The effect of the type of production on acceptance of flaws

The effect of the type of production on

acceptance of flaws

Alexandre Josep Usach Nogues (S3002462) University of Groningen

The effect of the type of production on

acceptance of flaws

By

Alexandre Josep Usach Nogues

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc Marketing

January 16th, 2017

Abstract

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION ... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

Production and marketing ... 7

Machine-made and ... 8

Handmade products and superficial flaws ... 8

Need for uniqueness ... 9

Control variables ... 10 HYPOTHESES ... 12 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 15 METHODOLOGY ... 15 Data collection ... 15 Measurement of variables ... 16 Method of analysis ... 19 Results ... 20

Main effects and interactions ... 20

Moderation ... 21

Discussion ... 22

Limitations of the study ... 24

REFERENCES ... 26

INTRODUCTION

As household consumption of goods increase year after year (European Environment Agency, 2015), more and more perfectly consumable goods are discarded (Hoornweg et al., 2013). Reducing the waste of unused products is one of the challenges of the century for society, which sees how many untapped products top the already full landfills and waste dumps. For food items alone, more than the 30% of the world production is discarded before it is even consumed (Lipinski, 2013). For many other non-related food products, the tendency to consumerism encourages replacement rather than repair (Alexander, 2014). Among the discarded products, blemished commodities have an extremely high discarding rate (Goldenberg, 2016) even though the product itself might be perfectly fine for the consumption. Superficially flawed products, defined as slightly blemished goods with unimpaired functionality, pose a serious problem at a business level. The loss of revenues (Stuart, 2009), plus the negative effect of such blemished products on brand perceptions (George, 2010) make flawed products a critical issue that must be addressed.

It is thus a societal and business duty to decrease the disposal of these goods. Therefore, increasing the acceptance of flawed products might be a way to reduce the afore mentioned waste while increasing revenues for the firms. If companies could encourage consumers to accept flawed products, all the entities (consumers, firms and environment) would enjoy higher benefits. How could the consumer then be more convinced to accept flawed products? Does the type of production of a good have any effect on discarding or accepting a flawed product? Can individuals turn their perception of a flaw to an attribute of the product? Is it possible to highlight that the imperfection actually makes the product unique, instead of flawed? Does need for uniqueness (NFU) foster this perception? These questions will be addressed in the subsequent parts of this paper.

Many would agree with this statement, but can this affirmation vary depending on the products’ method of production? One may refuse to accept a superficially flawed product where its method of production was machine-made, as this type of production usually ensures a high degree of quality, thus is expected to be pristine. On the other hand, would that individual have the same perception if the product was handmade, rather than manufactured by a machine?

Recently, there has been an increase of firms, projects and websites that sell handmade products (Campbell, 2016). In these retail stores, products catalogued are claimed to be handmade. When browsing around the list of products, one can observe that products on sale differ from one another in different terms: different shapes within products of the same collection, misaligned designs, trails of fingerprints and so forth. However, people are willing to accept these little flaws. When a recent customer of one of these online stores (Etsy forums) was asked for the flawed product she just purchased, she answered, “If I bought it from Ikea I would ask them for another one”. Nevertheless, because it was handmade and she was aware of that, she proudly kept the product. According to Fuchs et al. (2015), handmade products enjoy a different aura than those that are manufactured by machines. Would that also be the case when the product is superficially flawed? Again, one can wonder whether superficial flaws or irregular aesthetics in design may be ignored, or even praised, when a product is considered to be handmade.

having character in a refined level, rather than being imperfect”. Another seller explained her experience with a satisfied customer, who claimed that he loved the fact that the product had a small imperfection, as it made the commodity unique and irreproducible. These opinions infer that consumers may positively react towards a superficially flawed product when it is handmade. At the same time, this effect might be increased when the user enjoys a high level of uniqueness as they may perceive superficially flawed products as something unique.

These sets of attitudes, along with the literature, establish the baseline for this paper. The study is structured as follows. First, it aims to replicate the study of Fuchs et al. (2015), in which they demonstrate that handmade products are perceived as more attractive than machine-made products. Secondly, it intends to demonstrate if product damage affects the impact of the type of labelling on acceptance of flaws. This is, whether flawed products labelled as handmade are more accepted than those with no flaws, and whether products labelled as machine-made are less accepted than their non-flawed counterparts. Finally, the study seeks to unveil whether the previous effect is strengthened by the need for uniqueness trait. If such relationships occur, the study will contribute to expanding the marketing literature, giving firms useful tools when dealing with flawed products.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Production and marketing

perceptions rather than the production process of products. In line with this, the purpose of this paper is to study how labelling a flawed product as handmade may change the perception of its flaws, rather than comparing two products where their production process was either only handmade or machine-made.

