SHALL I GIVE YOU THE GOOD OR THE BAD NEWS FIRST?
INVESTIGATING THE MODERATING EFFECT OF THE CONVEYING ORDER FOR TWO TYPES OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE PRODUCT INFORMATION ON THE EVALUATION OF EXPERIENTIAL PRODUCTS.
by
DOUWE GEERTSMA
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing
Date of completion: 25-06-2013
MASTER THESIS
SHALL I GIVE YOU THE GOOD OR THE BAD NEWS FIRST?
INVESTIGATING THE MODERATING EFFECT OF THE CONVEYING ORDER FOR TWO TYPES OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE PRODUCT INFORMATION ON THE EVALUATION OF EXPERIENTIAL PRODUCTS.
by
DOUWE GEERTSMA
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing
Date of completion: 25-06-2013
Prikkewei 30 9245 HT Nij Beets
0641498122
d.r.geertsma@student.rug.nl 1767690
Word amount: 20.841
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Current study investigated whether the affective evaluation of tasting an experiential product would differ when participants were conveyed, either prior to or after the consumption experience, different product information types. Current study has found only the effect of unfavorable quality indicative product information on affective evaluation to be significantly moderated by conveying order.
___________________________________________________________________________
Key Words: Placebo, Information, Evaluation, Experiential, Type, Valence, Timing, Ethics Seminar Supervisor: Dr. J. Liu
Second Supervisor: Dr. M.C. Leliveld
Seminar: Placebo Effect of Marketing Actions
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Current study was focused on the effect of conveying different types of product information on the affective evaluation of an experiential product. Previous literature indicated that different types of favorable and unfavorable product information conveyed either prior to or after the consumption experience, could influence the affective evaluation of that experience, differently.
The aim of current study was to investigate and identify these differences in direction and impact of effect on the affective evaluation of an experiential product experience, so that, in the future, product information types could be organized and presented in such a way that the evaluation of the consumption experience will achieve its highest theoretical potential.
Managers engaged in sampling programs could organize the marketing plan for an experiential product in such a way that it can steer the consumers evaluations to that of being more favorable for the relevant experiential product at hand.
Current study, that took place in the Netherlands, used the experiential product of chocolate to find out if the affective evaluation of tasting that chocolate would differ, when participants were conveyed, either prior to or after the consumption experience, different product information whereas a distinction was made in favorable and unfavorable quality indicative product information and favorable and unfavorable ethical product information.
Current study was unable to identify significant main effects for conveying order, for product information type and for product information valence.
Although evidence was insufficient to conclude that favorable quality indicative product information differed in effect on evaluation when comparing conveyed prior to the consumption experience and conveying after the consumption experience, current paper did find sufficient evidence to conclude that unfavorable quality indicative product information differed in effect on evaluation when comparing conveyed prior to the consumption experience and conveying after the consumption experience. Specifically, conveying unfavorable quality indicative product information after the consumption experience leads to significantly higher evaluations than if it were conveyed prior to the consumption experience.
Although showing interesting directions and impact of effect on mean affective evaluation scores, an opposite effect of quality indicative product information, for both the standalone favorable and unfavorable ethical product information the evidence was insufficient to state that these product information variants indeed differed in effect when comparing the ethical product information being conveyed prior to the consumption experience and being conveyed after the consumption experience.
PREFACE
Six months ago I started this Msc Master Thesis project as what would be the last hurdle that stood between me and graduation. This paper is the report of, hopefully, overcoming that last obstacle and its content is the result of applying everything I’ve learned during the Master Business Administration / MSc Marketing courses. Weeks of bothering people with chocolate tastings, many failed and successful attempts regarding performing analyses, and long days spent typing behind my laptop eventually led to this paper. During the process, I’ve learned a lot, amongst others: working independently, meeting deadlines, incorporating feedback into the paper, providing feedback to fellow students, conducting a field experiment, conducting a wide range of analyses in IBM SPSS Statistics and learning what the results from such analyses entail and then translate them into more practical implications.
There are a few people I want to thank for helping me writing this thesis. In the first place, I want to extend my gratitude to my supervisor dr. Jia Liu who has been guiding me through the process of writing the thesis. From the outset, choosing a topic, unto the finishing of the paper, she has been directing and supporting me by providing constructive feedback that helped me a lot to bring the thesis to the level it is currently at. I also want to express my gratitude to the fellow students from my thesis group that wrote their thesis in the same field of placebo effects in a marketing setting. They provided feedback and alternative perspectives on my work, which did also turned out to be helpful. I also want to thank all the participants that tasted and evaluated the chocolate, and thus were helping me obtain the data I needed to conduct the analyses. Without them, writing the thesis was impossible. Finally, I want to thank you reader, for taking the time to read this paper.
