Uniquely flawed: The effect of uniqueness - seeking on acceptance of flawed products
Need for uniqueness as a motive to market superficially flawed products
Finding a target group for superficially flawed products
Uniquely flawed: The effect of uniqueness - seeking on acceptance of flawed products
Need for uniqueness as a motive to market superficially flawed products
Finding a target group for superficially flawed products
Janina Marth
Department of Marketing
Master thesis
Completion date: 16th January 2017
Author’s address: Folkingestraat 50a, 9711 JZ Groningen Phone number: +4916097351011
E-Mail: j.marth@student.rug.nl
Student number: s3050459
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This research is conducted in order to provide a solution for reducing product returns of imperfect products. This paper investigates the phenomenon of need for uniqueness (NFU) and analyzes its relation to superficially flawed products in order to help market such products.
A research study with 309 participants was conducted to analyze how consumers under need for uniqueness react to superficially flawed products. Hypothesis 1 assumed that those NFU individuals are more likely to accept the superficially flawed product as they perceive the flaw as unique features, hence, making the product more desirable for them. For hypothesis 2, the
moderating effect of luxuriousness of the flawed product is examined. It aims to find if luxuriousness of the flawed product heightens the effect of need for uniqueness on the
acceptance of flawed products. Although hypothesis 1 was partially supported, hypothesis 2 was not supported.
The findings indicate that need for uniqueness has a positive effect on the willingness to buy superficially flawed products. NFU individuals show higher purchase intentions for the superficially flawed product than non-NFU individual. The findings support the assumption that need for uniqueness has a positive effect on the evaluation of flawed products. Furthermore, the research shows that luxurious of the flawed product adds additional value to it. The results demonstrate a positive effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of flawed products when the product is luxurious such as made of leather. It seems that under this condition, NFU
In general, the results suggest that need for uniqueness has an effect on the willingness to buy superficially flawed products and provides the following implication for retailers:
This study suggests that NFU consumers are the right group to target in order to
sell superficially flawed products to. Therefore consumers should be segmented in NFU and non-NFU individuals. Retailers should promote the imperfect product by stressing its unique attribute in order to attract to sell it to NFU consumers.
When the flawed product has a luxurious attribute, it is more desirable for NFU
individuals. Retailers should emphasize the exclusivity of the flawed product and highlight its luxurious attribute.
PREFACE
This master thesis marks the final part of my Master in Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. It was an interesting and exciting journey and I look back to a
wonderful year. Writing my thesis about this particular topic was of personal interest as I wanted to contribute to find a solution for the acceptance of flawed products. In today’s society, many consumers buy products and return them due to small imperfections. It is time to overcome these imperfections and target the right consumers; consumers who find those products special and value the imperfections. Personally, I would describe myself as a uniqueness-seeker. I strive for unique products that differentiate me from others. When I speak for myself, I would buy
imperfect products. Therefore, it was even more interesting to conduct this study.
Writing this thesis was possible because of Dr. Jing Wan who came up with this
interesting topic. Especially, I would like to express my thank you to her. She stood behind my research from the beginning, always provided me with great advice, and accompanied me along the journey. During my journey, there was one friend, study buddy, and roommate Jasmin Rösch who was always there for me. We walked along the path of the thesis and got through it together. Another thank you goes to Reinder Dallinga who I had the pleasure to help in the Research Laboratory. He is a very cheerful person and made the days in the lab go by quickly. Lastly, I want to thank the library employees, fellow students, and the MTurk participants for getting to this point of my Master’s degree.
Groningen, 16th January 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... I PREFACE ... III
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 4
2.1 Uniqueness seeking ... 4
2.2 The moderating role of luxuriousness ... 7
2.3 The mediating role of perceived scarcity ... 10
3. METHODOLOGY ... 13 3.1 Design... 14 3.2 Participants ... 15 3.3 Measures ... 15 3.4. Procedure ... 17 3.2. Ethics ... 18 4. RESULTS ... 19 4.1. Hypothesis 1 ... 20 4.2 Hypothesis 2 ... 22 4.3 Hypothesis 3 ... 26
4.4 Additional statistical test ... 26
1. INTRODUCTION
Product returns are anathema to companies. For most companies, product returns are inconvenient and are costly for manufactures and retailers. It costs a company about 3.8 percent of loss of products per year and results in about $100 billion in loss of sales, transportation, handling, processing, and disposal annually (Blanchard, 2007). This tragic numbers are partly caused due to online shopping. According to an info graphic by invespro.com (2016), the return rate for products ordered online is at least 30% for retailers. The return rate for products bought in a brick-and-mortar store is about 9%. Reasons for those high return rates are products returns due to damage of the product, accounting for 20%, and the product looking different than expected, accounting for 22% (Saleh, 2016). Another reason for product returns is buyer’s low tolerance for imperfection or small flaws (Stock et al., 2002). Most of the time these returned products either end up on landfills or may be sold at a marked down price; both causing extra costs for the organization (Stock et al., 2002). A study by the IHL Group (2015) identifies that retailers losing about $163 billion by product returns due to defective or poor quality merchandise. It highlights the cost involved in product returns. On average, it costs 4.4% of retailer revenue when products are returned because of defective merchandise, wrong size/items, price mismatches, return fraud, or buyer’s remorse. Some retailers are trying to cope with this and find strategies to sell the flawed products to consumers. All in all, product returns are a problem in today’s society. Therefore, it is necessary to find a solution to increase the acceptance of flawed products in order to reduce product returns.
of the product but the appearance. Therefore, superficially flawed products can still be marketed to consumers. Some retailers are trying to earn revenues from the flawed products. For example, outlet stores or IKEA’s “as is” section are both offering flawed products but at marked down prices. For the company, this means extra inventory costs because the product still needs to be hold in the warehouse.
Finding a way to increase the acceptance of superficially flawed products would contribute to help retailers in many ways. First, product returns could be reduced leading to a decrease in waste disposal (Stock et al., 2002). Second, consumers accepting superficially flawed products increases retailer’s revenues (Blanchard, 2007). Third, if consumers accept superficially flawed products mark downs are not needed anymore and do not result in a reduction of revenue losses (Saleh, 2016). Fourth, inventory costs are reduced since the flawed products are sold and are not kept in the warehouse for “as is” sales (de Brito & De Koster, 2004).
based on distinctiveness from others or deviation from the norm. Superficially flawed products are deviating from the norm in the sense that the appearance of the product is different compared to non-flawed products (Ruvio et al., 2008). In the book of Rognoli et al. (2013), the power of imperfection in products is presented. The authors provide several examples that indicate that flaws have a sense of uniqueness. They state that imperfections can create unique products. “Giving value to the imperfect conditions, [..], leads to a reconsideration of the relationship that one has with everyday objects because imperfections can be endearing and help to create a bond with the user (Rognoli et al., 2013, p. 148). This statement suggests that the imperfection or the flaw provides the product with a unique condition which is attractive for consumer’s need for uniqueness.