Furthermore, following the definition of Fuchs et al. (2015), in this research handmade products will be defined as “products that are advertised to the public as created through hand process, rather than by a machine or a machinery process”.

Machine-made andHandmade products and superficial flaws

Thorstein Veblen, in his work “The Theory of the Leisure Class” (1889/2007), already noted that an artisan and a machine-made silver spoon could be identical in perception, yet the handmade option was considered more valuable and authentic. Indeed, handmade products have been reported to have a higher attractiveness when compared to machine-made products (Fuchs et al., 2015).

Besides the fact that a product could be machine-made or handmade, products inevitably can sometimes come with what consumers may perceive as flaws in the design, slight decolourations or unequal shapes, even though this could be a matter of individual perception (Sherif, 1935).

While these findings are true, there seem to be no studies specifically aimed at unveiling the effect of imperfection in products that are labelled as handmade. As noted earlier in this paper, when delving into online marketplaces where handmade products were listed, some products on sale presented slightly irregular shapes, asymmetry or aesthetic flaws, yet these products were marketed and sold. Many reviews allowed inference that when a handmade product is superficially flawed, positive associations, such as that the product cannot be reproduced, or that it gains originality, arise.

As a matter of fact, each handmade product is unique, and hard to be copied again. This also enhances the value of the product and makes every product scarce and almost impossible to reproduce (Cialdini, 1985). If, to this evaluation we add the perception that a superficial flaw might be something positive, the product’s attractiveness could be increased when compared with a non-flawed handmade product.

Need for uniqueness

As handmade products are created by humans, perfection is hard, if not impossible, to achieve (Mill, 1871). This allowed me to hypothesize that products with superficial flaws may be more accepted if they are labelled as handmade, as the flaw might be perceived as something that is part of the product. The product will gain personality, individualism and it will be almost impossible to reproduce, so it will render the product as unique. Need for uniqueness may play an important role in the relationship of handmade-acceptance of flaws, as people pursuing uniqueness might be even more attracted to a superficially flawed handmade product because it will be perceived as unique and irreproducible.

attracted to products that meet the following characteristics: innovative, customized, less popular and scarce.

Individuals, also called “first adopters”, can be attracted to innovative products, such as those that are newly released and only a small number of customers are enjoying it (Robertson, 1971; Rogers, 1983). Customized products are also preferred by those who look to differentiate from others (Lynn and Harris, 1997). Tepper (1994) also provided relevant information about how people who scored high in need for uniqueness tended to accept less popular products than those with low scores of NFU. Lastly, scarcity has also been widely documented as a driver of need for uniqueness, as individuals with a high level were more prone to be attracted to the scarce products rather than more frequent commodities (Brock, 1968; Lynn, 1991; Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). The retail environment also affected the feelings of self-distinction. Those scoring high in NFU were found to enjoy purchasing its products in uncommon places, different from shops used for everyday needs (Darley, 1993).

Control variables

As noted before, previous investigation in online forums has been done in order to assess the motivations of consumers in which circumstances they would accept a superficially flawed product. Apart from uniqueness, two more variables might impact the relationship between the labelling type and acceptance of flaws: “perceived effort” invested in the product and “human interaction”. Some users stated that they would keep a handmade product with small flaws because they were aware that the effort put on it was relatively high, thus they would not mind if it was not pristine. This relates to the effort heuristic (Kruger et al. 2004), which states that goods that are perceived to require a high level of effort will have higher ratings in product liking. As such, effort will be controlled in this paper.

artisan products are actually made by real people, rather than by a machine. Knowing that a product is produced by another human may transfer some positive attributes that are related to human interaction to the product, such as warmth, feelings of company and so on. Although literature only states that the previous is true for lonely people (Epley, 2008), review opinions allow the inference that this effect might be extended to the majority of consumers. Individuals crave for human interaction and need the social component in their lives as Maslow’s (1968) exposed in his pyramid of needs. Thus, the fact that knowing the product is made by another human may increase the degree of liking for the buyer; especially in those commodities where the consumer can feel very attached (Mugge et al., 2010) Some handmade-product consumers had the feeling that the essence of the craftsmen still remained in the product (Etsy Forums). Others stated that items with small flaws, such as unintended fingerprints, carried human touch and were more unique. Thus, consumers might accept a product because it contains someone else’s essence (Fuchs et al, 2015; Etsy Forums). Furthermore, flaws made the product imperfect as well as unique and it reminded them that someone worked on it with their bare hands. Most users also claimed that imperfection was closely related with humanity, as humans are imperfect. Philosophers along the history, such as Mill, also argued that humans are tied to imperfection (Mill, 1871), which implies that one cannot expect perfection in a creation made by humans. For all the stated above, people may accept a flawed product because it carries some kind of human interaction, rather than because the product is unique or individualized. The feeling of “human interaction” will be controlled in this study.

