Have you ever gone shopping with others and found yourself influenced by them to change consumption decisions? Human beings are gregarious animals to interact and get along with other people frequently. Through interacting with others, we tend to observe, evaluate, and compare ourselves with others. A lot of social factors in the purchasing environment may affect consumers’ behaviors. Similarly, the evidence in which consumers see others in a store as the cue could change their intentions or behaviors. For example, consumers favor the stores which enable them to find analogous people due to a higher degree of identification (Chebat, Sirgy, & St-James, 2006). In the consumption processes, one of the sources that influence consumers’
purchase decision may be the shopping companions. A shopping companion is a person who goes shopping with the consumer and participates in the shopping process. This shopping companion can be a family member, a friend, a co-worker, etc. (Borges, Chebat, & Babin, 2010). A great number of previous studies had shown differences in consumers’ thoughts, feelings, intentions, and behaviors while the consumer is shopping alone versus while the consumer is shopping with the shopping companion (Borges et al., 2010; Breazeale & Lueg, 2011; Mangleburg, Doney, & Bristol, 2004).
Furthermore, compared to going shopping alone, shopping with companions will increase retailing expenses (Granbois, 1968; Hart & Dale, 2014; Sommer, Wynes, &
Brinkley, 1992; Woodside & Sims, 1976). In consumption contexts, consumers are affected by opinions from their shopping companions, which can be regarded as a kind of social influence.
Among social influence context, the reason why individuals have interactive processes mainly occurs when individuals participate in their beliefs, thoughts, and expectations of others (Bearden & Rose, 1990). Previous researchers believed that individuals use or select products with consideration on social comparison factors.
Based on the above, we can already see that individuals in the community world inevitably have interaction processes and opportunities with others. Therefore, we are also unknowingly affected by many other people's influence on us. Social comparison theory is proposed by Festinger (1954). It proposed that individuals evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing to other people’s views and that individuals can understand their thoughts and achieve self-evaluation through comparing with others.
Thus, social comparison is obviously an interpersonal process, and the focal point of the theory is that individuals engaged in self-evaluation.
Moreover, individuals can satisfy several personal motives by comparing themselves with others (Helgeson & Michelson, 1995). For instance, people can compare their opinions and abilities with others to eliminate their own uncertainty (Festinger, 1954). Social comparison pervades in our daily lives, and it may happen automatically. Comparisons do not need to involve a clear evaluative condition (e.g., test-taking) or a notable comparison to others (e.g., colleagues get promoted) (Brickman & Bulman, 1977). Besides, previous studies have also indicated that other people would significantly influence consumer’s purchase decisions. Before deciding to purchase the products (or services), consumers may consider other people’s judgments (Wood & Hayes, 2012).
In the past, many factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention have been widely discussed in various aspects. However, it is also necessary to understand the motivational dimension of consumers’ purchase intention. Much studies on consumer decision have gradually focused on regulatory focus theory (Avnet & Higgins, 2006;
Higgins, 1997; Higgins,1998; Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, & Taylor, 2001; Pham & Avnet, 2004; Pham & Chang, 2010; Pham & Higgins, 2004). The regulatory focus theory demonstrates motivation and self-regulation to explain various consumer decisions (Pham & Avnet, 2004). It describes how individuals’ motivations change the way to achieve their desired goals in regulating pleasure and pain, and can be divided into two distinct types of regulatory focus, a promotion focus and a prevention focus (Higgins,1987; Higgins, 1998). In addition, previous studies have indicated that individuals with distinct types of regulatory focus lead to disparate decision ways (Avnet & Higgins, 2006; Crowe & Higgins, 1997). That is to say, two types of regulatory focus individuals act in different ways. A previous study has shown that two types of regulatory focus individuals making different decisions. For instance, individuals with a promotion focus are much more inclined to pursue goals related to advancement and to take an approach-oriented strategy. In contrast, individuals with a prevention focus are much more inclined to pursue goals related to safety and to take an avoidance-oriented strategy (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999).
In consumer research, the regulatory focus theory has been extensively used and discussed to predict individuals’ behaviors. One of the primary predictions of the regulatory focus theory is that a promotion orientation is related to sensitivity to positive
individuals have different goals and motivations when purchasing a sunblock.
Imagining lying on the beach on a hot summer day, you may enjoy the sun and hope to have a great tan. But you may also worry about getting too much sunburn and harming your skin. Individuals who are with a promotion focus are much more likely to select sunblocks claimed enjoyment of sunlight and having a healthy tan. On the contrary, individuals who are with a prevention focus are much more likely to select sunblocks claimed to avoid sunburn and safety protection for your skin. These results indicate that a product (sunblock) can be a mean to approach a positive result (getting a healthy tan) or avoid a negative result (sunburn and harm your skin). Therefore, the goal of getting tanned is related to a promotion focus, whereas the goal of preventing sunburn and protecting the skin is related to a prevention focus (Florack, Scarabis, & Gosejohann, 2005). Moreover, although the regulatory focus has been used predicting individuals’
behavior based on different motivations, few studies have examined consumers in different regulatory focus personalities on their purchase intention. As a result, this research adds regulatory focus personalities (promotion focus versus prevention focus) as the moderator so as to investigate whether different regulatory focus personalities of consumers have different levels of purchase intention or not.
In summary, there are many factors that affect consumers’ purchase intention.
Previous studies have discussed that consumers would take the price, brand, quality of products, and other factors into consideration during purchasing. However, this research focuses on social influence to link the theoretical gap. The main purpose of this research is to explore the effects of two kinds of social influence from shopping companions on consumers’ purchase intentions and further consider regulatory focus