Groningen,
June 25, 2013
Douwe Geertsma
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1BACKGROUND PROBLEM ... 7
1.2PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 10
1.3THEORETICAL AND SOCIAL RELEVANCE ... 11
1.4PREVIEW ... 13
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 14
2.1INFORMATION AND EVALUATION ... 14
2.2INFORMATION ORDER AND CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCE ... 16
2.3PRODUCT INFORMATION VALENCE ... 18
2.4PRODUCT INFORMATION TYPE ... 20
2.5CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 26
3 METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN ... 28
3.1RESEARCH DESIGN ... 28
3.2VARIABLES,MEASURES AND SCALES ... 29
3.3SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE ... 32
3.4MANIPULATION CHECK AND CONTROL QUESTIONS ... 34
3.5DATA COLLECTION ... 36
3.5PLAN OF ANALYSIS ... 37
4 RESULTS ... 38
4.1GENERAL IMPRESSION OF THE SAMPLE ... 38
4.2MANIPULATION CHECKS ... 38
4.3VARIABLES CONTROLLED FOR ... 40
4.4THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE ... 42
4.5THE DATA SET ... 42
4.6HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 44
4.7RESULTS RECAP ... 54
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 57
5.1GENERAL CONCLUSION ... 57
5.2DISCUSSION ... 60
5.3IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 62
5.4LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH ... 63
REFERENCES ... 66
APPENDICES: ... 70
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Problem
Imagine the following setting: a stubborn young boy refuses to join his family at the dining table after his mother tells him that she will be serving fish tonight. The information the boy retrieved from learning the name of the food, seemed to have influenced his decision of not wanting to eat the fish. Every now and then mothers seem to be aware of this intuitively, and when they know that the name will sound unappealing to the child, they sometimes trick their children by purposely leaving out the name of the food, when serving the food. In some cases they will even deceive their children by falsely calling the food something favorable to gain their children’s consent. In the introductory setting this would mean, for example, calling fish
‘pink chicken’ if the boy is fond of eating chicken. After the boy had consumed the fish, maintaining the lie was no longer required and the mother would cautious debrief the boy by telling him that ‘pink chicken’ is just another name for fish, in the hopes that the boy would come to realize that the food he had just consumed did not taste as bad as the name fish would suggest. Apart from the question whether it is permissible for mothers to trick their children, and apart from the obvious corollary that the deceive indeed leads to the boy eating the fish, are these mothers intuitively right using the strategy of informing their children of negative information after the fish already has been consumed in order to get the children evaluating the consumption experience more favorable? This, so that hopefully the next time the mother serves fish the children will voluntarily eat the food and will come to enjoy it.
The answer to the question whether the mother’s ploy works is evidently yes. Multiple articles (Shiv, Carmon & Ariely, 2005; Irmak, Block & Fitzsimons, 2005; Lee, Frederick & Ariely, 2006; Wilcox, Roggeveen & Grewal, 2011) elaborate upon the construct that comes into play here, the so-called placebo effect. Broadly speaking, the term placebo effect is most common in the medical literature were it is described as a genuine physiological or psychological effect, that is not attributable to the inherent powers of a certain substance or procedure, but which rather is attributable to the belief that it works when receiving that certain substance or when undergoing that certain procedure (Stewart-Williams & Podd, 2004). Shiv et al. (2005) was among the first papers to investigate this psychological phenomenon in a marketing setting. Its paper revealed that placebo effects also come into play in the marketing domain; it identifies that placebo effects can be a result of marketing actions such as price setting.
Products purchased at a discounted price, for example, differed in their efficacy from the very same products that were bought at the standard price. Further investigation on this topic in a marketing setting led Lee et al. (2006) conclude that product information leading to expectations affected real-time experience itself. In the introductory setting, this would mean that learning the name of the food prior to consuming the product can affect consumer judgment of the eating experience later on. Because much of experience is ambiguous (Hoch, 2002), this is especially true for experience or experiential products. Those products for which the attributes most important to the product quality assessment are generally discernible without the consumer-product interaction are classified as search goods; contrariwise, experience goods are those products for which attributes that indicate product quality are most discernible through the experience with the product (Nelson 1970; Nelson 1974; Huang, Lurie
& Mitra, 2009).
The main task of market research is acquiring customer input and once obtained, customer input plays a crucial role for the developing effective marketing strategies (Ofir, Simonson &
Yoon, 2009). Marketing practitioners and researchers employ various research techniques to obtain customer input concerning how consumers evaluate product and service quality and satisfaction, and to find out the importance of different attributes (Ofir et al., 2009).
By conducting several experiments Lee et al. (2006) showed that participants in its study evaluated the consumption experience of a certain type of beer more negatively if an unfavorable cue concerning the product was presented prior to the consumption, than if it was presented after the consumption. The timing of conveying the information is therefore a construct that can influence the participants product evaluation and preference. Wilcox et al.
(2011) examined the same phenomenon and came to the same conclusion that product information learned either prior to or after the consumption of an experiential product affects consumer evaluation differently. Although these authors indicate that presenting product information after the consumption affects judgments differently than when presented prior to the consumption, little is known in what way learning information after a product consumption affects how the consumption experience of the product is judged (Wilcox et al., (2011).
The work of Lee et al. (2006) and especially Wilcox et al. (2011) have shed light on a dimension that previous literature about product information and its placebo effect on product
evaluation mostly ignored, namely the timing of information provision pertaining to the consumption experience. Because of this discovery, previous research concerning experiential product evaluation, mostly neglecting the post trial information peculiarities, is due to an overhaul. Previous research that elaborates upon a more disaggregate level of product information instead of the aggregate level of Wilcox et al. (20011), where the broad concept of ‘product information’ in general is used, could be enriched once it incorporates the dimension of timing of conveying the information (prior to/ after consumption) to certain product information characteristics and their (placebo) effect on product evaluation.