A couple of questions related to familiarity with laptop bags and previous ownership of a similar bag were asked, as familiarity with a given product or product category might influence product evaluation (Raju, 1977).

Finally, age and current working status were also controlled in the study.

HYPOTHESES

Groves (2001) discovered that natural appearance and handmade production drove the attractiveness and the perceived level of authenticity of the products, which is defined as the extent a product could be recognized as something out of the norm (Spooner, 1986). Silver (1993) gives another definition of product authenticity: a good that allows consumers escape the daily routine; a meaningful commodity. In short, authenticity in a product is the individuality and originality a product has over average goods. It has been found that authenticity can enhance product attractiveness (Ahn, 2015). Since handmade production has been related to authenticity, it might be preferred over machine-made production. Fuchs et al. (2015) also noted that handmade goods enjoyed higher product attractiveness than those that were machine-made. Replicating their study, I propose:

H1: Products labelled as handmade may enjoy a higher attractiveness than those labelled as machine-made.

On one hand, machine-made products are assumed to deliver products with a high level of detail (Liebl and Roy, 2003) and even perfection (Womack, 1990). Thus, flaws in machine-made products can be seen as a sign of the product being contaminated, which can lead to infer negative consumer perceptions on the product and even the brand (George, 2010). When facing machine-made products, consumers expect maximum quality, hence blemished products are expected to be less tolerated than their handmade counterparts.

compare it with a machine’s precision when it comes to deliver several similar copies of the same product, thus making these type of products more unique and original. In this situation, superficial flaws could be perceived as part of the product, an artist touch, rather than something that must be avoided because it will give the product a touch of individuality.

Several opinions of buyers and sellers of crafted products stated that instead of “flaw” they preferred to call it “character”. Most of them claimed that they would accept a flawed product if it was handmade, because it was something unique and irreproducible (Etsy Forums). It follows that one reason why consumers might be more tolerant with slightly “out-of-the-norm” hand crafted goods can be the fact that products cannot be reproduced 100% again, thus all the handmade products are unique in their own way. For this, flawed handmade products might be perceived more positively when they have a superficial flaw. In addition, this possible acceptance leads to the belief that handmade products are different from each other, rendering them as unique, original, customized and scarce (Lynn, 2002). Hence, consumers embracing this set of adjectives when searching for products are expected to accept handmade products as they come, even if superficial flaws are present.

It is then proposed that superficially flawed handmade products are perceived as more unique and scarce, thus more attractive (Brock, 1968), than their non-flawed counterparts, and consumers may accept the superficial flaws in the handmade products to a higher extent, as they will consider them as part of the product.

H2a: When a product is labelled as machine-made, superficial flaws lead to more

negative product attractiveness when compared to a machine-made product with no product damage

Need for uniqueness is defined as the degree of self-differentiation from others that individuals seek. Being either too similar or dissimilar from other individuals may result in negative emotions towards the individual. Thus, people try to differentiate from others through different activities or ways (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). One of the most relevant and studied ways to reaffirm such self-distinctiveness is through the acquisition of consumer products (Fromkin, Williams and Dipboye, 1974). Therefore, consumers might fulfil their need for uniqueness by purchasing products that are less popular, more innovative, scarce and unique.

Tepper (1994) proved through the development of three studies that individuals who scored high on need for uniqueness chose the less popular backpack from a given set. In another study, they observed that when people’s NFU scores were high they were more prone to select a less conventional colour to paint a room. This means that individuals with great level of need for uniqueness are highly attracted to less popular products .The pursuit of innovative products also determines the need for uniqueness. In their studies, Burns (1992) found a positive relation between early adoption of a product and the level of the uniqueness.

Another important determinant of the need for uniqueness is scarce products. The possession of uncommon and rare products enhances the need for uniqueness. Several studies back this relation. According to the commodity theory developed by Brock (1968), scarcity enhances the value of possessions. Lynn (1991) gathered a total of 41 studies to demonstrate the relationship between scarcity and uniqueness, further confirming the hypothesis of the commodity theory.