The mentioned reasons highlight the importance of this research by finding a target group to market superficially flawed products to in order to decrease product returns. This paper, more specifically, intents to provide new insights into the concept of need for uniqueness and its relation to the acceptance of superficially flawed products. Additionally, it aims to help retailers to prevent product returns due to flaws in the product by targeting individuals who see the flaw as an unique product attribute. Therefore, the following research question is investigated:
Are NFU individuals vs. Non-NFU individuals more willing to accept superficially flawed products?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Uniqueness seeking
This section of the paper provides a theoretical overview of the concept of uniqueness-seeking. Snyder and Fromkin (1980), describe the need for uniqueness as motivation for distinctiveness. They developed a theory about uniqueness which predicts that people thrive to create and cultivate a sense of self-distinction. Need for uniqueness (NFU) is a trait incorporated in every individual to a different extent (Fromkin, 1972; Snyder, 1992; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). This means that each individual has his or her own level of NFU; for some people it is stronger, for others weaker. Those individuals who have a high level of NFU do not like to be similar to others and thus, are motivated to move towards dissimilarity or uniqueness (Lynn & Harris, 1997a). Hence, those people seek to deviate from the norm in order to develop a self-image that is distinct from others (Lynn & Harris, 1997a). This results in the conclusion that high NFU consumers have a stronger need to be dissimilar to others than low NFU individuals (Lynn & Harris, 1997a; Snyder 1992). To fulfill this need, individuals are searching for acquiring unique products (Snyder, 1992).
uniqueness to others, individuals, thus, use or buy products to express themselves (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977). This is in line with Fromkin (1974) who found that consumer products serve as a way to pursue self-uniqueness. Tian et al. (2001) described this phenomenon as consumer’s need for uniqueness. He defines it as “the trait to pursuing differences relative to others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one’s self-image and social image” (p. 52). It explains NFU in terms of consumption behavior of a consumer and provides a more narrow view to specifically understand NFU as driver of consumer’s consumption behavior. Further, Tian at el. (2001) suggests that consumer’s need for uniqueness consists of three dimensions: choice counter-conformity, unpopular choice counter-conformity, and avoidance of similarity. Choice counter-conformity refers to the individual developing a personal style and expressing it through materialistic products (Lynn & Harris, 1997a). Unpopular choice counter-conformity describes an individual breaking the norm by differentiate themselves by purchasing an unpopular product (Lynn & Harris, 1997a) Avoidance of similarity means that consumers are avoiding buying products that anybody else owns (Lynn & Harris, 1997a)
For superficially flawed products, it could mean that NFU individuals are more likely to accept the flaws in order to deviate from social norms. According to Snyder (1992), a person high in NFU is more prone to acquire products, services, or experiences that are dissimilar from others. This is supported by a study of Lynn (1991) who found that need for uniqueness is mainly responsible for the desire to acquire unique products. Consequently, obtaining exceptional items is one way of signaling uniqueness. Additionally, Tian et al. (2001) suggest
that high NFU individuals are more likely to avoid popular products and look for novel and
The next section focuses on the relationship between need for uniqueness and the acceptance of flawed products and how luxuriousness, as moderator, heightens the effect. It assumes that luxury products are desirable for NFU individuals because those products signal exclusivity (Phau & Prendergast, 2000), therefore, adding luxuriousness to the flawed products and amplifying the acceptance.
2.2 The moderating role of luxuriousness
Kapferer (1977) defines luxury items as providing “extra pleasure and fatter all senses at once” (p. 253). Luxury goods are defined as “goods for which the simple use or display of a particular branded product brings esteem on the owner, apart from any functional utility (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004, p. 486). Consequently, luxury brands evoke exclusivity and rarity
(Phau & Prendergast, 2000). As described by Tian et al. (2001) “an individual’s pursuit of
differentness relative to others achieved through the acquisition, utilization and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one ’ s personal and social identity
“ (p. 50). Uniqueness theory predicts that exclusivity and rarity of products enhances the desire
shirts as “burnt shirts” for a multiple than they were actually worth (Newsweek, 1994). This suggests that uniqueness-seeking individuals are valuing superficial flaws even more when the product is luxurious. Luxury items are therefore desirable for consumer’s need for uniqueness.
According to Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014), dissociative traits such as need for
uniqueness drive snob luxury consumption, one form of conspicuous consumption. This type of luxury consumption is explained by the snob effect. The goal of the snob effect is to dissociate from most of the luxury consumers in order to be unique (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014). In luxury theory, Leibenstein (1959) defines the snob effect as “the extent to which the demand for a consumer’s good is decreased owing to the fact that others are also consuming the same commodity” (p. 189). This means that the value of a luxury item increases when preference for the luxury item by the majority decreases (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014). Snobs desire items that are new, exclusive, uncommon, less-known, or unpopular because these items set
individuals apart from the majority(Berger & Ward, 2010; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014). This is due to the fact that the source of the snob effect is uniqueness because the individual desires products that signal, for example, supply scarcity, novelty or differentness (Kastanakis &
study by Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014) found that all three dimensions were positively related to snob luxury consumption.
In research a moderator predicts “the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent […] and […] dependent variable” (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, it is expected that a superficially flawed product paired with an attribute of luxuriousness positively enhances the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of superficially flawed products. Leather is chosen as a material as it indicates luxuriousness. According to Tsaknaki et al. (2014), leather is a material valued for its unique properties which is often used in the fashion and design industry for luxurious items. Since it is assumed that need for uniqueness has a positive effect on the acceptance of flawed products (H1), luxuriousness of the superficially flawed product positively enhances this effect. As the example of the burnt shirt shows, uniqueness-seeking individuals are valuing the superficial flaw even more when it is luxurious. Therefore, it is predicted that this luxury aspect is making the superficially flawed product even more attractive to the need for uniqueness consumer. This is probably due to the fact that it signals uniqueness on two
dimensions: the flaw and luxury. Contrarily, non-NFU individuals are expected to perceive the flaw as a distraction of luxuriousness. It is assumed that under non-NFU the flaw is not seen as extra value as it detracts from the luxurious value of the product. Based on the previous theories and explanation the following hypothesis is developed:
H2: Luxuriousness of the product positively moderates the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of superficially flawed products.
acceptance of superficially flawed products of a NFU individual. It predicts that the superficial flaw is seen as “a precious mistake” which makes it rare (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005).
