3

Purchasing condoms, haemorrhoid cream or pornographic magazines; there are several purchase situations in which one might feel embarrassed. The perceived negative emotions can have many consequences for consumer behaviour. (Blair & Roese, 2013; Lau-Gesk & Drolet, 2008). For instance, it may prevent consumers from purchasing products and/or using services they identify as embarrassing (Krishna et al., 2015; Blair & Roese, 2013; Dahl et al., 2001) which can even result in the endangerment of one’s own health and well-being, or result in risky behaviour (Lau-Gesk & Drolet, 2008). For instance, as a result, condoms, and anti-diarrhoea pills, which are widely available in (drug)stores, may not be purchased. As such, the accessibility of a product does not always result in the purchase of it.

Although to some it makes sense to avoid embarrassing situations altogether, the purchase of embarrassing products might actually help consumers to forestall feeling embarrassed in the future. As Lau-Gesk and Drolet (2008) argue, the benefits of some products outweigh the psychosocial cost of purchasing it, as it can help prevent greater feelings of embarrassment. For instance, buying condoms might be embarrassing, but an STD might result in even higher feelings of embarrassment. Similarly, the purchase of incontinence prevention pads can prevent a situation in which someone has an (incontinence) accident.

Therefore, consumers continue to buy these products, using several coping strategies to mitigate the feelings of embarrassment, for instance through buying additional non-embarrassing products (Blair & Roese, 2013). Sometimes, it’s the marketers or store-managers who try to decrease the barriers to the purchase of embarrassing products, for example by offering such products online, or by making them even more accessible (e.g. condoms from a vending machine) (Dahl et al., 1998; Dahl et al., 2001; Lau-Gesk and Drolet, 2008). Interestingly, these strategies all have in common that the salience and notability of the purchase are what consumers aim to minimize. The purchase of additional products is believed to take away some attention of the embarrassing product, and the purchase of condoms through a vending machine allows for a more private feel in a public setting.

(7)

Page | 6 This thesis mainly focuses on the willingness to buy embarrassing products in an offline, public setting, for instance buying an embarrassing product in a supermarket or pharmacy. It does so because salience of a purchase would automatically be lower in a private or online setting. Additionally, there is a gap in research concerning the managerial implications marketers can apply.

This resulted in the following research question:

To what extent does salience influence willingness to buy in an offline, public setting, and to what extent is this association mediated through perceived embarrassment? Further, to what

extent is this effect influenced by package notability and the purchase method used?

This research contributes to existing literature by providing more insights into the rationale of consumer purchase behaviour. Additionally, it provides a better understanding of possible strategies that may help overcome barriers regarding consumption of embarrassing products. Moreover, this study will discuss practical implications for both managers and marketers, who can adapt the in-store experience customers go through, or might adapt packaging in accordance with this study’s findings.

(8)

Page | 7

2. Theoretical Framework

This section of the thesis describes the theoretical framework. It discusses some background information on the variables used and provides the hypotheses for this research. Additionally, the conceptual model of the research is provided.

2.1 Salience and willingness to buy

Products can serve several purposes for consumers. The functional, utilitarian value is usually most important to the customer, but products often also meet social values (Sheth et al., 1991). Examples of such hedonic consumption include the purchase of designer watches or luxurious cars. Although consumers often signal their desired identity outside purchase situations (i.e. in their social environment), research has indicated that in-store signalling of identity also matters. For instance, Ashworth et al. (2005) completed a study which showed that participants were more likely to opt-out of using coupons when they were with a romantic interest (to whom they did not wish to signal a cheap public identity) than when they were with a good friend. Thus, although products are purchased for their functional qualities, they also have the ability to signal personal values to observers of the purchase when they capture their attention.

Ideally, products depicted in store shelves catch consumer attention. As Clement et al. (2013) state, our brain has a limited capacity for stimuli and attention, especially when there are many products with similar attributes in one product category. The discrepancy between our brains’ limited capacity, and the abundance of stimuli, makes it important to understand and succeed at capturing a consumers’ attention in-store. One of the main goals of marketers is therefore to make notable, striking packages and advertising that grab consumer attention. When such marketing strategies are used correctly, the consumer’s consideration set will include these products. Consequently, this influences their in-store decisions, meaning they are more likely to purchase these products when they notice them in-store (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010). The extent to which a product is notable and prominent will be described using the term ‘salience’ in this thesis. Subsequently, the more attention a product captures, the more it resides in the mind of consumers, and the more prominent it is, the more salient it is considered to be. This can happen at a conscious level, as well as a subconscious level, and does not have to be a long-term effect.

(9)

Page | 8 al., 2014). However, this does not hold for all product categories. For instance, for products that are categorized as ‘embarrassing’, a contrasting (negative) effect exists (Blair & Roese, 2013). Thus, for regular products, it is good and beneficial to be salient, whereas for embarrassing products it can have an undesired effect. This negative effect of salience was partially researched by Blair and Roese (2013), who conducted research in which they tested the rationale behind the coping strategy of consumers purchasing additional products, with the aim to attenuate the purchase of embarrassing products. They introduced the “Product prominence hypothesis” (p.676) which mainly states that the more prominent a product is, the more attention it can grab. In case of some products, this can negatively affect a consumers’ willingness to buy this product. Respondents of their survey indicated the additional (non-embarrassing) product would influence them to buy the embarrassing product because their purchase was “less attentionally salient” (p. 677). The product prominence hypothesis is therefore seen as the rationale behind this coping strategy, though it does not always hold. Blair and Roese (2013) mainly tested the effect of salience concerning items within the customer’s shopping basket, the coping strategies these customers portrayed, and the effect it therefore had on their purchase decisions. “Embarrassment is assumed to result to the extent that an embarrassing product is focal in the shopping basket” (p.676). Contrastingly, in this thesis the product prominence hypothesis is tested without consideration of the consumer’s basket composition, and thus focuses mainly on the purchase of one embarrassing product.