Purchasing customized products (Lynn and Harris, 1997) can also be perceived as sign of differentiation from other people. Since handmade products are normally seen as uncommon, scarce, innovative and customized (the latter may not be directly customized by the customer, but by the seller), it is expected that the acceptance of flaws in handmade products will be moderated by the need for uniqueness.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure 1: Conceptual model. *Measured as product attractiveness.

Figure 1 explains the relationship that will be further developed in this paper. Type of labelling is the first independent variable. It is expected that when products are tagged as handmade, an increase in the product attractiveness will happen, as opposed to when products that are labelled as machine-made.

Product damage is the second independent variable, divided into ‘no superficial flaw’ and ‘superficial flaw’. When a product is superficially flawed and labelled as handmade, it is expected to be more accepted than its non-flawed counterpart. When it is superficially flawed but labelled as machine-made, the product is less accepted than when the product is machine-made but has no superficial flaws.

Need for uniqueness positively moderates this relationship. Individuals scoring high in this attribute will be prone to value flawed handmade products more positively than those that are low in this trait, as they might see the product as something unique.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection

the internal validity of the study, participants were randomly assigned to the four different conditions (Neter, 1989). The experiment was designed using an online survey software, Qualtrics. The survey was distributed through social media channels such as Facebook, mailing lists and discussion forums. The survey was available for 7 days and a total of 180 people participated in the study. 13 participants were removed due to incomplete responses, leaving a final sample of 167 individuals (Mage= 26.65, SDage= 6,31). In order to ensure the robustness of the results (Malhotra, 2004), all the 4 different conditions had more than 40 or more participants each.

The procedure of the experiment was as follows. First, participants were asked to fill a survey giving their opinion about a new set of laptop bags that were about to be released. Once they were provided with this information, each participant was randomly assigned to one of four conditions (see Table 1). After carefully checking the product, participants rated its attractiveness and questions related to the control variables effort and human interaction. After filling this set of items, they were asked to express their degree of uniqueness. These sets of questions were asked after viewing the product in order to avoid possible priming effects, which might bias the results. Once this part was completed, they were asked demographic questions.

No flaw Superficial flaw

Machine-made labelling Condition I Condition II

Handmade labelling Condition III Condition IV

Table 1 shows the 4 different conditions in the study

Measurement of variables

it was extracted from an actual e-commerce of handmade products (Etsy). According to the reviews of their buyers, the bag was considered gender-neutral. An independent-samples t-test further confirmed this, as it showed no significant difference of gender on the attractiveness of the bag (t(165) = -1.112 , p = 0.268). The average product attractiveness for men (M = 4,67, SD = 1,23) did not differ from the average product attractiveness for women (M = 4,89, SD = 1,21). The bag presented in all four conditions was exactly the same in order to avoid confounds. In the two non-flawed conditions, the picture of the product was presented with no flaws; whereas in the two flawed conditions, the picture was slightly modified to present a superficial flaw that did not affect its function. The superficial flaw chosen was a slight decolouration on the corner of the bag. The product in the two first conditions was labelled as machine-made whilst in the other two it was labelled as handmade (Table 1). In all conditions a short description accompanied the picture of the product, presenting the materials used to create the bag, its size and its retail price. In the conditions with superficial flaws, it was explicitly noted that the imperfection did not affect the functionality of the product.

The dependent variable, acceptance of flaws, was measured in terms of product attractiveness (Figure 5, Appendix). The question “How do you evaluate this product” was asked to the participants once they examine their product. Using a seven-point scale, participants rated the attractiveness of the product based on the five following items: “I like this bag,” “the bag is good,” “If I saw this bag in a store, I would be willing to buy it” “I would be happy to receive this bag as a gift,” and “The bag is of high quality”. These questions are adapted from Fuchs et al., (2015) study. In order to measure product attractiveness, factor analysis was used to lower the five items included in the measurement into a single item. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was shown to be significant (p=0,000), meaning that all correlations in the correlation matrix were significant. The KMO test provided a 0,836, which indicates good sampling adequacy (Fabrigar, 1999). The reliability analysis gave a strong result as well, having a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,880, very close to 0,9. According to George and Mallery (2003), an alpha over 0,9 reveals an excellent reliability.

perceived effort. To control for the variable effort, three questions were asked to rate how participants felt regarding the laptop bag (Figure 6, Appendix). Thus, questions asked if participants felt that the product was time-intensive/not time-intensive to produce, effortful/not effortful to produce and difficult/not difficult to produce. Questions were answered using a Likert scale. These questions were also extracted from Fuchs et al. (2015), study. The three items were reduced to 1 factor, with a KMO of 0,724, a significant result from Bartlett’s test (p=0,000) and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,873.