2.3 The mediating role of perceived scarcity
In theory, consumers prefer and value goods that are scarce (Cialdini, 2008; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016). An underlying motive of this principle is people’s tendency to desire items that are difficult to obtain. According to Cialdini (2008), people react positively to scarcity because an item that is difficult to obtain is perceived as more valuable. He states it “as a rule, if it is rare or becoming rare, it is more valuable.” (p. 179). This is driven by the assumption that high valued items are more difficult to obtain than lower valued items (Cialdini, 2008; Cialidini & Sagarin, 2005). Another explanation of scarcity theory lies in commodity theory. Commodity theory explains that a commodity is valued to the extent of its unavailability (Brock, 1968). Therefore, people use the scarcity principle in order to rate the value of an item (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005). This means that the rarer, the more valuable a product is.
al. 2011). Consequently, those consumers possess rare products to indicate uniqueness (Snyder & Lynn, 1992). Commodity theory indicates that people perceive commodities as more valuable when it is unavailable or hard to obtain (Lynn 1991; Brock 1968). This means that NFU
consumers buy scarce products in order to fulfill their need for uniqueness and to signal
exclusivity to others (Lynn & Harris, 1997a, Gierl et al, 2010). Hence, they prefer to buy scarce products to satisfy the need for distinction and uniqueness (Brock, 1968; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). A study by Lynn (1991) indicated that the relationship between NFU and preference for scarce products is significant by saying that uniqueness striving is related to scarcity effects. They state that the higher the need for uniqueness the stronger the scarcity effect. This is due to the fact that people desire scarce items more than available items because possessing scarce products evoke feelings of uniqueness and distinctiveness (Brock, 1968). Moreover, the
possession of scarce products fulfills self-uniqueness because material possessions can be seen as an extension of the self (Belk, 1989; Fromkin, 1970; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). This means that scarce products make an individual feel more special and unique about him or herself. A study by Snyder (1992) found that the higher the level of perceived scarcity, the higher will be the perception of uniqueness. It suggests that owning scarce products satisfies the need for
distinctiveness. Research by Fromkin (1970) and Powell (1974) proposes that individuals with a high need for uniqueness have a stronger preference for scarce products than people with a low need for uniqueness. However, it is not clear what underlying motives drive the consumer: need for uniqueness or scarcity.
variable exists (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Perceived scarcity can be the driving force as to why NFU consumers are willing to accept superficially flawed product. According to the scarcity principle (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005), a flawed product can be perceived as rare, as the “precious mistake” provides more value to the object. This “precious mistake” or imperfection can be a valuable possession when it has an abiding scarcity (Cialdini, 2008; Cialidini & Sagarin, 2005). The NFU consumer may see the superficial flaw as rare feature of the product and thus, perceive the product as scarce which motivates to accept the superficially flawed product. Consequently, it is assumed that the underlying driver is perceived scarcity instead of uniqueness of the product. Hence, the need for uniqueness consumer is more likely to accept the superficially flawed
product due to its perceived scarcity. As the presented literature suggests, it is assumed that perceived scarcity of the superficially flawed product explains the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of superficially flawed products (H1). Hence, NFU individuals accept the flawed product due to its perceived scarcity. In opposition, it is expected that under non-uniqueness conditions the superficially flawed product is not perceived as scarce. Non-NFU individuals do not perceive the product as scarce as there is no direct scarcity attribute. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Perceived scarcity mediates the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of superficially flawed products.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
3. METHODOLOGY
In the following section, the research methodology of this paper is presented. The current research examines the effect of need for uniqueness (NFU) on the acceptance of superficially flawed products. The overall goal of the study is to find out under which conditions superficially flawed products can be marketed to specific consumers. Answering this research question provides a way to increase the acceptance of superficially flawed products. This will help retailers to cope with superficially damaged products and to avoid revenue loss by finding a target group to sell those products to. First, the study tests if NFU consumers are willing to accept flawed products. It is assumed that the flaw adds uniqueness to the product which makes it desirable for such consumers (Tian et al. 2001) Furthermore, it investigates if perceived luxuriousness of the flawed product moderates the effect of need for uniqueness on its
even more when the product is luxurious. It is assumed that luxury signals exclusivity (Phau & Prendergast, 2000), and therefore, adds luxuriousness to the flawed products and amplifies the acceptance. Moreover, it examines to what extent perceived scarcity mediates the relationship between need for uniqueness and acceptance of superficially flawed products. According to the scarcity principle (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005), a flawed product can be perceived as rare, as the “precious mistake” provides more value to the object.
3.1 Design
The experimental study is conducted by using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The experiment is a 2 (Need for uniqueness: NFU vs. Non-NFU) x 2 (Luxury: leather vs. PU leather) x 2 (Product: Flaw vs. No Flaw) between-subject design (see Figure 2). Each participant is randomly assigned to one of the cells in the 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. As the relationship
Product
No Flaw Flaw
Need for uniqueness
Non-NFU Condition 1 Condition 2
NFU Condition 4 Condition 3
Perceived luxuriousness
PU leather Condition 5 Condition 6
Leather Condition 8 Condition 7
Figure 2: Factorial Design
3.2 Participants
Participants are comprised of a total of 399 consisting of 217 males and 182 females. The average age of the participant is 42. The respondents are participating for money and are recruited from Amazon’s MTurk. MTurk is a crowdsourcing internet marketplace conducting Human intelligence tests. Primarily, participants on MTurk are located in the United States, doing the study on their own computer. Each participant completes the study independently and anonymously.
3.3 Measures
Independent variable. Need for uniqueness serves as the independent variable of the study.
It is primed at the beginning by using sequences of different shapes, for example, for the NFU condition and for the non-NFU conditions
for uniqueness short scale (CNFU-S) of Ruvio et al. (2008). This scale focuses on need for uniqueness of consumers when shopping for products.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable is willingness to buy which is measured by
combining liking, enjoyment, and purchase intention questions asked on a seven-point Likert scale.
Moderator. As moderating variable, luxuriousness is manipulated by stating that the
product is made of leather vs. PU leather. As manipulation check, participants indicate the perceived luxuriousness of the product on a seven-point Likert scale.
Mediator. As mediating variable, participants indicate to which extend they perceive the
backpacks as scarce. Each respondent rates on a slider scale ranging from 0 to 100 percent how many backpacks are left in stock.
3.4. Procedure
At the beginning, respondents are told that the study is conducted to investigate online shopping behavior. Participants have to do a “memory task” which is used as cover for the NFU prime. This is done by using pictures containing a sequence of seven different shapes which according to Maimaran and Wheeler (2008), increase uniqueness-seeking behavior. Respondents either see seven shapes such as in order to be primed or see the homogeneity shapes (see Appendix 1). Then, participants indicate which shapes they recall.
To measure perceived scarcity, respondents have to evaluate on a slider scale how many backpacks are left in stock (0=0%; 100=100%), followed by a perceived scarcity question ('How rare do you think this particular backpack is?’) on a seven-point Likert scale (1=Not at all rare; 7=Very much). Additionally, respondents have to answer questions about perceived uniqueness, perceived quality, and perceived luxuriousness (see Appendix 1) on a seven-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disgree; 7=Strongly Agree). Moreover, product involvement is asked (see
Appendix 1) on a seven-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 7= Strongly Agree). To check for the success of the NFU manipulation, respondents have to answer the CNFU-S scale (Ruvio et al. (2008) which specifically measures uniqueness in consumer’s shopping behavior (see Appendix 1). At the end of the study, control questions are asked, for example, ‘How much do you like backpacks in general?’ or ‘How often do you use backpacks?’, followed by question about demographics of the participants (see Appendix 1).