To summarize, usually it holds that a prominent, and therefore salient, product positively influences willingness to buy. The products are remembered better, are included in more consumers’ consideration sets, and consequently, are bought more often than those which do not grab enough attention (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010). However, a negative relationship exists when it concerns embarrassing products. When purchasing embarrassing products, consumers appear to wish to grab as little attention of other consumers (observers) as possible, due to the possible signals this may send to these observers (Dahl et al., 2001). The positive effects of salience have been examined thoroughly (Kauppinen-Räisänen & Luomala, 2010; Rebollar et al., 2012; Raheem et al., 2014), which is why this thesis will only examine the negative effect of salience

This leads to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Perceived salience has a negative effect on willingness to buy embarrassing products (i.e. the more salient the offline, public purchase of an embarrassing product is

(10)

Page | 9 Fig. 1

2.2 Manipulations of salience

There are several ways a purchase or product can be considered salient. This thesis focuses on two influencing factors: the appearance of a product (i.e. packaging) and the situation in which it is bought (i.e. store-related aspects that can influence perceived salience).

Marketers have tried several strategies to increase consumers’ willingness to buy embarrassing products. Dahl et al. (1998) found that purchasing through a vending machine positively influenced consumers’ tendency to buy condoms if they were embarrassed to buy them in the first place. The purchase was still public, but the researchers believe it was perceived as a less salient situation because it felt more ‘private’ to participants. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind the effect of this coping strategy was not examined in detail; they simply assumed it had to do with the amount of attention paid to the purchase. The willingness to buy embarrassing products in a private setting has already been proven to be greater than in public settings (Blair & Roese, 2013; Dahl et al., 2001; Krishna et al., 2015). For instance by purchasing sex-toys online, where consumers not only have little social interaction but also have the ability to have it delivered in discrete packaging to which few will pay attention.

Prior research has shown consumers’ tendency to believe that their actions are more salient in the eyes of others, especially when their actions have the possibility to result in negative, social consequences, or when they can signal an undesired identity. This effect has been named the Spotlight effect (Savitsky et al., 2000). This effect is even stronger when it concerns embarrassing products. Therefore, decreasing the negative consequences of this spotlight effect is one of many obstacles marketers should, and are trying to overcome (Savitsky et al., 2000).

Consumers make use of several coping strategies in order to alleviate or prevent feelings of embarrassment (Dahl et al., 2001). Examples include strategies such as thinking one is invisible to other shoppers, or waiting people out and purchasing a product with as little social presence as possible. Additionally, some customers attempt to hide the embarrassing product. Shoplifting is among the more negative forms of coping strategies. The reasoning behind such

Salience Willingness to buy

(11)

Page | 10 coping strategies can be related to the salience of someone’s purchase. After all, hiding a product minimizes the possibility of other shoppers paying attention to it, and consequently to the purchase of it. It reduces the perceived salience to some extent. These strategies have in common that their aim seems to mitigate the level of attention paid to the purchase, or to the salience of the product and purchase. This eventually has a positive effect on the consumers’ willingness to buy embarrassing products.

As argued before, consumers tend to feel like others are watching them, which negatively influences their willingness to buy. The perceived salience in Dahl et al.’s research (2001) depended on the purchase method; it was lower for those buying through a vending machine. Therefore, I argue that the level of perceived salience is influenced by how salient the purchase situation is. In this thesis, I will mainly use the purchase method as an influence. For instance, the purchase through a cashier desk, where customers have direct, social interaction with others, could result in higher levels of perceived salience than a situation in which a customer purchases using a self-scanner, where there is no social interaction.

This results in the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: A notable purchase situation for a product results in higher perceived salience than a less notable purchase situation.

As mentioned by Kauppinen‐Räisänen (2014), product packaging is one of the most visible points of attraction that consumers pay attention to at the point of purchase. Raheem, Vishnu, and Ahmed (2014) even go as far as saying that packaging is the most important aspect that influences in-store consumer buying behaviour. According to their research, colour, material, and design of the packaging are the most important factors. Rebollar et al. (2012), state that colour is most important when it comes to catching consumer attention. Their study reveals that colour has a larger impact on a consumers’ willingness to buy than for instance packaging format does.

(12)

Page | 11 by many shoppers (Krishna et al., 2015). Subsequently, a notably coloured package might result in higher levels of perceived salience than a neutrally coloured package.

Consequently, this leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The notability of the packaging of a product results in higher perceived salience than a less notable packaging.

Thus, in this study, I will compare the different effects packaging can have on perceived salience. The focus lies on the difference between notable packaging and neutral packaging based on colour. Kauppinen‐Räisänen (2014) stress that colour has “the powerful physiological ability to attract visual attention” (p. 663). Additionally, it is seen as a source of attractiveness, which eventually also results in a packaging retaining attention, which enables information processing.

As discussed by Kauppinen-Räisänen and Luomala (2010), attracting consumers’ attention is a precondition for product evaluation in-store. Therefore, marketers often do not opt for neutral packaging but choose packaging that grabs attention. This mainly holds for commercial purchases (for instance, medicine bought through a pharmacy is often more neutral in packaging). The authors mention that although notability and salience of packaging often depend on the product category, bright and warm colours usually catch most attention (e.g. bright red, yellow, and orange). Neutral packages often have in common that they have a white background, with one other colour for textual information. The other colour also aims to signal neutrality, so a colour such as red, which evokes feelings of excitement and danger, is often avoided. Naturally, the neutrality of a product depends on how salient the colour is for its product category. For instance, if all medicine has black and white packaging, another similar package will be considered neutral too, whereas a bright yellow packaging with red letters is considered more notable and attention-grabbing. These different effects of colours have been taken into account when creating notable and neutral packages for this thesis research. This is discussed in more detail in the method section of this thesis.