Another potential confounding variable would be the perceived “human interaction” that a product may have imbued by being in contact with another human. Many users asked in Etsy Forums stated that they would prefer a flawed product if they were able to tell that another human worked on it, even if it had small flaws. While this might be a little more obvious for handmade products, it can also be true for machine-made products, as ultimately human beings also produce these machines, and a flaw can be attributed to human interplay. Accordingly, “human interaction”, defined as the presence of the human essence imbued in the product, was also a control variable. The following questions are asked: 1. This product feels different because someone was once physically in contact with, 2. This product contains the human essence of the crafter, 3. The product reminds me that another human worked on it (Figure 7, Appendix). These questions were adapted from the study of Grayson (2000). In this case, the three factors were also reduced to one single factor. Results showed a KMO of 0,703, as well as a significant Bartlett’s (p=0,000). Cronbach’s alpha was also high (0,797), providing reliability to the scale.

product designs (Block, 1995), properly measures the level of the uniqueness of the participants. In order to avoid tiredness from the participant and shorten the length of the survey, 11 items were selected and presented, instead of the 31 original items.

After assessing the level of uniqueness, demographic questions such as age, gender (male/female), and current status (either working, studying or self-employed), were asked. Furthermore, a couple of questions aimed to unveil whether participants were familiar with laptop bags. Questions related to this topic were “Do you usually use laptop bags?” and “Do you own a similar bag like the one in the study?” (Figure 9, Appendix).

Method of analysis

In order to assess whether there is a direct relationship between type of labelling, type of imperfection and acceptance of flaws, a two-way ANCOVA was performed. Because both independent variables are categorical, this was the most suitable test run. Furthermore, the moderating effect of need for uniqueness was tested using a three-way ANCOVA. Even though the variable was interval in nature, it was reconverted into a categorical variable in order to facilitate subsequent analysis. In order to differentiate between people with low and high need for uniqueness and unveil the moderating effect, a new variable was created based on the median score of the variable need for uniqueness. Participants with a score lower than the median (Median= 3.6667), were labelled as low in uniqueness seeking and coded as “1”. Participants with a score over the median were labelled as high in need for uniqueness and coded as “2”.

Results

Results of the control variables were as follows. Gender was not significant, t(165) = -1.112 , p = 0.268. Men (M = 4,67, SD = 1,23) and women (M = 4,89, SD = 1,21) ) did not significantly differ in rating the product attractiveness of the product. Having a similar bag also did not significantly affect the attractiveness of the product (t(165) = 1.419, p = 0.158). Owning a laptop bag also did not affect the product attractiveness (t(165) = 0.145, p = 0.885), neither did age (R2=0.007, F(1,165) = -1.11, p = .268).

Current working status also showed no significance. Only perceived effort (R2=0.87, F(1,165) = 11.87, p = .000) and human interaction (R2=0.88, F(1,165) = 14.723, p = .000) were significant at the p < 0.05 level, thus were included in subsequent analysis.

Main effects and interactions

Following the previous test, a 2-way ANCOVA was run using the 167 valid responses from the participants. The statistical model revealed no significant main effect of type of labeling on product attractiveness (F (1, 167) = 3.557, p = .069), stating that there was no significant difference at p > .05 between the type of labeling and product attractiveness. This result contradicts hypothesis 1, which stated that products labeled as handmade might enjoy a higher attractiveness than those labeled as machine-made.

The main effect for the type of damage was also not significant (F (1, 167) = 0.043, p = .835). The interpretation of this result is that there was no significant difference in product attractiveness whether the product had a superficial flaw or not.

The interaction effect between the type of labeling and the type of damage showed no significance as well (F (1, 167) = 0.997, p = .320), meaning that product attractiveness in machine-made or handmade conditions did not significantly differ whether the

product was superficially flawed or not. H2a stated that when a product was labeled as

product attractiveness when compared to a handmade product with no damage. In light of this results, hypotheses H2a and H2b cannot be accepted.

In addition, the covariates, perceived effort and human interaction, showed significance in the model, which establishes a relationship between these two variables and acceptance of flaws. As perceived effort increased, product attractiveness increased as well. The same happened with human interaction: the more human interaction the participants felt with the product, the more accepted the product was.

Although the results for the main effects and interaction were not significant, the direction of the trends allows the deduction of interesting information. As shown in Figure 11A (Appendix), the handmade products were perceived as less attractive when compared with those that are machine made.

Specifically, the flawed condition on the machine-made product (M= 4.924) was rated as less attractive than its non-flawed counterpart (M= 5.078). On the other hand, the flawed condition on the handmade product (M= 4.802) was rated as more attractive than the non-flawed handmade product (M= 4.450) (Figure 10-11, Appendix). Even though it was not possible to make a strong claim, trends showed that while the flawed condition was less preferred in the machine-made group, while this condition was preferred in the handmade group.