Marketers present consumers product information in an attempt to enhance purchase possibilities (Franke, Huhmann & Mothersbaugh, 2004). Marketers can choose upon what type of message is most suitable for persuading consumers. This involves giving substance to the information content; which stimuli, claims and appeals to use and how to use them. The possibilities for this, having their own peculiarities, seem endless: which informative or non- informative claims to include (Resnik & Stern, 1977), whether to focus on rational or emotional appeals (Leonidou & Leonidou, 2009), whether to focus on comparable or enriched attributes (Nowlis & Simonson, 1997), which extrinsic and intrinsic attributes to include (Kirmani & Rao, 2000) etc. Johnson, Bellman & Lohse (2003) state that different types of information compositions are adjoined by different cognitive processes that affect the time spent processing each piece of information and are adjoined with different modes of mental simulation (Zhao, Hoeffler & Zauberman, 2011). Consequently, presenting different types of information will lead to differences in product beliefs and can therefore also lead to differences in product evaluations (Shiv et al., 2005). To comply with the request by Wilcox et al. (2011) to further investigate the placebo with regard to conveying information at different moments, current study will investigate different information types conveyed at different moments around the consumption experience, and its effect on the mean evaluation scores of experiential product experiences.
Previous research of Lutz (1975); Mizerski (1982); Burke et al. (1990); Hao & Wyer (2008) have a central premise that there is a tendency for product information with a negative valence to have a greater impact on judgments compared to the impact of product information with positive valence on judgments. However, concerning valence on product evaluation, not much is known about whether this tendency will also hold if the product information is provided to
(2011) to further investigate the placebo with regard to conveying information at different moments, current study will test and investigate standalone favorable and unfavorable product information in combination with different product information types and their effect on the mean evaluation scores of experiential product experiences. This, so that underlying factors causing relevant placebo effects can be brought to light.
1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions
Building upon the work of Wilcox et al. (2011) this paper will take modest steps to investigate on a more disaggregate level whether findings from previous literature concerning the expected direction and impact of conveying different product information, that account for a portion of differences in experiential product evaluation, will prove true if it is provided both prior to and after consumption, or if no effect, or an effect contrary to expectations, can be observed. In other words, current paper will deepen into the topic of product information to see if certain information is best to be told prior to consumption experience and other certain information is best to be told after the consumption experience.
The problem statement will be:
“What is the moderating role of the order of conveying product information on the effect of different types of favorable and unfavorable product information on the evaluation of experiential products”
For feasibility reasons a twofold distinction in product information type is made, whereas the two product information types chosen, A and B, will be distinct and give reason to suspect to affect the consumption experience evaluation, differently. The theoretical framework will build towards and elaborated upon what will constitute as these product related information types A and B.
The problem statement can be further translated into the following four more specific research questions:
1. How does the influence of favorable product related information type A on the consumer experience evaluation differ, when conveyed prior to or conveyed after the consumption?
2. How does the influence of unfavorable product related information type A on the consumer experience evaluation differ, when conveyed prior to or conveyed after the consumption?
3. How does the influence of favorable product related information type B on the consumer experience evaluation differ, when conveyed prior to or conveyed after the consumption?
4. How does the influence of unfavorable product related information type B on the consumer experience evaluation differ, when conveyed prior to or conveyed after the consumption?
1.3 Theoretical and Social Relevance
Lee et al. (2006) and Wilcox et al. (2011) were among the first papers that revealed that the timing of conveying information had important implications in marketing and promoting experiential products. Telling the consumer about the country of origin of a product, either prior to or after the consumer had experienced the product, significantly differed in influence on the experience evaluation. This illustrates that a seemingly innocuous marketing activity has far more implications than what meets the eye. Current study contributes to the currently limited literature concerning placebo effects in a marketing setting by replicating components of the experiments from Wilcox et al. (2011) study, while current study will further deepen into this phenomenon by making a distinction in product information between ‘type’ and
‘valence’. New insights in what the order of conveying these different types can potentially yield will be brought to light. These insights can be applied to a wide range of experiential product categories. For example: perhaps the degree to which you will evaluate a vacation will vary depending on which information you have received about this vacation destination, before you have been there or after you already have returned from it. Or perhaps the degree to which you evaluate eating a meal in a restaurant depends on which information you received about the restaurant prior to and after visiting the establishment.
Furthermore, current study might also lead other researchers to start investigating on other product information types beyond the scope of current study or other product information characteristics, either conveyed prior to or after the consumption experience, and their dynamic influence on consumer experience evaluation of an experiential product. Current study will take a twofold distinction of product information types, however one might argue that there are other product information types as well that have their own peculiarities on judgment, whether given prior to or after consumption. Current study might also even lead to researchers start investigating this phenomenon on other research subjects. Current study focuses on experiential product consumption, but perhaps the degree to which you will come to like an unknown person might also fluctuate depending on which information you have received about this person, before or after meeting this person in real life. Future research investigating other research subjects might turn out to be worth looking into. The prior to versus after consumption conveying order of information is deemed applicable for a broad array of research subjects.