2.3 Embarrassment as a mediator

(13)

Page | 12 communicate undesired information concerning one’s public identity (Dahl et al., 2001; Blair & Roese, 2013). According to Schlenker and Leary (1982), one has to be aware of the evaluating social presence, but multiple researchers argue that the emotion can be felt in both public and private situations (Krishna et al., 2015; Blair & Roese, 2013). Thus, embarrassment can occur when a physical audience is present, but it can also occur when such a presence is imagined - when someone is alone and imagines the possibility of someone else watching their actions and being evaluated for them (Dahl et al., 2001; Krishna et al., 2015).

Lau-Gesk and Drolet (2008) found that people who had a high public self-consciousness have a tendency to believe others are paying more attention to them and that such feelings related to a higher expectation of feeling embarrassed by a purchase. Thus, public self-consciousness influences the level of perceived salience, which then affects the expected embarrassment. Those scoring high in public self-consciousness often overestimate the degree to which others truly pay attention to them. The fear of signalling an undesired public identity could be bigger for someone who has a feeling they are being observed. Similarly to Lau-Gesk and Drolet’s research, where feelings of capturing an observers’ attention negatively influenced one’s level of embarrassment, the amount of salience someone perceives can have an effect on how embarrassed they would feel. If there were no one to observe a consumers’ purchase of a sex toy, or haemorrhoid cream, they would feel less embarrassed to buy them.

The product prominence hypothesis provides rationale for the effect salience can have on willingness to buy embarrassing products. However, in addition, Blair and Roese’s (2013) research outcomes can also be considered rationale for the relationship between salience and embarrassment itself, namely that the level of embarrassment is dependent on the notability of the purchase situation or even the notability of the purchase-decision (for instance through packaging). Consequently, the following hypothesis emerges.

Hypothesis 4: Perceived salience has a positive relationship with perceived embarrassment, such that the more salient the (offline) purchase of an embarrassing product is perceived to be, the more embarrassed a customer will feel.

Fig. 2

Salience Embarrassment

(14)

Page | 13 As mentioned by Dong et al. (2013), feelings of embarrassment are ones we try to eliminate as much as possible, which has the consequence that we avoid any situation that may elicit them. This results in several coping strategies, which are focused either on decreasing or counter-balancing feelings of embarrassment, or on completely abandoning the situation (Moore et al., 2006). According to Dahl et al. (2001), the purchase of a product that possibly contradicts the desired public identity of the consumer can result in feelings of embarrassment. Berger and Heath (2007), claim that this is because of the symbolic nature products can have for a consumer. Additionally, products have the ability to communicate information to others. Consumers often try to avoid the feelings of discomfort that results from being in an embarrassing situation (Miller, 2007). When consumers prefer to avoid the situation altogether, this most likely results in them not buying the product. They, therefore, portray a lower willingness to buy and lower purchase intention (Bell, 2009).

For example, Moore et al. (2006) found that embarrassment had a negative effect on the willingness to buy concerning the purchase of condoms. This also occurs when it has the potential to reduce pleasure and/or enjoyment (Blair & Roese, 2013). This implies that the more embarrassed a consumer feels during the purchase of a product, the less willing they are to buy that product.

Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5: Perceived embarrassment has a negative relationship with willingness to buy.

Fig. 3

To summarize, in ‘normal’ situations where non-embarrassing products are bought, marketers mainly benefit from their brand, product, and packaging being noticed. It captures attention and with that often increases a consumers’ willingness to buy. This relation has been studied and proven (Kauppinen-Räisänen & Luomala, 2010; Rebollar et al., 2012; Raheem et al., 2014), and has become somewhat of a rule of thumb; grab consumer attention correctly and you will enter the consideration set, and with that possibly increase your sales (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010; Szmigin & Piacentini, 2018). However, this relation does not always hold when

Embarrassment Willingness to buy

(15)

Page | 14 it concerns the purchase and marketing of embarrassing products. Instead, salient products influence a consumers’ willingness to buy a product negatively. Embarrassment explains the relationship between salience and willingness to buy. Being seen by others makes consumers less willing to buy products because they are afraid to signal undesired identities. Therefore, based on the literature and rationale behind the hypotheses above, I propose the following mediation hypothesis.

Hypothesis 6: Perceived embarrassment mediates the relationship between perceived salience and a consumer’s willingness to buy an embarrassing product.

The conceptual framework is portrayed in figure 4 below.

Fig. 4

Salience Willingness to buy

Embarrassment

+

−

(16)

Page | 15

3. Methodological Framework

3.1 Research design

The experiment has a 2 (purchase salience: self-scanner vs. cashier) x 2 (package salience: neutral vs. notable) x 2 (embarrassment: embarrassing product vs. non-embarrassing product) between-subjects design. This design resulted in eight different conditions. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of these conditions. The dependent variable is willingness to buy.

3.2 Pre-tests

A pre-test was conducted in order to assess what products are considered embarrassing and which are not. The pre-test survey was sent out to students who are active at the cultural student centre Usva (N=10). After answering short questions about their demographics, they were presented with 10 different product options (Body wash, anti-odour foot spray, haemorrhoid cream, skin/facial cream, nasal spray, athlete’s foot cream, condoms, cough drops, anti-diarrhoea pills, and toothpaste). These products were chosen because they all belong to the self-care category, and can be found in regular drugstores. Additionally, they can be seen as products that prevent further embarrassment from happening. For instance, using toothpaste prevents bad breath, skin cream can prevent acne, etc.). Participants were asked to rate the level of embarrassment they would feel when buying these products, on a seven-point scale (1= not embarrassed at all, 7= extremely embarrassed). Based on this data, I selected haemorrhoid cream as an embarrassing product (M=5.80, SD=1.135), and nasal spray as a non-embarrassing product (M=1, SD=0.00).

(17)

Page | 16 the packages on a scale of 1 (=neutral) to 7(=notable), 10 participants confirmed that the neutral packages were truly neutral (nasal spray: M=1.9, SD=0.568, haemorrhoid cream: M=2.2, SD=0.675). Additionally, it confirmed that the notable package for nasal spray was notable (M=5.2, SD=0.715), as well as the notable package for the embarrassing product (haemorrhoid cream: M=5.45, SD=0.832).