3.2. Ethics
4. RESULTS
A total of 399 respondents completed the experiment. Participants were excluded due to familiarity with the backpack and potential aversion of leather if they answered yes or unsure for the question ‘Did you recognize the backpack?’ and yes for ‘Are you vegan or vegetarian?’. Excluding those participants was done due to their antipathy potentially biasing their answers. This was made because vegans or vegetarians could have a tendency to dislike products made from animals such as leather. Excluding respondents who were familiar with the bags was decided in order to prevent the brand image negatively or positively influencing their answers. Another 15 participants were excluding due to answering “1” (=Not at all) on a 7 point bipolar scale for the question ‘How much do you like backpacks in general?’. Removing those
participants from the dataset was done due to the strong dislike towards backpacks. The exclusions resulted in a total of 323 participants.
To assess purchase intention, the questions ‘Overall, how much do you like this
backpack?’, ‘If you were to actually buy a backpack, how likely would you be to purchase this one?’, and ‘How much do you think you would enjoy using this backpack?’ of both backpacks were combined due to high reliability (6 items; α = .895) (see Appendix 2).
Manipulation check. Half the participants are exposed to uniqueness primes. All the
participants completed the CNFU-S scale by Ruvio et al. (2008) which is used as manipulation check. The twelve questions are combined to form an average. An independent t-test is
suggest that the NFU prime was not successful as both groups do not indicate significant differences on the CNFU-S scale.
Table 1: T-Test NFU Scale Mean and NFU prime vs. no prime Need for uniqueness N Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
CNFU-S scale mean Non-NFU 166 3.3735 1.41206 .10960
NFU 157 3.3593 1.41222 .11271
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-tailed) Mean Difference CNFU-S Scale Mean Equal variances assumed .081 .776 .090 321 .928 .15721 Equal variances not assumed .090 303.367 .928 .15721 4.1. Hypothesis 1
(see Appendix 4), respondents are split into non-NFU (<3.42) and NFU (>3.42) representing the chronic NFU levels of each participants in order to further investigate for significant differences.
By using the chronic NFU levels, a 2 (Product: Flawed vs. non-flawed) × 2 (Need for uniqueness: NFU vs. non-NFU) between-subjects ANOVA is conducted again. For purchase intention, there is a main effect of need for uniqueness, F(1,322)=9.462, p=.002. No main effect for product and no interaction effects are found (see Appendix 5). Further, Fisher LSD post-hoc tests are conducted to look more closely on the impact of need for uniqueness between the conditions (see Appendix 6). The test reveals that there is a significant difference between NFU and non-NFU for the flawed backpack. NFU participants show higher purchase intention for the
flawed backpacks than non-NFU participants, MNFU, flaw = 3.72, MNon-NFU, flaw = 3.16, p=.034.
Additionally, LSD post-hoc tests shows a marginal difference between need for uniqueness and
the flawed product compared to no need for uniqueness and the no flawed product, MNFU, flaw =
3.72, MNon-NFU, no flaw = 3.25, p=.078 (see Table 2). This indicates that there is a significant effect
of need for uniqueness on the flawed product and a marginally effect when the flawed and no flawed product is compared.
The results indicate no significant two-way interaction between the product and need for uniqueness neither for need for uniqueness categorized by prime nor chronic level, therefore, hypothesis 1 is not supported. As post-hoc analysis indicates that need for uniqueness is positive related to the willingness to buy flawed products it indicates that hypothesis 1 is partially
Discussion
In general, NFU participants demonstrate higher purchase intentions for the flawed backpack than non-NFU participants, making hypothesis 1 partially supported. It seems that NFU individuals are more likely to accept the flawed backpack than non-NFU individuals. This means that need for uniqueness positively affects consumer’s evaluation of the flawed products. Additionally, NFU individuals show significantly higher purchase intention for the flawed product than non-NFU individuals for no flawed product. This suggests that need for uniqueness has a strong effect on flawed product as those individuals are more likely to buy imperfect products than non-NFU consumer to buy the perfect product.
4.2 Hypothesis 2
Manipulation check. Half the participants are exposed to leather backpacks, the other half
to PU leather backpacks. All the participants have to indicate the extent to which they perceive
Table 2: Means NFU / Non NFU and Flaw / no flaw product Dependent Variable: Purchase intention
Need for uniqueness Product Mean
Non-NFU No flaw 3.25
Flaw 3.16
NFU No flaw 3.84
(see table 4). The results suggest that the luxury manipulation may not be successful as both groups did not demonstrated significant differences on the perceived luxuriousness question.
Table 4: T-Test perceived luxuriousness and Leather / PU leather
Luxury N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Perceived luxuriousnes s PU leather 158 4.3987 1.46266 .11636 Leather 165 4.4939 1.42708 .11110 Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Perceived luxuriousness Equal variances assumed .204 .652 -.592 321 .554 -.09521 Equal variances not assumed -.592 319.519 .554 -.09521
A 2 (Product: Flawed vs. non-flawed) × 2 (Need for uniqueness: NFU vs. non-NFU) x 2 (Luxury: Leather vs. PU leather) between-subjects ANOVA is used to examine for significant differences on purchase intention by categorizing into NFU and non-NFU according to the priming. No significant main or interaction effect is found (see Appendix 7).
three-way interaction is not statistically significant, the means indicate higher purchase intention for NFU participants with the flawed, leather, backpack compared to non-NFU with the no flawed, leather backpack, MNFU, flaw, leather = 3.85, MNon-NFU, no flaw, leather = 3.30 (see Table 5). In
order to examine the differences between conditions, a LSD post-hoc analysis is carried out.
LSD post-hoc analysis indicates a marginal meandifference between the NFU, flaw, leather
condition and the non-NFU, no flaw, leather condition, MNFU, flaw, leather = 3.85, MNon-NFU, no flaw,
leather =3.30, p=.069. Moreover, a marginal difference between the NFU vs. non-NFU conditions
for the flawed, leather backpacks is found, MNFU, flaw, leather = 3.85, MNon-NFU, flaw, leather =3.23,
Discussion
The results under chronic NFU categorization indicate that luxury of the flawed backpacks influences consumer’s purchase intention for uniqueness-seeker. Although there was no
significant three-way interaction, hence, no support for hypothesis 2, there is a notable effect. The results show that need for uniqueness has a positive impact on purchase intention for the flawed product. The post-hoc test shows that luxuriousness of the flawed product makes it more attractive for NFU individuals compared to non-NFU individual. A higher purchase intention for NFU individuals for the flawed, leather backpacks is found. Those individuals are more attracted to the luxurious flawed product than non-NFU individuals. It demonstrated that adding luxury such as leather, to the flawed product is an attribute that makes it more desirable to fulfill need for uniqueness; hence, NFU individuals are being more likely to buy the flawed product. Therefore, NFU individuals seem to be more prone to accept the luxurious backpack even though it had a crooked seam or scratch.