As for managerial relevance, if this paper is able to identify differences in effect of product information types on experiential consumption evaluation, either conveyed prior to or after consumption experience, the product information types could be organized and presented in a way that the evaluation of the consumption experience will achieve, ceteris paribus, its highest theoretical potential. This entails great managerial implications. Most important, managers engaged in sampling programs can organize the marketing plan for an experiential product in such a way that it can steer the consumers evaluations to that of being more favorable for the relevant experiential product at hand. Especially for experiential product groups new to the market, for which consumers have not developed stable existing preferences, knowledge about which information to convey at which stage of trial can provide a crucial benefit in order to become popular in that industry.
Associated with previous, current study might also shed light on how a manager can overcome its products weaknesses, or even turn these weaknesses into a benefit. If current study, for example, is able to determine that unfavorable information differs in impact on evaluation when comparing conveyed prior to and conveyed after the consumption experience, or might even be able to heighten evaluation scores when conveyed at a certain moment, managers can use that unfavorable product information, that normally is expected to
would have lowered the evaluation scores, in such a way that it will positively influence the evaluation scores.
1.4 Preview
This paper is organized in five Chapters. After the introduction, the second Chapter will form the foundation of the paper by building up to a conceptual model based on literature of the topic at hand. This Chapter will also present the hypotheses. Chapter Three will describe the research design, variables, measures and scales. In this Chapter the data collection and the manipulation checks will also be addressed. The results of testing will be presented and discussed in Chapter Four. Lastly, Chapter Five will highlight the findings and implications, recommendations, limitations and possible future research directions will be elaborated upon.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Information and Evaluation
Consumers have to make choices among a range of advertised products, and although Selnes
& Howell (1999) describe an increasingly product knowledgeable consumer, they often lack crucial information in order to make their best possible purchase. Consumers therefore make quality inferences derived from the limited set of information and experience at hand (Nelson, 1970). Selecting those advertising stimuli that will generate favorable emotional responses and will entice customers to buy the advertised product, is one of the most important and challenging jobs for marketing practitioners (Micu & Coulter, 2012).
In order to evaluate a product, consumers use an array of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of which products constitute. Whereas intrinsic attributes are an integral part of the physical product, extrinsic attributes (e.g. product information concerning brand name, warranty, country of origin, or price) are not physical components of the product. Changes in extrinsic attributes have no material effects on the actual product, yet for consumers they often serve as information cues that may affect the quality perceptions (Kirmani & Rao, 2000). Because it is deemed more useful, intrinsic attribute information generally dominates extrinsic cues for assessing product quality (Rao & Monroe, 1988; Purohit & Srivastava, 2001). However, when there is no opportunity to process it or the intrinsic information is scarce, like in a blind taste setting, extrinsic cues are more likely to be used in product evaluations (Suri & Monroe, 2003).
Taking a product perspective upon the effect of product information on evaluation, Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann (2003) state that products in general have two dimensions; an utilitarian and a hedonic side. A products’ hedonic value is the level of pleasure that the product or service is capable of giving the consumer, and a products utilitarian value is the level of usefulness of the product or service in solving the everyday problems of consumers (Micu & Coulter, 2010). Products that mainly fulfill utilitarian needs and address functional benefits, such as for example washing machines, are considered primarily utilitarian products.
Products that mainly fulfill experiential needs and addresses subjective, non-tangible features, and whose consumption produces enjoyment and pleasure, such as for example jewelry, are considered primarily hedonic products (Micu & Coulter, 2010). Literature attributes these
dimensions also to consumer characteristics. The more hedonic consumers prefer a more experiential view of consumption whereas the more utilitarian consumers believe in a less experiential view of consumption (Mäenpää et al., 2006), where experiential consumption involves those facets of consumer behavior related to the fantasy, multi-sensory and emotive aspects of the consumers’ experience with products (Mäenpää et al., 2006). Chernev (2004) focused its related research on goal compatibility; the relation between consumers’ goals and the nature of the attributes describing choice alternatives. Important insights from its work are that hedonic products are especially suitable to help attain promotion goals (aimed at achieving positive outcomes) and utilitarian product attributes are especially suitable to help attain prevention goals (aimed at minimizing negative outcomes). When goal compatibility exist, consumers will have more positive product attitudes and will be more persuaded by the relevant message, and will be willing to pay a higher price for the advertised product than when the message is not compatible with the consumers goals (Chernev, 2004).
Zhao et al. (2011) makes a distinction in consumer information processing to come to a new product evaluation. Whereas cognitive information processing is based on controlled “cold,”
less extreme analytic thinking, affective information processing is based on automatic “hot,”
more extreme emotions and feelings that arise from the sensory experience (Zhao et al., 2011;
Shiv & Nowlis, 2004). Distractions during the consumption experience can increase the impact of the affective component in the evaluation of the consumption experience (Shiv &
Nowlis, 2004). Furthermore, the evaluation of experiential products is primarily affect-based (Biswas, Grewal, & Roggeveen, 2010).
Shiv et al. (2005) addresses previous and suggests that product features that are not inherent to a product, such as learning its price, can trigger a placebo effect. Associated with product information are certain beliefs about the product that influence the expectations for the products performance. These expectations shape how consumers interpret the consumption experience, what results in evaluations that are assimilated with the product information.