Moreover, the pre-test also assessed the perceived salience of several purchase methods. Participants were asked to answer how much attention they think other people would pay to them during their purchase when using several methods on a scale of 1 to 7. For instance, purchasing at an auction, using a vending machine, purchasing through the cashier’s desk or by using a self-scanner. The pre-test confirmed a self-scanner purchasing situation to be less salient (M=1.70, SD=1.252), whereas a purchase via a cashier’s desk was perceived to be more salient (M=5.70, SD=0.675). Although one purchase method, the auction, was considered to be even more salient (M=5.8, SD=0.919), it was decided to not include this purchase method. Mainly because it is not a common method, especially not in drugstores. Therefore, for the salience of purchase condition, I selected a purchase through a self-scanner as a less/non-salient condition, and purchase via a cashier’s desk as a salient purchase condition.

3.3 Sample and Procedure

Participants were recruited by receiving a general web link via social media, such as Facebook and Instagram. Additionally, e-mails with the link were sent to possible participants, as well as indirect, personal messages. There were no age or gender limitations for participation. The questionnaire was provided only in English (United States). The survey can be found in Appendix B of this thesis, though it only includes examples of 2 out of the 8 conditions.

In total, 330 people participated in the experiment. After cleaning the dataset, which will be discussed in further detail in the result section of this thesis, the final sample included 237 participants. The final sample consisted of 84 (35.4%) men and 153 (64.6%) women. Most respondents were in the age category of 18-25 years old (66.3%), 11.5% of respondents were in the age category of 26-35 and only 5.2% was older than 55 years old. The average age of the sample was 28 (Mage= 28.85, SD= 13.13). Most respondents completed or were currently doing a Bachelor’s degree (54.1%) and Master’s degree (24.7%).

(18)

Page | 17 This story stated responses would be fully confidential, and only used for scientific purposes. Additionally, participants were asked to agree they were participating voluntarily. Most importantly, they were informed they were free to stop participation of the experiment at any time.

Participants were shown the following text, used to manipulate their embarrassment and salience: “Imagine you are experiencing discomfort because of your hemorrhoids. You go to a drugstore. It is of normal size, and you notice a few other customers are inside. The shop only uses cashier desks, where a cashier scans your chosen product(s) and handles your payment”. This text was altered to one of eight scenarios, where they either experienced the discomfort of their haemorrhoids or they had a runny nose. Additionally, it also differed whether participants had to imagine a store that had only cashier desks, or only self-scanners. Pictures of the digitally created packages were depicted below that story. Through this, the salience and embarrassment conditions were manipulated.

Then, participants were asked to answer questions regarding their willingness to buy the products, in addition to questions related to their perceived salience and expected embarrassment. These questions were in the same block as the picture and manipulation story, to ensure participants responded with their specific scenario and product in mind. After this, participants’ purchase familiarity with the products was measured, and a probe question was included. Their demographics were measured last, after which participants were thanked for their cooperation and participation. Filling out the survey mostly took participants between two to five minutes of their time.

3.4 Materials

3.4.1 Willingness to buy

(19)

Page | 18 3.4.2 Salience

Although both salience and embarrassment were manipulated through the story participants read, I made the decision to measure it as well. This decision was made because I wanted to ensure I could still run analyses if my manipulation would be unsuccessful. Additionally, I could use the data of the measurement to check whether manipulations were actually successful. To measure perceived salience, a scale introduced by Blair and Roese (2013), was used. After manipulation, respondents were asked to indicate on a 1 to 7 Likert scale how much attention they believed others would pay to their product during purchase (1= very little attention, 7= a great deal of attention). Additionally, participants were asked to rate how notable they thought their purchase was on a 1 (= not notable at all), to 7 (= extremely notable) Likert scale. A reliability analysis was conducted. This showed that the two items together had an α = 0.780. As this exceeds the requirement of 0.6, the sum variable for salience was computed on these two items (M=2.812, SD=1.462).

3.4.3 Embarrassment

To measure embarrassment, participants were asked to indicate the level of embarrassment they had experienced, this was measured using a three-item seven-point scale drawn from previous research (Parrott and Smith, 1991; Dahl et al., 2001). For instance, participants were asked to indicate to if they would feel embarrassed to buy the product on a 1 (= not at all embarrassed), to 7 (= very embarrassed) Likert scale, for all conditions. The reliability analysis on the three items showed that the questions ‘how embarrassed do you feel when …’ and ‘how awkward do you feel when …’ together had an α = 0.913. When the question ‘how uncomfortable do you feel when …’ was included, the α was reduced extremely, to a value of 0.018. Therefore, the decision was made to exclude this item, and compute the sum variable based on the other two items (M=2.766, SD=1.860). This interesting finding will be discussed further in the discussion section of this thesis.

3.4.4 Control variables

(20)

Page | 19 Purchase familiarity was measured using a two-item seven-point scale based on previous research (Blair & Roese, 2013), asking participants how often they purchased the embarrassing product, and how familiar they were with it. A reliability analysis on the two questions indicated that the two items together had an α = 0.725. Thus, the sum variable was computed using both the items (M=2.804, SD=1.674). By using these variables, the internal validity of this research is positively influenced.

3.5 Data analysis plan

(21)

Page | 20

4. Results

4.1 Cleaning the dataset

In order to clean the dataset, several actions have been taken. In total, there were seven reasons for the removal of data. Participants’ data were removed (or sometimes altered) if they (1) had incomplete responses, (2) took less than 2 or longer than 30 minutes to complete the survey, (3) filled out impossible values, (4) failed to answer questions (missing values), (5) contained many outliers, (6) answered the probe question inappropriately, (7) showed familiarity with the fictitious brand Vesalgia. In total, this resulted in the removal of 93 responses. The process of data removal is discussed in more detail below.