Table 5: Means NFU / Non NFU, Flaw / no flaw, leather / PU leather Dependent Variable: Willingness to buy
Need for uniqueness Product Luxury Mean
4.3 Hypothesis 3
As hypothesis 1 shows only partially significant results, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analysis was not carried out. It requires hypothesis 1 to be significant in order to continue. This means that hypothesis 3 indicates no mediation which results in the rejection of hypothesis 3.
Discussion
There was only partial support for the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of flawed products. This means that there is no indication that the effect is explained by perceived scarcity of the product.
4.4 Additional statistical test
Further analyses are conducted to explore how NFU individuals evaluate perceived quality and perceived scarcity of the flawed product. First, perceived quality is tested as a dependent variable to examine if NFU individuals perceive the flawed, luxurious product as low in quality. A 2 (Product: Flawed vs. non-flawed) × 2 (Need for uniqueness: NFU vs. non-NFU) x 2
perceived quality difference between the perfect and imperfect product when both products were leather. This means that leather added a qualitative attribute to the flawed product which made NFU individuals perceive it as the same quality as non-NFU individuals the no flawed, leather product. Contrarily, significant mean difference between the NFU, flaw, leather condition in
comparison to the non-NFU, no flaw, PU leather condition was found, MNFU, flaw, PU leather =4.73,
MNon-NFU, no flaw, PU leather = 5.44, p=.003. The comparison of PU leather between the NFU, flaw
and non-NFU, no flaw condition indicates that NFU participants evaluated the flawed, PU leather product as lower in quality. For PU leather the results showed significant difference in quality, thus, making it perceived as lower in quality when evaluated by NFU and non-NFU participants.
Discussion
This indicates that by adding a luxurious feature to the product, NFU individuals perceive the imperfect product as high in quality even though it may have a crooked seam or scratch. It is important to note that the luxury feature gave the flawed product higher quality. NFU
participants rated the quality of the flawed, leather backpacks similarly to non-NFU the quality of the no flawed, leather backpacks. This indicates that need for uniqueness has a positive effect on the quality evaluation of flawed products when it is luxurious.
Second, perceived scarcity of the flawed product is investigated as dependent variable since moderation analysis could not be carried out. Therefore, it is examined if NFU consumers
main effect of need for uniqueness, F(1,322)=13.635, p=.000 (see Appendix 12). A LSD post-hoc analysis reveals significant mean differences between NFU and non-NFU individuals for
perceived scarcity for the flawed product, MNFU, flaw = 3.39, MNon-NFU, flaw = 2.75, p=.005 (see
Appendix 13). NFU individuals rate the flawed product as scarcer than non-NFU individuals. This demonstrates that another explanation for the acceptance of flawed product by NFU individuals could be perceived scarcity.
Discussion
The results show that NFU participants perceived the flawed product as scarcer than non-NFU participants. This could mean that for non-NFU individuals’ willingness to buy the flawed product is due to its perceived rarity rather than its uniqueness or it could be that the
imperfection is seen as a “precious mistake”. Since not every product has a flaw, it could be that it is more desirable for NFU individuals due to its rarity (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005).
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION
those products to. In research, this topic is not widely explored, thus, this study was mainly explorative and one of the first studies in this field.
First, one of the main findings of the study suggests that need for uniqueness has a significant impact on individual’s purchase intention. Most importantly, the study shows that need for uniqueness can be connected to the purchase intention towards superficially flawed products. Moreover, need for uniqueness is positively related to the acceptance of flawed
products. NFU individuals show higher purchase intentions for the flawed backpacks and hence, are more willing to accept imperfect products. This is in line with need for uniqueness theory which states that consumers pursue material goods to differentiate themselves from others (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Tian & Bearden; 2001). The results suggest that NFU individuals see the flaw as a positive dissimilarity, thus, making it more desirable and special. It confirms the findings of Lynn and Harris (1997a) and Snyder (1992) who state that NFU individuals show a stronger tendency to be dissimilar. They acquire products that deviate from the norm, in this case the superficially flawed backpack as it is dissimilar than usual backpacks. This is supported by the findings that high NFU individuals who were exposed to the flawed product condition showed a higher tendency to rate the flawed product as unique. This finding supports the assumption that flawed products signal attributes such as uniqueness or specialness, which in turn makes it more attractive for NFU consumers to purchase (Ruvio et al., 2008). Therefore, NFU consumers are a good target group to sell imperfect products to, as those individuals are willing to accept the flaw because it makes the product special.
intention for non-NFU and NFU individuals are not only found across the flawed, leather
backpack but also for the no flawed, leather backpack. The results demonstrate that leather added a strong attribute to the flawed product. NFU individuals reveal a stronger tendency to buy the flawed leather product than non-NFU individuals the no flawed, leather product. It indicates that luxury can be used as an attribute to make the flawed product even more desirable than a perfect leather product when comparing NFU and non-NFU individuals. This supports the assumption that exclusivity and rarity of a product such as luxury enhances the desire for it when the individual is a NFU individual (Lynn, 1991; Tian et al. 2001). Additionally, it supports the finding of Tavikkai and Jirawattananukool (2010) who found that consumers’ need for uniqueness has significant positive impact on luxury purchase intention. Even though the moderating effect of luxuriousness was not significant, it is seen that it had an impact on
consumers’ purchase intentions. It supports the assumption that luxury items do not always need to be perfect (Kapfrerer, 2012) and that NFU-individuals desire uncommon, exclusive products (Berger & Ward, 2010; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2014),
Third, it is notable that adding a luxurious attribute to the imperfect product made it
perceived as the same quality as an imperfect product. This could be explained by the snob effect which states that preference for a product increases as its quantity in the market decreases
individuals see leather as a strong attribute of quality, hence, perceiving the flawed product of high quality. For NFU individuals, this means that even though the backpack has a crooked seam or a scratch on the surface, the quality of the backpack does not suffer (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Perceived quality
Fourth, although mediation analysis for perceived scarcity could not be carried out, it was explored if participants perceived the flawed product as scarce. When comparing NFU and non-NFU participants, non-NFU individuals show higher perceived scarcity for the flawed products. This means that the imperfect backpacks were perceived as scarcer by NFU than non-NFU
participants (see Figure 5). It suggests that there is a relationship between need for uniqueness and scarcity but no analysis was carried out in order to explore this relationship in more detail. Additionally, it could be that scarcity of the flawed backpack is the driving-force that makes the flawed backpack more attractive and desirable for NFU individuals. Therefore, it is not sure if the effect of need for uniqueness on the acceptance of flawed products is explained by need for uniqueness or perhaps by perceived scarcity.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Non-NFU/ no Flaw / leather NFU / Flaw / leather
Perceived quality
Figure 5: Perceived scarcity
5.1 Managerial implications
For retailers, the results indicate that need for uniqueness can be used to market superficially flawed products and in turn, can reduce product returns and profit losses. As the results suggest, NFU consumers tend to evaluate the flawed backpack as unique which makes the product special to them. By finding a way to segment consumers into high and low need for uniqueness individuals, retailers can target NFU consumers in order to sell the imperfect
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Non-NFU / Flaw NFU / Flaw
Perceived scarcity
the fact that mass-advertising implies that more people could buy the product thus, the NFU consumer fears to be similar to others. Therefore, a marketing campaign should indicate that by using the flawed product, one is unique and individual. As need for uniqueness is positively related to public self-consciousness and susceptibility to group influence (Ruvio et al., 2008), advertising could show a consumer using the uniquely flawed product in socially accepted situations, for example, a consumer sticks out of the mass by owning the flawed product and it is admired by the group.