Favorable expectations of an experience often lead to more positive evaluations of that experience (Wilcox et al., 2011). Varying which product information to convey can result in different product experiences and evaluations (Selnes & Howell, 1999). This principle leads to situations where, for example, one would evaluate a movie that the consumer has just seen, as more fun when this person is told beforehand that the movie he is about to see, has received
a consumer exhibits the arousing effects of drinking an energy drink whilst actually drinking a diet, decaffeinated beverage (Irmak et al., 2005).
The placebo effect will be most evident in those situations where thoughts, inferences and emotions occur spontaneously without interference of the cognition, because the process giving rise to the placebo phenomenon occurs non-consciously (Shiv et al., 2005).
Experiential consumption creates these preconditions (Mäenpää et al., 2004). Because the evaluation of experiential products is primarily affect-based (Biswas et al., 2010), the remainder of current research focuses on the effect that experiential product information has on affective evaluations of the relevant experiential consumption experience of the target product.
2.2 Information Order and Consumption Experience
In saturated and overcrowded markets, where essentially the same product is sold by multiple retailers, retailers continually seek new ways to differentiate their product from the rest.
Experiential marketing campaigns focusing on experience goods, like blind tastings, attempt to provide consumers with a taste of the benefit of their product (Valentine, 2008). Experience goods, or experiential products, are those products for which attributes that indicate product quality are most discernible through the experience with the product (Nelson 1970; Nelson 1974; Huang et al., 2009). Much of experiential product experience is ambiguous (Hoch, 2002) and it seduces consumers into thinking they learn more than they actually do, because product experience is non-partisan (Hoch, 2002). The evaluation of experiential products is, rather than cognitive, affective in nature (Biswas et al., 2010). When consumers therefore sample an experiential product, an affective evaluation is formed spontaneously (Wilcox et al., 2011). This Chapter will elaborate upon the previous literature that indicates that marketing practitioners can steer this affective evaluation of experiential product consumption through exposure to product information.
Multiple studies demonstrate that when consumers are unfamiliar with the brand, pretrial advertising and product trial work in a complementary fashion, such that a pretrial advertisement can influence the subsequent product trial experience (Hoch & Ha, 1986;
Smith, 1993; Kempf &Laczniak, 2001), and thus influence the experience evaluation. In the study of Kempf &Laczniak (2001) consumers process subsequent trial in a more focused,
meaningful, and confident way after they were presented an advertisement that contained attribute claims, than the consumers that were not presented to the advertisement before the trial. This resulted in a higher purchase intention for the first group of consumers. Mental imagery elicited by the presentation of certain product information prior to the consumption experience can, through the construct of anticipated satisfaction, elicit shifts in how the weight of the different attributes in the decision allocation concerning which product of the product alternatives to prefer (Shiv & Huber, 2000). Escalas (2004) and Shiv & Shuber (2000) studies further shows that imagining a product experience can have powerful effects on consumers’ product attitudes and evaluations. Geers & Lassiter (2003) agree and confirm this notion by demonstrating that when a consumer forms an affective expectation and the subsequent experience is inconsistent with it, and that discrepancy is noticed, affective reactions will be contrasted with the expectation. When this discrepancy remains however unnoticed, it is anticipated that affective reactions will be assimilated toward the expectation (Geers & Lassiter, 2003).
Wilcox et al. (2011) unique contribution to academic literature is that in series of comparative experiments the direction of the effect of relative favorable versus relative unfavorable product information was investigated in the relation of the order of presenting information and experiential product evaluation. The significant main effects in the studies of Wilcox et al.
(2011) were about a discrediting cue: the effects are rather produced by the beliefs about the product experience that are cued by the product information, not the product information per se; and about information order: participants perceived two pictures to be less similar when they received product information after sampling than when they received the same product information prior to the sampling. Wilcox et al. (2011) found that when a product information type (price, country of origin) is presented prior to the experiential product consumption, the belief in the product information results in an assimilation effect such that when the product information is favorable (unfavorable), consumers evaluate the same experience more positively (negatively) than those who were presented unfavorable (favorable) product information. A more interesting insight was that when the product information type (price, country of origin) is presented after the experiential product consumption, the belief in the product information results in a contrast effect such that when the product information is favorable (unfavorable), consumers like the same product less (more) than those who were presented unfavorable (favorable) product information. Wilcox et al. (2011) has demonstrated
experiential setting can be steered towards being more favorable. This by the act of selecting which information is conveyed prior to the experience and which information is conveyed after the experience. Current paper will seek the underlying factors causing the relative differences in mean affective evaluation scores across the conveyed product information valence (or favorability) and type.
2.3 Product Information Valence
Adaval (2001) suggests that the manner in which consumers process product information can be influenced by the affect that these consumers experience at the time they are presented this product information and, therefore, also influence the product evaluation that follows. The weight that certain information is given might be enhanced when its evaluative implications are similar in valence to the affect the consumer currently is experiencing for unrelated reasons (Adaval, 2001). To illustrate: happy consumers may weight favorable pieces of product information more heavily than unfavorable pieces of product information when making a product evaluation, whereas unhappy consumers may give relatively more emphasis to unfavorable pieces than to favorable ones.