First, incomplete responses were removed, which meant respondents who failed to fill out more than three questions were automatically removed. Those who failed to answer less than three were later examined. Respondents who completed the survey in less than two minutes were removed, as well as respondents who took longer than thirty minutes. Taking too little time suggests the participant may not have read the questions attentively which can influence them to not answer truthfully. Furthermore, respondents who took longer than 30 minutes to complete the survey may have been distracted, or may have had trouble understanding the language and/or questions. Those who had incomplete responses also often took less than two, or more than half an hour. A total of 43 respondents was removed from the dataset for these two reasons. Then, the dataset was cleaned further by correcting for impossible values, which were sometimes corrected (N=4) but mostly removed (N=9). An example of a correction made is a respondent who indicated ‘other’ when asked for their level of education, but then wrote down an option that was in the original list written in a different way. Additionally, participants who failed to answer less than 3 questions were examined. If values were missing in the measurement of the main variables (Salience, Embarrassment, Willingness to buy), the data for that participant was removed (N=10). If values were missing for the measurement of other variables (demographics, control variables), the data was kept as missing data. If one item of a sum variable included missing values, all items belonging to that sum variable were indicated as missing values, meaning the response for that participant would be excluded if the variable was included in an analysis.

(22)

Page | 21 survey was often short. A number of six respondents were removed because they only answered with 1, or only with 7. It is important to note that outliers do not directly imply questions were answered irrationally, it simply indicates the answers given are somewhat irregular. I chose to keep some outliers if they were not too extreme and if one scenario or variable had multiple outliers grouped together since such findings could actually be of great importance.

The probe question did not always receive a response. Some people replied that they did not know what the survey was about, some replied with the cover story they were provided with in the beginning of the survey. There were some participants, whose responses were not related to the study at all. For instance, one responded answered by questioning the meaning of life. Similar responses were removed from the dataset (N=5). The question did receive some correct answers, meaning the participant correctly guessed what the research was about. I have decided to still include these participants, as their responses appeared rational, and they took a normal amount of time to respond. Thus, I do not think their knowledge of the true reason I asked the questions has influenced their answers.

Some respondents indicated they were familiar with the brand of Vesalgia, which was surprising as it is a fictitious brand name. Therefore, these three respondents were removed from the dataset as well. To summarize, the dataset that started with 330 responses was cleaned, leaving a number of 237 responses to properly do my analyses with.

(23)

Page | 22

4.2 Analyses

4.2.1 Factor analysis

In order to simplify data and reducing data, a factor analysis was performed. This included the variables for Embarrassment, Salience, Willingness to buy, and Purchase Familiarity, which summed up 10 items. In order for a factor analysis to be appropriate, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was checked. According to Malholtra & Birks (2006), this score should exceed 0.5, the score met the criteria, as it was 0.766. In addition to the KMO test, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was performed, which showed to be significant at a 0.05 significance level (p=0.000). This indicates that the variables are correlated, which is necessary for factors to be created. Finally, before the factor analysis was done, communalities were checked. Malholtra & Birks state these should be above 0.4. The lowest communality was 0.767, thus this criterion was also satisfied.

(24)

Page | 23 4.2.2 Independent sample t-test

The survey manipulated the level of embarrassment, the level of salience concerning the purchase method, and the level of salience concerning the notability of the packaging, by using eight different scenarios. In order to check whether manipulations were successful, a series of three tests were conducted.

To analyse whether or not the average level of perceived embarrassment of those who saw the embarrassing product is different from those who saw the non-embarrassing product, an independent samples t-test was performed. This test was significant, t(235) =-13.793, p=0.000. As such, the average level perceived embarrassment for those who were manipulated to feel embarrassed (M=4.1, SD=1.663) does differ from those who were manipulated to not feel embarrassed (M=1.610, SD=1.091). This suggests that the manipulation itself was successful

In order to examine whether the average level of perceived salience for those who purchased through a scanner was different from those who purchased through a cashier was different, a t-test was conducted. The independent t-test was not significant, t(235)=-0.003, p=0.998. This indicates that the average level of perceived salience of those who purchased through a scanner (M=2.812, SD=1.462) does not differ from those who used a cashier (M=2.813, SD=1.468). These results suggest H2 is not supported. It also indicates our manipulation was not successful

Finally, to analyse whether a difference between the average perceived salience of those who bought a notable packaged product and those who bought a neutrally packaged product exists, another t-test was done. This test was not significant, t(235)=-1.831, p=0.068. Although it was close to being significant, the average level of perceived salience does not differ between those who saw a neutral package (M=2.630, SD=1.377) and those who saw a notable package (M=2.976, SD=1.521). As such, H3 is not supported.

4.2.3 Regression analysis

Before the regression analyses were performed, it was ensured that assumptions for normality, homoscedasticity (and with that linearity), and multicollinearity were met. This was done using a normal P-P plot, plotting the predicted values and residuals in a scatterplot, and by calculating the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values.

(25)

Page | 24 Thus, perceived salience negatively influences willingness to buy, B=-0.202, t=-3.008, p=0.003. This brings the results that H1 is supported, as shown in the model below; a higher level of perceived salience results in lower willingness to buy.

Fig. 5

Additionally, a regression analysis was performed to analyse whether perceived salience influences perceived embarrassment. The regression analysis was significant, R²=0.324, F(1, 234)=112.619, p=0.000. As such, perceived salience positively influences perceived embarrassment, B=0.724, t=10.612, p=0.000. This shows support for H4 because it indicates that a higher level of perceived salience results in higher perceived embarrassment.

Fig. 6

To examine if perceived embarrassment influences willingness to buy, a regression analysis was performed. The regression was significant, R²=0.065, F(1, 234)=16.208, p=0.000. This shows that perceived embarrassment influences willingness to buy, B=-0.209, t=-4.026, p=0.003. This indicates that a higher level of perceived embarrassment results in a lower willingness to buy. As such, this shows support for H5.