When investigating the effect of the luxuriousness of the flawed product, the results show higher purchase intentions for the flawed, leather backpack for NFU participants. The findings suggest that making the flawed product luxurious increases its attractiveness for NFU
consumers. The luxurious adds more value to the flawed product which makes it more desirable. Retailers could emphasize the luxuriousness of the superficially flawed product to enhance purchase intention of NFU consumers. When creating a marketing strategy, retailers should use below the line communication instead of mass media to emphasize the exclusiveness of the flawed product (Balabanis & Kastanakis, 2014a). As NFU consumers desire to own products that no one else has, retailers should consider this when advertising the flawed product and should highlight this aspect. Additionally, retailers could stress the rarity of the flawed product by promoting its exclusivity. This can be done by hiding the product so that customers have to ask for it, hence, making it more desirable and exclusive (Balabanis & Kastanakis, 2014a).
Therefore, managers should not reduce the prices of imperfect luxurious products but instead sell it at the same price as perfect counterpart. As Ariel Adams (2016) indicates in his article that consumers spend a lot of money for luxury items because they think the luxury items are worth it. Furthermore, he states that reducing the price of a luxury item leads to a decrease in the
perceived value of the product. Reducing the price may induce customers to think that the flawed product is of lower value.
5.2. Limitations
In this section, limitations of the research study are illustrated. One limitation is the NFU prime used in this study. Half the participants were primed with uniqueness but the manipulation check indicated no significance. It is possible that priming uniqueness by shapes was a weak and too abstract manipulation to change the level of need for uniqueness. Another reason that the manipulation was not significant could be the use of the CNFU-S scale (Ruvio et al., 2008) as manipulation check. That scale is used in research to capture the levels of need for uniqueness in consumption behavior. Possibly, it is not sensitive enough to capture the temporary increase in need for uniqueness caused by the prime and hence, indicated no significant manipulation. An additional reason why the prime probably did not work is distraction or negligence of
probably rushed through the sequences without noticing the different shapes. Second, it is possible that participants were distracted during the study. When participating in a study on Amazon MTurk, respondents take part in the studies from their own personal devices. Therefore, it is not assured that participants are in a distract-free environment.
Another limitation is splitting need for uniqueness by median to group participants in NFU and non-NFU. Priming need for uniqueness was not successful which led to the use of the CNFU-S scale in order to categorize participants based on their answers. This was done by using a median split, with the median being 3.42. By doing this, participants who were close to the median were categorized to one of two extremes, either low or high. As MacCallum et al. (2002) indicate, dichotomizing by median split can have loss of information of individual difference as consequence. In this study, for example, a participant that had a 3.2 as such close to the median on the CNFU-S scale was categorized as non-NFU although he or she may not be. Hence, a participant scoring 1 and a participant scoring 3 are treated equally by the median split. The same is true for a participant scoring 4 is treated equally to a participant scoring 7.
and industrialized and non-industrialized societies. Therefore, the results of this study may not be the same when non-Western cultures are used as sample size.
5.3 Future research
The results of the study provide interesting and useful insights into the concept of need for uniqueness and the acceptance of superficially flawed products. The study indicates potential areas that should be examined in future research.
First, it is suggested to examine the relationship between need for uniqueness and the acceptance of flawed products by using a stronger prime to ensure that high and low need for uniqueness are equally strong distributed among participants. If the uniqueness prime of
Second, it would be interesting to investigate perceived quality of the flawed product. As the results illustrate, NFU individuals indicate equally high perceived quality for the superficially flawed product than non-NFU for the no flawed product. It is recommended to further
investigate this by examining in terms of price for the flawed product. Are NFU individuals willing to pay the same price for the flawed product vs. a no flaw product due to perceiving the flawed product as of high quality? This is a new interesting area for further research. It would extend this study by adding price as a variable which would help to provide better implications for selling flawed products.
Third, the luxury conditions leather vs. PU leather did not have significant effects but showed a tendency for higher purchase intention among participants. For this study, it was chosen to indicate luxuriousness by material (leather vs. PU leather). There was no evidence that this luxury manipulation was used before, therefore, it was exploratory. For future research, brand personality can be used as an indicator of luxury. Former research indicated that brand image has a moderating effect on need for uniqueness and luxury purchase intention (Lajevardi, 2014). Therefore, it is suggested to use a brand name with a strong brand image as luxury predictor to further investigate the moderating effect of luxuriousness.
examine the potential mediation of scarcity on need for uniqueness and how both concepts influence each other.
Fifth, further research could focus on the flaw itself. It is interesting to know if consumers under need for uniqueness are more willing to accept the flaw when it is visible or not visible. As Tian et al. (2001) indicate, consumers’ need for uniqueness is characterized by consumers
wanting to stand out. Consumers under high need for uniqueness could indicate if they would rather buy a flawed product with a visible flaw or a non-visible flaw. It would be interesting to examine if NFU individuals would perceive the flaw as something to show others in order to stand out or if NFU individuals would rather buy the product with the non-visible flaw.
6. Conclusion
REFERENCES
Adams, Ariel (2016), “Why Retail Price Reductions Are The Biggest Challenge For The Luxury
Watch Industry Today,” (accessed January 14, 2017) [available at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/arieladams/2016/10/06/why-retail-price-reductions-are-the-biggest-challenge-for-the-luxury-watch-industry-today/#328ad1075bba]
Aggarwal, Praveen., Jun, Sung Youl Jun, & Huh, Jong Ho (2011), “Scarcity messages: A consumer competition perspective,” Journal of Advertising, 40, 19-30.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self, “ Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168
Berger, Jonah, & Ward, Morgan (2010), “Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption, “ Journal Of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555-569
Burns, David J., & Brady, John (1992), “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Need for Uniqueness in Malaysia and the United States,”. Journal Of Social Psychology, 132(4), 487-495.