Moderation

Discussion

The aim of this paper was threefold. First, it was intended to further corroborate that handmade products are preferred over machine-made products. Second, following the input gathered through the opinions of handmade buyers (Etsy Forums), which stated that superficial flaws in handmade products granted them character and individuality, goods with a superficial flaw labeled as handmade were expected to be preferred over those without flaws and labeled as handmade. Furthermore, as machine-made products are usually delivered with a high level of detail (Liebl and Roy, 2003), superficial flaws in these types of products were expected to be less accepted when compared to products with no flaws and labeled as machine-made. Third, because these products would be perceived as unique, irreproducible and even customized, and these traits are characteristically found in people looking to show a certain level of dissimilarity (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980), it was predicted that need for uniqueness would further boost the acceptance of superficially handmade products. In other words, those participants scoring high in need for uniqueness would prefer flawed handmade products even more than those with a low level of uniqueness.

The research found no support for the hypothesis 1. Contrary to previous studies (Fuchs et al., 2015), handmade products were not preferred over machine-made products. A possible explanation for such results is that the sample was primarily composed by students (N= 84) and relatively young people (Mage = 26.65, SD = 6.31), who usually have a low income, if they have one. This, paired with the fact that handmade products are normally more expensive than machine-made products (Groves, 2001), might have affected participants when rating its attractiveness, as willingness to purchase was one of the items used in the product attractiveness scale. Even though all the four different conditions had the same retail price (Price = 35€), youngsters in the handmade conditions might have perceived it as too expensive for the simple fact that it was crafted by hand, thus giving a more negative rating.

condition might be hesitant to rate its attractiveness, as it is uncommon to see a handmade laptop bag. There are several products that are historically related to handmade production, such as jewelry, soaps, cloth complements. Using one of these might have been more suitable for this study.

Similar to hypothesis 1, hypotheses 2a and 2b were also not supported. There was no significant difference in product attractiveness between the non-flawed and flawed conditions, no matter whether the product was labeled as machine-made or handmade. However, although results showed no significance, the trends of the means showed an interesting tendency. Means for the flawed, machine-made products were amenably lower than its non-flawed counterpart. Opposed to this, means were slightly superior for the superficially flawed condition in the handmade group, rather than in the non-flawed handmade condition. As I am not qualified to accept these claims, it is worthwhile to state that with a bigger sample, and keeping the same tendency of the trends, it is probable that the results would have shown significance.

Finally, the moderator, need for uniqueness, also reported non-significant results. Thus, this construct might not influence the underlying effect on the minds of the consumers, contrary to theory proposed in this paper. Nonetheless, in this paper, need for uniqueness was measured. Further papers could evolve into priming this specific mindset, rather than measuring it. By eliciting uniqueness, outcomes on this issue might report significantly different results.

Limitations of the study

One of the limitations of the study was related to the number of participants that took part in the study. Several sources agree on the fact that 40 individuals per condition are

enough to draw meaningful and valid conclusions (Neter et al., 1989).However, some

opinions state that 50 participants per condition are needed in order reach statistical significance (Simmons et al., 2013) In this study, the total number of answers revolves between these numbers (N= 167). Having a larger sample could allow the study to present more robust results. In this study, the total number of answers was sufficient (N= 167), but having a larger sample could allow the study to present stronger results. Also, the participants in the study were mainly younger people (Mage= 26.65, SDage= 6.31), which hinders the ability to generalize results to other contexts, thus diminishing external validity as not the entire population is properly encompassed. As differences grow wider in today’s society between youngsters and older people (Loader, 2007), a more heterogeneous sample probably would have allowed to gather more relevant results. Additionally, most of the participants were located in Europe, hence results might not be applicable in other areas, as many differences exist between societies between continents. As Dana and colleagues noted (1999), there are different ways a firm can position itself depending in which part of the world is developing its activities, meaning that results and perceptions gathered in this study might vary from area to area.

Additionally, it was hard to account at what level something changes from a superficial flaw to meaningful damage. In this research, I considered a superficial flaw as imperfection that does not affect the functionality of the product. However, different participants may perceive the presented flaw as meaningful damage, while others might have considered it as not flawed at all. Again, this problem could be solved with the addition of different products with different flaws. Including a wide range of products would dramatically increase the internal validity of the study.