Fig. 7

As one can see, these regression analyses did not use Z-scores. This is because the scales for Salience, Embarrassment, and Willingness to buy, are all the same.

4.2.4 Mediation analysis

As proposed, the effect salience has on someone’s willingness to buy can be affected by one’s embarrassment level. This can be tested with mediation analysis, using embarrassment as a

Salience Willingness to _buy

H1: -0.202*

Embarrassment Willingness to _buy

H5: -0.209*

Salience Embarrassment

(26)

Page | 25 mediator, on the relationship between salience (X) and willingness to buy (Y). The model for this looks as follows:

C’

A B

C Fig. 7

The mediating effect is tested using the MEDIATE macro tool from Hayes. As covariates, the variables Purchase Familiarity, Gender, Age, and Education were added. The model summary of total effects indicates that 11.63% of the total variance is explained by the model and that it is significant (R²=0.1163, p=0.000). In order for a mediating effect to be present, Baron and Kenny (1986) introduced four conditions that must hold. First, the effect X has on Y must be significant (relation C). Second, the effect X has on M must be significant (relation A in the model). Similarly, the effect of M on Y must also be significant (relation B in the model). Finally, when M is included in the model, the effect of X on Y (relation C’) must become either non-significant or substantially lower. The table below shows the output of this mediation analysis including all eight scenarios.

Relation Estimate T-stat P-value

A 0.6430 10.0766 0.0000*

C -0.1435 -2.1649 0.0314*

B -0.0933 -1.3565 0.1763

C’ -0.0835 -1.0487 0.2954

Indirect Effect Effect LLCI ULCI

Salience -0.0600 -0.1670 0.0422

Table 1

As can be seen in the table, salience has a significant effect on willingness to buy (relation C), with an estimate of -0.1435 (p= 0.0314). Furthermore, the effect of salience on embarrassment (relation A) is significant too (estimate= 0.6430, p= 0.0000). This indicates

Salience WTB

Embarrassment

(27)

Page | 26

H5: 0.6430* H4: -0.0933

salience directly affects embarrassment. Contrastingly, relationship B is not significant (estimate=-0.0933. p=0.1763) meaning the third condition for a mediating effect does not hold. In line with this finding, the indirect effect of salience suggests that zero is contained within the confidence interval. The fourth condition is held, with an estimate of -0.0835 and a non-significant result (p=0.2954) one can say the effect of X on Y in the model which included the mediator became non-significant. However, since the third condition does not hold, there is no mediating effect present. In addition to this, the OMNIBUS results (LLCI=-0.0719, UCLI=0.0146) contains zero, indicating there are no indirect effects.

This brings the result that H6 is not supported. H1 and H4 are supported. In contrast to the regression analysis, H5 is not supported in this mediation analysis. The results are shown in the model below:

Fig. 8

Salience Willingness to

buy

(28)

Page | 27

5. Discussion

In the introduction of this research, a question was raised concerning the influence of salience on willingness to buy in an offline, public setting, and whether or not this effect was mediated by embarrassment. The outcome of the results of the research lends support to some of my theorizing, though not all hypotheses were supported. The table below provides an overview of the results in relation to the hypotheses of this research.

H1: Perceived salience has a negative effect on willingness to buy embarrassing products

Supported

H2: A notable purchase situation for a product results in higher perceived salience than a less notable purchase situation.

Not supported

H3: The notability of the packaging of a product results in higher perceived salience than a less notable packaging.

Not supported, but close to significance

H4: Perceived salience has a positive relationship with perceived embarrassment, such that the more salient the (offline) purchase of an embarrassing product is perceived to be, the more embarrassed a customer will feel.

Supported

H5: Perceived embarrassment has a negative relationship with willingness to buy.

Supported

H6: Perceived embarrassment mediates the relationship between perceived salience and a consumer’s willingness to buy an embarrassing product.

Not supported

Table 2

The next section discusses the results, limitations, and implications per hypothesis. It is followed by general limitations of the research, as well as a conclusion of the thesis.

5.1 Discussion of results per hypothesis

5.1.1 The effect of perceived salience on willingness to buy – Hypothesis 1

(29)

Page | 28 Roese (2013), who introduced the product prominence hypothesis. Although research emphasizes the importance of being seen, as a brand, and a product (Clement, 2013; Fennis & Stroebe, 2010), the feeling of being seen sometimes has undesired results. Marketers must be aware of this ‘darker side’ of salience, and learn that even though it is important to grab a consumer’s attention, there is a limit and a border that should not be crossed. As such, managers must consider this effect throughout the creation of marketing strategies. Results suggest that grabbing ‘too much’ attention is an option, and this might be just as harmful as not grabbing enough attention.

Possible influences on this effect can be product categories, since this thesis solely focused on healthcare and products that are typically found in drugstores. As such, it would be valuable to examine when the negative relationship exists, to ensure products and services are marketed effectively.

5.1.2 The effect of purchase methods on perceived salience – Hypothesis 2

This study did not find a significant relationship concerning the notability of the purchase method. As such, hypothesis 2 is not supported. The assumption was made that a less public purchase method would reduce salience (Dahl et al., 2001), as it could influence and reduce the ‘spotlight effect’ (Savitsky et al., 2000). Nevertheless, results indicate that there is no evidence that a more salient purchase method (i.e. a purchase through a cashier desk) results in a higher perceived salience. This unexpected result may arise due to limitations such as a small sample size for the pre-tests, or the different methods used to present packages in the pre-tests and the final survey. This will be discussed further in the general limitations section below.

5.1.3 The effect of packaging on perceived salience – Hypothesis 3

(30)

Page | 29 or materials used. If neutral packages do, to some extent, influence a consumers’ willingness to buy, then marketers must consider this when creating packages, especially when these products are considered embarrassing. Moreover, they should be aware of the possible consequences the use of a more neutral packaging may have. For instance, a product with a neutral package may need a different marketing strategy to create brand and product awareness, as the package itself is most likely not as prominent and as such not as easy to remember.