Taking the individual consumer specifics out of the equation, multiple literature suggests that there is a difference that can be observed in which way favorable versus unfavorable product information content impact the product evaluation, which can be generalized. Lutz (1975);
Mizerski (1982); Burke et al. (1990); Hao & Wyer (2008) elaborate upon a general tendency for product information with negatively valence to have a greater impact on judgments compared to the impact of product information with positive valence on judgments. One must therefore not underestimate a firms vulnerability to bad reviews or negative word-of-mouth.
Weinberger, Allen & Dillon (1981) demonstrated that, even after the information has been refuted, the impact of negative information persists.
Scott & Tybout (1981) try to explain this tendency by suggesting that negative cues are given more attention and weight in evaluations because negative cues happen to be statistically rare.
When a consumer encounters negative information then, this information is perceived as
‘shocking’ or ‘surprising’ and therefore has more impact on forming evaluations (Scott &
Tybout, 1981; Mizerski, 1982). Tversky & Kahneman (1991) give an alternative explanation for the tendency and elaborate upon a general phenomenon the authors call ‘loss aversion’
which leans on the central premise that a loss or disadvantage of €1 provides more negative utility (dissatisfaction) than the gain or advantage of €1 provides positive utility (satisfaction).
Another finding that would possibly account for the tendency of information with a negative valence to have more impact on judgments than information with positive valence, is that the so-called group of low-risk takers are, regardless of the possible benefits, motivated to avoid any negative consequences and therefore assign more weight to unfavorable attributes when facing an evaluation (Briley & Wyer, 2002).
When linking loss aversion to the placebo effect, the previously described tendency identified in the studies of Lutz (1975); Mizerski (1982) Burke et al. (1990) and Hao & Wyer (2008), appears. Mizerski (1982) explicitly demonstrated in its study that communicating an unfavorable product attribute prior to the consumption experience, is having more impact (whether this impact manifests as either positive or negative) on the evaluation than communicating a favorable product attribute prior to the consumption experience. Because literature states the tendency is observed in general situations where information leads to evaluations, and the explanations given for the tendency do not give reason expect this would not apply when information is presented post-trial, an assumption can be made that unfavorable information also has more impact (whether this impact manifests as either positive or negative) when given after the consumption experience.
Through assimilation and contrast, it was found in Wilcox et al. (2011) study that favorable product information conveyed prior to the consumption experience would lead to higher evaluation scores than when unfavorable product information was conveyed prior to the consumption. More interestingly was that its study also found that favorable product information conveyed after the consumption experience would lead to lower evaluation scores than when unfavorable product information was conveyed after the consumption. This implies that conveying favorable product information prior to the consumption experience has a greater positive influence or a less negative influence compared to conveying unfavorable product information prior to the consumption experience, and that conveying unfavorable product information after to the consumption experience has a greater positive influence or a less negative influence compared to conveying favorable product information after the consumption experience. Consequently, the effect of, arguably both, but at least one of favorable and unfavorable product information is different when comparing the conveying of
that product information prior to the consumption experience and conveying it not until after the consumption experience. Current study tries to map this difference for both favorable and unfavorable product information to support and strengthen the founding by Wilcox et al.
(2011). So, whereas in its paper, Wilcox et al. (2011) took a perspective that focused on the difference between favorable and unfavorable product information, current paper takes a slightly different approach and focuses on the underlying factors causing the difference between the favorable and unfavorable product information by focusing on standalone favorable product information at both conveying moments and on the standalone unfavorable product information at both conveying moments.
In order to prevent confusion regarding labels, it should be noted that ‘favorable’ product information is the information that leads to a higher expectation of product performance. A product that is considered cheap might be favorable for the consumer with limited resources, but here, that kind of information is considered unfavorable, because it detracts consumption experience expectations.
2.4 Product Information Type
Literature suggests that product attributes exist in several variants. Distinctions can be made in attributes types or product information types. For example, Nowlis & Simonson (1997) propose a twofold distinction between ‘comparable’ attributes (attributes that produce clear and unambiguous comparisons, e.g. price) and ‘enriched’ attributes (attributes that produce clear and unambiguous comparisons, e.g. brand name), but a more popular distinction is the one made by Nelson (1970) between ‘search’ and ‘experience’ attributes (or products) to evaluate a product. Search attributes are product features and characteristics easily evaluated before purchase. Experience attributes are product characteristics difficult to observe in advance, but these characteristics can be ascertained upon consumption. But because in current study it is of interest to test product information types presented both prior to and after the consumption experience, Nelson’s (1970) attribute distinction seems inappropriate to use for current study.
Instead, the product information types that will be tested for moderation in current study are derived from research of Peloza, White & Jingzhi (2013), where in its study a tension exists between ‘self benefit oriented’ attributes (information that indicates product quality, e.g.
country of origin) and ‘ethical’ attributes (product or firm information addressing ethical issues, e.g. cruelty-free produced).