In conclusion, the study shed some light onto a topic that still longs to be a broad topic in research domains. Some firms are already turning tables on this issue, positioning their imperfect products as something different from the standard option. Intermarché created a new aisle of groceries that display lumpy vegetables and fruits. After only one month, the campaign reached more than 13 million people, and increased the in-store traffic by 25% (Cliff, 2014). Whole Foods is behind the same project as their objective is to sell out these misshapen products while they reduce waste (Garfield, 2016).

For non-food items, there has been a similar constant growth in the handmade industry (Campbell, 2016). Online stores exclusively dedicated to the sale of handmade goods such as Etsy or Zibbet keep increasing revenues and becoming more popular year after year. Some of their products are presented with small flaws, yet they are marketed and sold.

REFERENCES

Agyeman, J., & Angus, B. (2003). The role of civic environmentalism in the pursuit of sustainable communities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(3), 345-363.

Ahn, S., & Lee, J. (2015). How a Luxury Brand Can Enhance its Product Attractiveness in Retail Environment?. 유통과학연구, 13, 5-11.

Alexander, Jon (2014), “Viewpoint: How the consumer dream went wrong”, BBC, (Accessed on November 1, 2016) [Available at http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29786733]

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of retailing, 79(2), 77-95.

Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81-94.

Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: Responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 690-701.

Barber, Elizabeth W. (2013), “Etsy’s Industrial Revolution,” The New York Times,

(November 12), (accessed on October 30, 2016) [Available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/etsys-industrial-revolution.html]

Brian Lipinski, Craig Hanson, Richard Waite, Tim Searchinger, James Lomax, Lisa Kitinoja (2013), “Reducing Food Loss and Waste” World Resources Institute, (accessed on October 16, 2016), [available at http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-food-loss-and-waste]

Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 243–275). New York: Academic Press.

Burns, D. J., & Krampf, R. F. (1992). Explaining innovative behavior: Uniqueness-seeking and sensation-Uniqueness-seeking. International Journal of Advertising, 11, 227–237.

Campbell, Anita (2016), “Handmade Business Industry Sees Robust Growth, Judging From Etsy Results”, Smallbiztrends. (Accessed on October 30, 2016), [available at https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/02/handmade-business-industry-etsy-results.html]

Cialdini, R. B. (1985). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York, Quill Books.

Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture.

Darley, W. K., & Lim, J. (1993). Store-choice behavior for pre-owned merchandise.

Journal of Business Research, 27, 17–31.

Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114-120.

Fabrigar, Leandre R., et al. "Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research." Psychological methods 4.3 (1999): 272.

Fromkin, H. L., Brandt, J., Dipboye, R. L., & Pyle, M. (1974). Number of similar strangers and feelings of indistinctiveness as boundary conditions for the similarity attraction relationship: A bridge between “different sandboxes” (Paper No. 478). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic and Management Sciences.

Fuchs, C., Schreier, M., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2015). The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 98-110.

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference.

George, Jim (2010), “Study: Package Damage Significantly Affects Sales in Freezer

Case,” Packaging World, (accessed October 19, 2016), [available at

http://www.packworld.com/package-type/thermoformed-packaging/study-package-damage-significantly-affects-sales-freezer-case].

(Goldenberg, 2016) ---- Goldenberg, Suzanne (2016), “Half of all US food produce is thrown away, new research suggests”, The Guardian. (Accessed on October 28, 2016),

[available at

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect]

Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. (2000). Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable possessions: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 17-30

Groves, Angela (2001), “Authentic British food products: a review of consumer perceptions”. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(3), 246–254.

Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., & Kennedy, C. (2013). Waste production must peak this century. Nature, 502(7473), 615-617.

Kälviäinen, M. (2000). The significance of ‘craft’qualities in creating experiential design products. The Design Journal, 3(3), 4-15.

Knox, Simon, and David Walker. "Empirical developments in the measurement of involvement, brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets." Journal of

Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91-98.

Leander, N. P., & Shah, J. Y. (2013). For whom the goals loom: Context-driven goal contagion. Social Cognition, 31(2), 187.

Liebl, M., & Roy, T. (2003). Handmade in India: Preliminary analysis of crafts producers and crafts production. Economic and Political Weekly, 5366-5376.

Loader, B. D. (Ed.). (2007). Young citizens in the digital age: Political engagement, young people and new media. Routledge.

Loersch, C., Aarts, H., Payne, B. K., & Jefferis, V. E. (2008). The influence of social groups on goal contagion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1555-1558.

Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology and Marketing, 8, 43–57.

Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997b). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861–1883.

Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. Handbook of positive psychology, 395-410.

Malhotra, N. K., Hall, J., Shaw, M., & Oppenheim, P. (2004). Essentials of marketing research: an applied orientation. Pearson Education Australia.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.