Brock, Timothy C. (1968), “Implications of commodity theory for value change, “ in Psychological foundations of attitudes, Anthony Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, & Thomas M. Ostrom, New York: Academic Press, 234-275
Cheema, Amar, & Kaikati, Andrew M. (2010), „The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth, “ Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 553-563
— — — , & Sagarin, B. J. (2005), “Interpersonal influence”, In Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives, Timothy C. Brock & Melanie C. Green, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press, 143-169..
Blanchard, Dave (2007), “Supply Chains Also Work in Reverse”, (accessed January 6, 2017) [available at http://www.industryweek.com/planning-amp-forecasting/supply-chains-also-work-reverse]
de Brito, Marisa P., & De Koster, René (2004), “Product and material returns: handling and warehousing issues”, In Reverse Logistics, Rommert Dekker, Moritz Fleischmann, Karl Inderfurth & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 135-153
Fennis, Bob M., & Stroebe, Wolfgang (2016), “The psychology of advertising”. New York, NY: Routledge
Fromkin, Howard L. (1970), “Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 521-529.
— — — (1980), “Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 521-529
Jang, Wang Eric, Ko, Yong Jae, Morris, Jon D., & Chang, Yonghwan (2015,“Scarcity Message Effects on Consumption Behavior: Limited Edition Product Considerations,” Psychology & Marketing, 32(10), 989-1001
Kastanakis, Minas N., & Balabanis, George (2014a), “Explaning variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences’ perspective”, Journal of Business Research, 67, 2147-2154
— — —, & Balabanis, George (2014b), “Seeking Distinction Through Snobbery in the Context of Luxury Markets,” in The Sustainable Global Marketplace: Proceedings of the 2011 Academy of Marketing Sience (AMS) Annual Conference, Mary Conway Dato-on, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 390-390
Kapferer, Jean-Noel (2012), The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands, London:Kogan Page Publishers
Lajevardi, Masoud(2014), “Impact of brand origin, image and uniqueness on luxury purchase intention: An empirical study of Iran's luxury furniture market”, Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 4, 34-40.
Leibenstein, H. (1950), ”Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183–207
Lynn, Michael (1989), “Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed expensiveness?,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 257-274
— — —, & Harris, Judy (1997a), “Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption, “ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861-1833.
— — —, & Harris, Judy. (1997b), “The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences Scale, “ Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601-616.
— — —, & Snyder, Charles Richard (2002), “Uniqueness seeking, “ in Handbook of positive psychology, Charles Richard Snyder & Shane J. Lopez New York: Oxford University Press, 395-410
Maimaran, Michal & Wheeler, S. Christian (2008), “Circles, Squares, and Choice: The Effect of Shape Arrays on Uniqueness and Variety Seeking,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 731–40
MacCallum, Robert C., Zhang, Shaobo, Preacher, Kristopher J., & Rucker, Derek D. (2002), “On the Practice of Dichotomization of Quantitative Variables, “ Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19-40
Newsweek (1994), “Earn $$: Set Dryer to ‘Hi,’”, (accessed October 10, 2016), [available at http://europe.newsweek.com/earn-set-dryer-hi-188630?rm=eu].
Phau, Ian, & Prendergast, Gerard (2000), “Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of the ‘‘rarity principle’’, “, Journal of Brand Management, 8(2), 122–138.
Ruvio, Ayalla, Shoham, Aviv, & Brencic, Maja Makovec (2008), “Consumers’ need for uniqueness: short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation,” International Marketing Review, 25(1), 33-53
Saleh, K. (n.d), "E-commerce Product Return Rate – Statistics and Trends [Infographic]." (accessed November 28, 2016), [available at http://www.invespcro.com/blog/ecommerce-product-return-rate-statistics/]
Snyder, Charles Richard & Fromkin, Howard L. (1980), “Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference, “ New York: Plenum Press
— — — (1992), “Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: a consumer catch-22 carousel, “ Basic & Applied Social Psychology,13, 9-24
Stevenson, Angus (2016), “Flaw - Definition Of Flaw In English Oxford Dictionaries”,
(accessed on 10 October 10,2016), [available at
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/flaw]
Stock, James, Speh, Thomas, & Shear, Herbert (2002), “Many Happy (Product) Returns, “ Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 16-17
Tavikkai, Kamolwan, & Jirawattanaukool, Wiwatchai (2010), ”An Exploratory Study on Young Thai Women Consumer Behavior toward Purchasing Luxury Fashion Brands, “ master thesis.
Tsaknaki, V., Fernaeus, Y., & Schaub, M. (2014), “Leather as Material for Crafting Interactive and Physical Artifacts”, DIS 2014, 21(25), 5-14
APPENDIX Appendix 1: Survey
Uniqueness prime Homogeneity prime
Condition: No Flaw, leather
Condition: Flaw PU leather
Questions
Willingness to buy
Overall, how much do you like this backpack?
If you were to actually buy a backpack, how likely would you be to purchase this one?
Perceived Scarcity
How many backpacks do you think are left in stock in this online shop? (in%)
How rare do you think this particular backpack is?
Perceived uniqueness
This backpack is unique.
Using this backpack would make me feel.
Perceived quality
This backpack is reliable
This backpack is of good quality
This backpack is dependable
This backpack is durable
Perceived luxuriousness
This backpack is luxurious
Need for uniqueness scale
I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be
duplicated.
I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy
being original.
I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or brands.
Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a
distinctive image.
When it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, I have broken
customs and rules.
When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to use 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 bought by everyone.
The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less
interested I am in buying it.
Involvement
These are products that interest me.
I am not at all familiar with these products.
I rate these products as being of the highest importance to me personally.
These are products I could talk about for a long time.
Control questions
How much do you like backpacks in general?
How often do you use backpacks?
Have you seen these backpacks before, either online or in-store?
Are you vegan or vegetarian?
Do you own any leather goods?
In general, how do you feel about leather?
In general, how do you feel about fake leather?
Demographics
What is your gender?
How old are you?
What is your nationality?