Peloza et al. (2013); Harrison (2003) and Luchs et al. (2010) all elaborate upon the general trend of the growing consumer appetite and attention for information on ethical issues among mainstream consumer groups around the world. However, other research indicates that that consumer support is not uniformly positive for products positioned on using ethical attributes (Luchs et al., 2010; Auger & Devinney, 2007; White, MacDonnell & Ellard, 2012), also it is mainly unclear how profitable it is for a company to focus on satisfying the consumers’ call to act in a responsible matter (Wagner-Tsukamoto, 2008), and the market shares of the products positioned on the basis of their ethical attributes are still relatively small (Luchs et al., 2010).
Skeptic observers of the trend of increasing attention for ethical issues think that, although consumers would like to believe that ethical matters weighs heavy in their purchasing decisions, in reality they only care about quality and price (Harrison, 2003). A gap appears to exist between what consumers say about the importance of ethical issues and what they decide at the pay desks in stores (Auger & Devinney, 2007).
Marketing practitioners nowadays face the challenge determining how to motivate consumers to choose products positioned on using ethical attributes over products positioned on self benefit-oriented attributes, such as price (Peloza et al., 2013). By using the quality indicative versus ethical product information distinction in product information type in current study, this paper will address this challenge. The remaining part of this Chapter will elaborate upon the very differing nature of both information types, and hypotheses will be formulated to estimate the effect of both types of information (in both favorable as unfavorable form) on product experience evaluation with respect to information exposure both prior to and after the consumption experience.
Self benefit oriented attributes or quality indicative product information can take on many forms such as brand name, warranty, advertising budget, price and country of origin (Kirmani
& Rao, 2000). Concerning brand name usage and its relation with perceived quality, Erdem &
Swait (1998) found that consistency and clarity of the brand signal are positively related to signal credibility, whereas signal credibility is positively related to perceived quality.
Boulding & Kirmani (1993) show that, when enforceable, warranties signal unobservable
elaborated upon in the paper of Kirmani & Wright (1989), but this belief can be undermined as extremely high levels of expenditure suggest that the firm is desperate. For this reason Kirmani (1997) proposes that high-advertising expenditure and quality perceptions display an inverted U relationship. According to Kumara & Kang (2010), the country of origin accounts for a substantial proportion of the variance in product quality/ reliability perceptions and purchase intentions, although the conditions under which it is operative have not yet been fully delineated. Price can convey supply-related quality information or demand-related quality information (Gerstner, 1985). A high price may reflect either the high production costs associated with high quality or a high demand for superior quality. Gabor & Granger (1966), McConnell (1968) and Verma & Gupta (2004) found that consumers indeed believe that high prices are indicators of better quality, in other words: the consumer believes that “you get what you pay for”.
Overall, previous combined with the literature findings in Chapter 2.2 gives reason to expect a positively leveraging, assimilation, relationship between quality indicative product information and the quality perception of the target product consumption experience when that quality indicative product information is accessible during the consumption experience.
On the other hand, when learning quality indicative product information after the consumption experience, a contrast effect is expected. The reasoning behind the contrasting effect is that when product information is presented after trial, consumers will already spontaneously have formed their initial affective evaluation. The information was not incorporated in the affective evaluation of the target. As a result, the information becomes distinct from the consumption experience, and the product information will be more likely to serve as a comparison standard against which the target is judged (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2009), which results in that the consumers product experience evaluation will be contrasted with the product information (Wilcox et al., 2011).
Using the rationale described previously and the derived expected assimilation and contrast effects for quality indicative product information, exposing a consumer to favorable quality indicative information, prior to or after consumption, is believed to affect the consumption experience evaluation as follows:
H1: Favorable quality indicative product information presented prior to the consumption experience will result in an assimilation effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of higher quality than when it is presented after the consumption experience where this favorable quality indicative product information will result in a contrast effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of lower quality than previous.
Using the rationale described previously and the derived expected assimilation and contrast effects for quality indicative product information, exposing a consumer to unfavorable quality indicative information, prior to or after consumption, is believed to affect the consumption experience evaluation as follows:
H2: Unfavorable quality indicative product information presented prior to the consumption experience will result in an assimilation effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of lower quality than when it is presented after the consumption experience where this unfavorable quality indicative product information will result in a contrast effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of higher quality than previous.
Considering ethical product information, this paper takes the perspective from Shaw, Shiu &
Clark (2000) whereas ethical product information is considered the information about a product that reflects the consumers’ ethics based on personal beliefs about right or wrong; it addresses the moral or ethical obligation that the consumers perceive. More practically, Crane (2001) gives a set of issues and considerations that might impinge upon the ethical purchase decision. The list is extensive, but it includes product information like product safety, environmental impacts, consumer privacy, employee welfare, discrimination, fair pricing, community action and charitable donations.
An important difference between the two types of product information is that ethical considerations are most likely to be seen by the consumer as product augmentations (additions to the products benefit bundle), whereas quality indicative information indicates the value of the entire product, namely the core, the actual and the augmented product (Crane, 2001).