Meola, A, (2016). “Women are twice as likely as men to purchase handmade goods online”, Business Insider. (Accessed on December 21, 2016), [available at

http://www.thisisinsider.com/women-are-twice-as-likely-as-men-to-purchase-handmade-goods-online-2016-6]

Mill, J. S. (1871). Of individuality, as one of the elements of well-being. London: Longman, Roberts, & Green Co.

Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with “disgusting” products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272-283.

Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N., & Schoormans, J. P. (2010). Product attachment and satisfaction: understanding consumers' post-purchase behavior. Journal of consumer Marketing, 27(3), 271-282.

Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215-228.

Raju, P. S. (1977). Product familiarity, brand name, and price influences on product evaluation. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 04.

Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of retailing, 75(1), 11-32.

Robertson, T. S. (1971). Innovative behavior and communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2), 302-318.

(Simmons et al., 2013) Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013, January). Life after p-hacking. In Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA (pp. 17-19).

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology

(Columbia University).

Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations [1776] (p. 421). na.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.

Snyder, C. R., & Shenkel, R. J. (1976). Effects of “favorability,” modality, and relevance upon acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 258– 265.

Spooner, B. (1986) Weavers and dealers: the authenticity of an oriental carpet. In: The Social Life of Things (Ed. by A. Appaduarai), pp. 195–235. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), Household expenditure on consumption categories with differing environmental pressure intensities, European

Environment Agency (EEA), (accessed on October 16, 2016), [available at

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/trends-in-share-of-expenditure-1/assessment]

Stuart, Tristram (2009), Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. London, W. W. Norton & Co

Tepper, K. (1994). Need for uniqueness: An individual difference factor affecting nonconformity in consumer response. In C. W. Park & D. C.Smith (Eds.), Marketing

theory and applications: Proceedings of the 1994 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference.

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of consumer research, 28(1), 50-66.

Toffler, Alvin (1980), The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.

Veblen, T. (2007). The theory of the leisure class. Dover Publications Inc. (Original work published 1889)

Veblen, T. (2007). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1889)

Weir, H. B. (1971). Deprivation of the need for uniqueness and some variables moderating its effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). Machine that changed the world. Simon and Schuster.

Etsy’s Discussion boards:

Appendix A

Figure 1. Condition I (Machine-made, no flaw)

Figure 3. Condition III (Handmade, no flaw)

How do you evaluate this bag? Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

I like this bag The bag is good If I saw this bag in a store, I would be willing to buy it I would be happy to receive this bag as a gift

This bag is of high quality

Figure 5. Measure of the dependent variable (7-point Likert scale)

I feel that the production of this bag was...

not time-intensive to

produce

time-intensive to

produce

not effortful to produce effortful to produce

not difficult to produce difficult to produce

Figure 6. Measure of the control variable perceived effort (7-point Likert scale)

Please rate your degree of agreement with the following questions regarding the product

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

This product feels different because someone was once

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree another human worked on it

Figure 7. Measure of the control variable human interaction (7-point Likert scale)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree I collect unusual products as a way of

telling people I’m

different

I often look for

one-of-a-kind products or

brands so that I create a style that is all my own

Often when buying

merchandise, an

important goal is to find

something that

communicates my

uniqueness

Having an eye for

products that are

interesting and unusual

assists me in

establishing a

distinctive image I’m often on the lookout for new products or brands that will add to my personal uniqueness

I rarely act in

agreement with what others think are the right things to buy This is an attention check, please mark the option "agree"

I have often gone

against the understood rules of my social group

regarding when and

how certain products are properly used I enjoy challenging the

prevailing taste of

people I know by buying

something they

When I dress

differently, I’m often aware that others think I’m peculiar, but I don’t care

Figure 8. Measure of Need for Uniqueness (7-point Likert scale).

What is your age?

What is your gender? (Male/Female)

What is your current status? (Student/Employee/Self-employed)

Do you usually use laptop bags? (Yes/No)

Do you own a similar bag like the one in the study? (Yes/No)

Figure 9. Demographic questions.

When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin using it less I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population As a rule, I dislike products or brands that

are customarily

purchased by everyone The more commonplace a product or brand is

among the general

population, the less

interested I am in

buying

Products don’t seem to hold much value for me

when they are

Labelling Damage Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Machine No Flaw 5.078 .196 4.691 5.466 Flaw 4.924 .188 4.553 5.295 Handmade No Flaw 4.450 .194 4.067 4.834 Flaw 4.802 .192 4.423 5.181

Figure 10. Main and interaction effects