5.1.4 The effect of perceived salience on perceived embarrassment – Hypothesis 4

The hypothesis that perceived salience would have a positive relationship with perceived embarrassment was supported. This makes sense intuitively, since the feeling that others pay attention may induce the feeling of being judged, and make consumers scared to signal an undesired identity. Moreover, it is in line with research conducted by Lau-Gesk and Drolet’s research (2008) who found that consumers who feel they might be observed by others are more aware of their public identity, and with that more prone to be afraid to send out undesired signals. This provides possible directions for future research, namely reducing salience to reduce feelings of embarrassment. Store managers might provide customers with a greater sense of privacy during their offline shopping experience, for instance by providing privacy bags or baskets. Additionally, more research should be conducted on what other in-store factors could influence feelings of salience and thus embarrassment. It might be interesting to test whether the location of the embarrassing products in-store affects purchase intention. Especially because an endcap location – a display at the end of an isle –could be considered more salient because the appearance of the shelf is often different from the other shelves in the store. This would be particularly interesting because brands often pay premium to be displayed at such stands (Barney et al., 2018).

5.1.5 The effect of perceived embarrassment on willingness to buy – Hypothesis 5

(31)

Page | 30 Marketers should attempt to de-stigmatize embarrassing products, letting consumers know it is normal to buy such products.

5.1.6 The mediating effect of perceived embarrassment – Hypothesis 6

Although research shows direct effects between the independent, dependent, and mediating variable, indirect effects were not found, which means hypothesis 6 is not supported. This suggests that the negative relation perceived salience has with willingness to buy cannot be explained by perceived embarrassment, and that embarrassment as such is not a mediating variable in this relationship. Possible reasons for this result, high cross-loadings and the adaptation of the embarrassment scale, are discussed in detail below.

5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research

A number of limitations of this research must be acknowledged. Possible solutions and suggestions for future research are also provided.

A major limitation of this research is the high cross-loadings found in the factor analysis, which indicate that some of the items load too strongly on other factors besides their ‘own’ factor. This was the case for two items related to the measure of perceived embarrassment. These two items loaded too high on the factor that also contained items related to the perceived salience variable, whilst also being contained in their own factor. This might explain the lack of support for the mediation hypothesis, as the variables for perceived embarrassment and perceived salience appear to explain the same variance within the dependent variable willingness to buy. This means the two variables overlap to a certain extent. This is surprising, as the items chosen for both salience and embarrassment were based on research and have been used without trouble in the past. However, as will be discussed next, the embarrassment scale was adjusted in order to increase the internal validity of the sum variable ‘perceived embarrassment’.

(32)

Page | 31 embarrassed and awkward, their feelings of being uncomfortable remained low and thus the scale’s internal validity decreased. As most respondents were Dutch, this may be a cultural phenomenon, or it could be due to a language barrier.

Moreover, it is important to note that during the post-survey interview mentioned above, multiple respondents indicated they felt confused by some questions. They felt the three items of the willingness to buy scale were asking the exact same. Again, since most respondents were Dutch, this could be a result of a language barrier, though most respondents had completed a master’s degree. This makes it relatively safe to assume they had sufficient knowledge of the English language to answer these survey questions adequately. Nevertheless, this confusion could have had an effect on the validity of the answers. It would therefore be valuable to conduct similar research in which respondents are native in the language used for the survey. Further, respondents of the non-embarrassing product scenarios (i.e. nasal spray) noted they were confused when they were asked about their embarrassment levels, and wondered if there should be a reason for them to feel awkward, uncomfortable or embarrassed. This too, may have caused confusion and thus may have influenced the answers. A possible solution in the future would be to ask more questions related to other emotions so that the questions regarding embarrassment do not stand out as much. However, it should be taken into account that this does result in a longer survey, which could possibly result in a lower number of respondents.

(33)

Page | 32 Finally, an important limitation of this research is that it is based on self-reports on expected feelings. Naturally, it would be interesting to assess the actual feelings when shopping and conduct research in a more realistic environment. Options include conducting a field experiment, using an actual drugstore, or using virtual reality. This ensures that participants do not have to imagine a situation, but actually are surrounded in a situation. As a result, manipulations would be more successful, and different outcomes might be found in field research. For instance, although our results did not indicate any significant results for this effect, a trend of providing self-scanners in drugstores is arising. The manager of a Dutch drugstore called Etos was not at liberty to provide any data but revealed that they did see a difference in the preferred purchase methods. He pointed out that more people seemed to buy products embarrassing products using a self-scanner, instead of using the cashier desk. It would certainly be interesting to conduct research on this and see whether this difference is significant.

5.3 Conclusion

Marketers constantly face the increasingly difficult challenge of standing out in the retail environment. The competition for consumer attention in modern retail has influenced marketers to use bright packaging, large fonts, or to create uniquely shaped products. However, as this research has shown, these attempts to stand out could potentially hurt a business, especially for those who try to sell embarrassing products.

This thesis contributes to the body of knowledge, by analysing the impact of embarrassment in trying to overcome consumer scepticism to buy products that they consider embarrassing. The aim of this study was to explore the influencing effects of embarrassment, as well as reducing the literature gap regarding this topic. Most importantly, it was conducted to facilitate marketers and managers with more knowledge regarding the negative effects of salience and the influences of embarrassment. Therefore, the study tried to answer the following research question, as stated earlier in the introduction of this thesis:

To what extent does salience influence willingness to buy in an offline, public setting, and to what extent is this association mediated through perceived embarrassment? Further, to what

extent is this effect influenced by package notability and the purchase method used?

(34)

(35)

Page | 34

6. References

Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., & Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade‐offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295-306.

Barney, C., Esmark Jones, C., Farmer, A. (2018). How to sell embarrassing products. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/02/how-to-sell-embarrassing-products.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bell, J. (2009). Why embarrassment inhibits the acquisition and use of condoms: a qualitative approach to understanding risky sexual behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 379-391.

Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signalling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121-134.