Consumers do not only judge products on their core product, but product augmentations also take part in the consumer purchase decision consideration set (Colgate & Alexander, 2002), although product augmentations are in many cases considered an addition of extra or unsolicited service or benefits in order to prompt the purchase, separate from the fundamental benefit sought by consumers (Crane, 2011). When ethical product information is accessible
during the consumption experience, it is therefore considered separate or distinct from the consumption experience and consequently more likely to serve as a comparison standard against which the target is judged (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2009), which results in that the consumers product experience evaluation will be contrasted with the product information (Wilcox et al., 2011). To illustrate the distinctness of ethical information, a consumer that treats ethical considerations as product augmentations, might consider the ethical appealing notion that the product was not tested on animals, or that the product was not manufactured by companies that use child labor, as something important, but also as something distinct from the product experience. The consumer knows, consciously or unconsciously, that he or she cannot objectively detect the ethical product augmentation when consuming the product. The consumer will, in this case, be less likely to believe he or she is able to smell/ taste/ perceive which product was not tested on animals or manufactured by the hands of children.
What further distinguishes ethical product information from quality indicative information is that ethical information is loaded with a general belief of right or wrong (Shaw et al., 2000 ), and the potential violation of one's own standard of these evokes an anticipatory feeling of guilt (Peloza et al., 2013). Peloza et al. (2013) further argue that this anticipatory guilt will result in, on paper, more favorable evaluations and preferences for the target product that is promoted through favorable ethical product information. However, literature indicates that one might also argue that in fact the consumption experience for these products is negatively influenced because anticipatory guilt is associated with an unpleasant emotional state of shame, fear, regret and a perceived loss of control (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Peloza et al., 2013); you are being forced to like a product because it is expected of you (“This cruelty- free fragrance is produced without animal testing, and you say you don’t like it?”) and the consumer might become aware of the fact that the sensitivity of the issues addressed in the information manipulates their objective judgment of the product. When manipulative intent in an ethical message is deduced by consumers, consumers do not feel guilty, but instead they form negative attitudes toward the ethical advertisement and the advertised product (Cotte, Coulter & Moore, 2005). Whereas in current study of interest lies in the affective evaluation of an experiential hedonic product experience, exposing a consumer to favorable ethical information can therefore detract from the pleasure of the consumption experience itself when that ethical product information is accessible during the consumption experience.
A main finding of Luchs et al. (2010) was that that consumers tend to associate lower product ethicality with strength-related attributes and higher product ethicality with gentleness-related attributes. Consequently, when strength-related attributes are valued the positive effect of product ethicality on consumer preferences is reduced, sometimes even resulting in preferences for less ethical product alternatives, what the authors like to call “the sustainability liability” (Luchs et al., 2010). Common expressions such as “to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs” and “nice guys finish last” imply that amorality is positively related to success and strength, whereas morality is associated with weakness and failure.
Wilcox et al. (2011) found a contrast effect when product information is presented after trial.
In its study however, merely quality indicative product information was tested. When presenting ethical product information after trial, there is reason to expect an assimilation effect. The contrast effect is namely expected to become contradicted, resulting in an assimilation effect: the ethical product information becomes distinct from the consumption experience, and the product information will be more likely to serve as a comparison standard against which the target is judged (Zhu and Meyers-Levy, 2009), which results in that the consumers’ product experience evaluation will be contrasted with the product information (Wilcox et al., 2011). However, the work of Luchs et al. (2010) demonstrated that ethicality can be associated with weakness and un-ethicality can be associated with strength, which is expected to reverse the overall direction of contrast into assimilation.
Furthermore, when consumers already spontaneously have formed their initial affective evaluation, before receiving the ethical product information, the anticipatory guilt and all its negative consequences (unpleasant emotional state of shame, fear, regret and a perceived loss of control (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Peloza et al., 2013)) were not present during the consumption experience. What remains is an initial affective assessment of the product experience that will be augmented by ethical product information.
Using the rationale described previously and the derived expected assimilation and contrast effects for ethical product information, exposing a consumer to favorable ethical information, prior to or after consumption, is believed to affect the consumption experience evaluation as follows:
H3: Favorable ethical product information presented prior to the consumption experience will result in a contrast effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of lower quality than when it is presented after the consumption experience where this favorable ethical product information will result in an assimilation effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of higher quality than previous.
Using the rationale described previously and the derived expected assimilation and contrast effects for ethical product information, exposing a consumer to unfavorable ethical information, prior to or after consumption, is believed to affect the consumption experience evaluation as follows:
H4: Unfavorable ethical product information presented prior to the consumption experience will result in a contrast effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of higher quality than when it is presented after the consumption experience, where this unfavorable ethical product information will result in an assimilation effect such that consumers will evaluate the consumption experience to be of lower quality than previous.
2.5 Conceptual Model
The research question and hypotheses previously described can be captured in an conceptual model, which is depicted in Figure 1. The independent variable contains both a type (quality indicative versus ethical), and a valence (favorable versus unfavorable) component. The moderating variable, order of conveying product information, contains two levels: conveyed prior to the consumption experience versus conveyed after the consumption experience.
Lastly, the dependent variable is the affective evaluation of the consumption experience.
In order to prevent confusion regarding differences in perspectives by Wilcox et al. (2011) and current study, the difference in approaches are highlighted. Whereas Wilcox et al. (2011) focused its study on comparing favorable product information with unfavorable product information for two conveying orders (prior to and after), current study will compare product information conveyed prior to the consumption experience with the same product information conveyed after the consumption experience for two types of product information (quality indicative and ethical) and for two different product information valence (favorable and unfavorable). This, in order to identify the underlying factors causing the difference found by Wilcox et al. (2011).