Appendix 2: Cronbach’s alpha backpacks Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
.895 .895 6
Appendix 3: Hypothesis 1 – ANOVA with NFU manipulation Dependant variable: Purchase intention
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 3.144a 3 1.048 .371 .774
Intercept 3915.173 1 3915.173 1385.742 .000
NFU / Non-NFU 1.416 1 1.416 .501 .479
Flaw / no flaw .973 1 .973 .344 .558
NFU / Non-NFU *Flaw / no flaw
.698 1 .698 .247 .620
Error 901.279 319 2.825
Total 4826.250 323
Corrected Total 904.423 322
a. R Squared = .003 (Adjusted R Squared = -.006)
Appendix 4: Median CNFU scale Variable: Mean CNFU scale
N Valid 323
Missing 0
Appendix 5: Hypothesis 1 – ANOVA with Chronic NFU Dependent Variable: Purchase intention
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 27.026a 3 9.009 3.275 .021
Intercept 3933.564 1 3933.564 1430.148 .000
NFU / Non-NFU 26.025 1 26.025 9.462 .002
Flaw / no flaw .852 1 .852 .310 .578
NFU / Non-NFU * Flaw / no flaw
.025 1 .025 .009 .925
Error 877.397 319 2.750
Total 4826.250 323
Corrected Total 904.423 322
Appendix 6: Post-hoc analysis hypothesis 1 Dependent variable: Purchase intention
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Min Max Lower Bound Upper Bound Non-NFU / No flaw 80 3.2500 1.80365 .20165 2.8486 3.6514 1.00 7.00 Non-NFU / Flaw 85 3.1647 1.64640 .17858 2.8096 3.5198 1.00 7.00 NFU / No flaw 79 3.8354 1.67317 .18825 3.4607 4.2102 1.00 7.00 NFU / Flaw 79 3.7152 1.49504 .16821 3.3803 4.0501 1.00 7.00 Total 323 3.4845 1.67594 .09325 3.3011 3.6680 1.00 7.00 Multiple Comparisons
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Non-NFU/No flaw Non-NFU / Flaw .08529 .25834 .741
NFU/No flaw -.58544* .26305 .027
NFU / Flaw -.46519 .26305 .078
Non-NFU/Flaw Non-NFU / No flaw -.08529 .25834 .741
NFU / No flaw -.67074* .25918 .010
NFU / Flaw -.55048* .25918 .034
NFU / No flaw Non-NFU / No flaw .58544* .26305 .027
Non-NFU / Flaw .67074* .25918 .010
NFU / Flaw .12025 .26388 .649
NFU / Flaw Non-NFU / No flaw .46519 .26305 .078
Non-NFU / Flaw .55048* .25918 .034
NFU / No flaw -.12025 .26388 .649
Appendix 7: Hypothesis 2 – ANOVA with NFU manipulation Dependent Variable: Purchase intention
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 18.244a 7 2.606 .926 .486 Intercept 3902.549 1 3902.549 1387.196 .000 NFU / Non-NFU 1.504 1 1.504 .535 .465 Flaw / no flaw .735 1 .735 .261 .610 Leather / PU leather .476 1 .476 .169 .681
NFU / Non-NFU * Flaw / no flaw
1.024 1 1.024 .364 .547
NFU / Non-NFU * Leather / PU leather
9.334 1 9.334 3.318 .069
Flaw / no flaw * Leather / PU leather
4.358 1 4.358 1.549 .214
NFU / Non-NFU * Flaw / no flaw * Leather / PU leather .885 1 .885 .315 .575 Error 886.178 315 2.813 Total 4826.250 323 Corrected Total 904.423 322
Appendix 8: Hypothesis 2 – ANOVA with Chronic NFU Dependent Variable: Purchase intention
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 33.416a 7 4.774 1.726 .102 Intercept 3891.218 1 3891.218 1407.261 .000 NFU / Non-NFU 24.702 1 24.702 8.934 .003 Flaw / no flaw 1.118 1 1.118 .404 .525 Leather / PU leather .059 1 .059 .021 .884
NFU / Non-NFU *Flaw / no flaw
.107 1 .107 .039 .844
NFU / Non-NFU * Leather / PU leather
.651 1 .651 .235 .628
Flaw / no flaw * Leather / PU leather
2.969 1 2.969 1.074 .301
NFU / Non-NFU * Flaw / no flaw * Leather / PU leather 2.824 1 2.824 1.021 .313 Error 871.007 315 2.765 Total 4826.250 323 Corrected Total 904.423 322
Appendix 9: Post-hoc analysis hypothesis 2 Dependent variable: Purchase intention
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Min Max Lower Bound Upper Bound Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather 39 3.3077 1.96889 .31527 2.6695 3.9459 1.00 7.00
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather 39 3.2308 1.60937 .25771 2.7091 3.7525 1.00 6.50
NFU / No flaw / Leather 41 3.6220 1.61934 .25290 3.1108 4.1331 1.00 7.00
NFU / Flaw / Leather 46 3.8478 1.63255 .24071 3.3630 4.3326 1.00 7.00
Non-NFU / No flaw / PU leather 41 3.1951 1.65408 .25832 2.6730 3.7172 1.00 7.00 Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather 46 3.1087 1.69284 .24960 2.6060 3.6114 1.00 7.00
NFU / No flaw / PU leather 38 4.0658 1.72098 .27918 3.5001 4.6315 1.00 7.00
NFU / Flaw / PU leather 33 3.5303 1.28050 .22291 3.0763 3.9843 1.00 6.50
Total 323 3.4845 1.67594 .09325 3.3011 3.6680 1.00 7.00
Multiple Comparisons
(I) Conditions (J) Conditions
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
Non-NFU/No flaw/ Leather Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather .07692 .37656 .838
NFU / No flaw / leather -.31426 .37194 .399
NFU / Flaw / Leather -.54013 .36195 .137
Non-NFU / No Flaw / PU leather .11257 .37194 .762
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather .19900 .36195 .583
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.75810* .37903 .046
NFU / Flaw / PU leather -.22261 .39331 .572
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather -.07692 .37656 .838
NFU / No flaw / Leather -.39118 .37194 .294
NFU / Flaw / Leather -.61706 .36195 .089
Non- NFU / No flaw / PU leather .03565 .37194 .924
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather .12207 .36195 .736
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.83502* .37903 .028
NFU / No flaw / Leather Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather .31426 .37194 .399
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather .39118 .37194 .294
NFU / Flaw / Leather -.22587 .35714 .528
Non-NFU / No flaw / PU leather .42683 .36726 .246
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather .51326 .35714 .152
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.44384 .37444 .237
NFU / Flaw / PU leather .09165 .38889 .814
NFU / Flaw / Leather Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather .54013 .36195 .137
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather .61706 .36195 .089
NFU / No flaw / Leather .22587 .35714 .528
Non-NFU / No flaw / PU leather .65270 .35714 .069
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather .73913* .34673 .034
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.21796 .36452 .550
NFU / Flaw / PU leather .31752 .37934 .403
Non-NFU / No flaw / PU leather
Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather -.11257 .37194 .762
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather -.03565 .37194 .924
NFU / No flaw / Leather -.42683 .36726 .246
NFU / Flaw / Leather -.65270 .35714 .069
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather .08643 .35714 .809
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.87067* .37444 .021
NFU / Flaw / PU leather -.33518 .38889 .389
Non-NFU / Flaw / PU leather
Non-NFU / No flaw / leather -.19900 .36195 .583
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather -.12207 .36195 .736
NFU / No flaw / leather -.51326 .35714 .152
NFU / Flaw / Leather -.73913* .34673 .034
Non-NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.08643 .35714 .809
NFU / No flaw / PU leather -.95709* .36452 .009
NFU / Flaw / PU leather -.42161 .37934 .267
NFU / No flaw / PU leather Non-NFU / No flaw / Leather .75810* .37903 .046
Non-NFU / Flaw / Leather .83502* .37903 .028
NFU / No flaw / Leather .44384 .37444 .237