Blair, S., & Roese, N. J. (2013). Balancing the basket: the role of shopping basket composition in embarrassment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 676-691.

Clement, J., Kristensen, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2013). Understanding consumers' in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 234-239.

(36)

Page | 35 Dahl, D. W., Manchanda, R. V., & Argo, J. J. (2001). Embarrassment in consumer purchase:

The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of consumer research, 28(3), 473-481.

Dong, P., Huang, X., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2013). The illusion of saving face: How people symbolically cope with embarrassment. Psychological science, 24(10), 2005-2012.

Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The psychology of advertising. Psychology Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Kauppinen‐Räisänen, H. (2014). Strategic use of colour in brand packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 27(8), 663-676.

Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., & Luomala, H. T. (2010). Exploring consumers' product-specific colour meanings. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13(3), 287-308.

Krishna, A., Herd, K. B., & Aydınoğlu, N. Z. (2015). Wetting the bed at twenty-one: Embarrassment as a private emotion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 473-486

Lau-Gesk, L., & Drolet, A. (2008). The publicly self-consciousness consumer: Prepared to be embarrassed. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(2), 127-136.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2006). Marketing Research: an applied approach. Pearson Education UK.

Miller, R. S. (2007). Is embarrassment a blessing or a curse? The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research, 245-262.

(37)

Page | 36 Parrott, W. Gerrod and Stephanie F. Smith (1991), “Embarrassment: Actual vs. Typical Cases,

Classical vs. Prototypical Representations,” Cognition and Emotion, 5 (September– November), 467–488.

Raheem, A. R., Vishnu, P. A. R. M. A. R., & Ahmed, A. M. (2014). Impact of product packaging on consumer’s buying behavior. European journal of scientific research, 122(2), 125-134.

Rebollar, R., Lidón, I., Serrano, A., Martín, J., & Fernández, M. J. (2012). Influence of chewing gum packaging design on consumer expectation and willingness to buy. An analysis of functional, sensory and experience attributes. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 162-170.

Savitsky, K., Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Do others judge us as harshly as we think? Overestimating the impact of our failures, shortcomings, and mishaps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 44.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of business research, 22(2), 159-170.

Szmigin, I., & Piacentini, M. (2018). Consumer behaviour. Oxford University Press.

Wang, D., Oppewal, H., & Thomas, D. (2017). Anticipated embarrassment due to social presence withholds consumers from purchasing products that feature a lucky charm. European Journal of Marketing, 51(9/10), 1612-1630.

(38)

Page | 37

7. Appendix Appendix A – photos of the digitally created packages

Product A: neutral packaging of the embarrassing product.

(39)

Page | 38 Product C: neutral packaging for the non-embarrassing product

(40)

Page | 39

Appendix B – Survey

The survey used in this research is presented below. The survey included eight conditions, of which two are shown: (1) the embarrassing product in a neutral package purchased using a cashier desk, and (2) the non-embarrassing product in a notable package, purchased using a self-scanner.

The survey started with an introduction block, which was the same for each participant, and it then showed the manipulations together with the questions to measure the main variables. The survey ended with a measurement of the control variables, and questions regarding the participants’ background.

B.1 - Introduction Block Intro Dear participant,

This survey is about the use of marketing and sales techniques used in retail, and the social environment a consumer comes across. The data gathered through this survey will be used for my master thesis research and thus for scientific purposes only.

Filling out the survey only takes around 3 minutes of your time. Responses are treated confidentially. If at any moment you feel uncomfortable or have other reasons to discontinue, please feel free to stop at any time.

If questions concerning this survey arise, do not hesitate to contact me at b.x.huisman@student.rug.nl

Thank you in advance for your help and participation, Beau Huisman

o

I have read the text above and agree to participate in this survey (1)

The following part of this survey will include visuals and questions about a retail experience.

(41)

Page | 40 B.2 Embarrassing, neutral packaging, cashier desk – Condition

Imagine you are experiencing discomfort because of your hemorrhoids. You go to a drugstore.

It is of normal size, and you notice a few other customers are inside. The shop only uses cashier desks, where a cashier scans your chosen product(s) and handles your payment.

You find the following product (depicted below) in the shelves.

(42)

Page | 41 Q2 How satisfied would you be with your purchase experience?

Extremely dissatisfied (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely satisfied (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q3 How embarrassed do you feel when buying this product? Not embarrassed at all (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely embarrassed (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q4 How probable is it that you would buy this product? Not at all probable (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely probable (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

(43)

Page | 42 Q6 How notable do you think your purchase was?

Not notable at all (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely notable (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q7 How possible is it that you would buy this product? Not at all possible (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) extremely possible (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q8 How uncomfortable do you feel when buying this product? Extremely uncomfortable (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely comfortable (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

(44)

Page | 43 B.3. Non-embarrassing, notable packaging, purchase through self-scanner – Condition

Imagine you are experiencing discomfort because of a blocked nose. You go to a drugstore.

It is of normal size, and you notice a few other customers are inside. The shop only uses self-scanner systems, where you scan your own chosen products and pay for them at a self-scan machine.

You find the following product (depicted below) in the shelves.

Note: the picture was reduced for this appendix, it was larger in the actual survey.

Q1 How likely are you to buy this product? Not likely at all (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) Neither likely nor unlikely (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) likely Very (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

(45)

Page | 44 Q3 How embarrassed do you feel when buying this product?

Not embarrassed at all (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely embarrassed (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q4 How probable is it that you would buy this product? Not at all probable (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely probable (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q5 How much attention do you think others paid to this product during your purchase? Very little attention (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) A great deal of attention (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

(46)

Page | 45 Q7 How possible is it that you would buy this product?

Not at all possible (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) extremely possible (7) Indicate your answer (1)

o

Q8 How uncomfortable do you feel when buying this product? Extremely uncomfortable (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) Extremely comfortable (7) Indicate your answer (1)

Master Thesis ~ Marketing MSc Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Marketing