Research Hypotheses

3.2.1 The Relative Weights that Consumers Give to Evaluate Products Before and After Product Trials

Previous research suggested that capability and usability are the two major determinants when consumers evaluate their purchase of a product (McLaughlin and Skinner 2000; Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001; Nowlis and Simonson 1996; Thompson,

15

Hamilton, and Rust 2005). However, the relative weights that consumers assign to evaluate products may vary across situations.

Before engaging in product trials, consumers only interact with products through indirect experience, such as exposing to a product advertisement. Since indirect product experiences need consumers to manipulate and integrate stimulus information that is not immediately available to the senses, and processing these information usually requires abstraction (Liberman, Trope, and Stephan 2007), it would trigger consumers to use a more abstract construal to evaluate the product. In contrast, when consumers engage in product trials, such direct experience with products allow consumers to react to an immediate, vivid stimulus and provide greater sensory contact with the stimulus, it would induce a more concrete mental construal to evaluate a product. Furthermore, since abstract construals will shift consumers’ attention toward desirability considerations (i.e. the value of an action’s end state), whereas concrete construals will shift their attention toward feasibility considerations (i.e. the ease or difficulty of reaching the end state) (Liberman and Trope 1998). Therefore, consumers may tend to put more weight on the product’s ability to perform desired functions (i.e. product capability) before a product trial, but tending to assign more weight to the difficulty of learning and using the product (i.e. product usability) after a product trial. On the basis of the above reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1a: Consumers would give more weight to product capability than to product usability in product evaluations before a product trial.

H1b: Consumers would give more weight to product usability than to product capability in product evaluations after a product trial.

16

3.2.2 The Effects of Mental Simulation on Consumers’ Preference Consistency Before and After Product Trials

Since consumers usually perceive products with greater capability as the number of features increases (Thompson, Hamilton, and Rust 2005), products with many features will get a higher evaluation when consumers attach more importance on product capability before a product trial. However, when consumers engage in a product trial, concrete construals will alter their considerations toward their ability to use the product or benefits from these features. At this moment, every additional feature not only stands for the enhancement in product capability, but also means the increasing difficulty for consumers to learn and use a product (Wiklund 1994;

Nielsen 1993). As a result, product with many features becomes too much of a good thing and leads consumers to perceive feature fatigue. It not only detracts consumers’

purchase intention for the product, but also causes them tending to prefer other products with simpler functions that are easier to use. In order to attenuate the impact of feature fatigue on consumers’ purchase intentions and preference consistency, we try to use the mechanism of mental simulation (Zhao, Hoeffller, and Zauberman 2007) to regulate the levels of mental construal before or after trial. In formulating our hypotheses, we compare the two types of simulation with the natural preference (i.e., no simulation) before or after a product trial.

For situations before a product trial, the indirect experience with a product would naturally evoke consumers to use abstract construals and put more weight on product capability, and product usability are neglected. Outcome simulation, which redundantly focuses on abstract, desirability-related considerations, may not be effective in shifting the weights for consumers in product evaluations. Whereas a process simulation that focuses on concrete, feasibility-related considerations could

17

shift consumers to put more weight on product usability, making them more consistent with preferences that naturally arise after trial.

Even if engaging a process simulation may raise consumers’ tendency to prefer for product with simpler functions that are easier to use, however, the degree of reduction in purchase intention for products with many functions is slight. Owing to consumers evaluate products through the product information from indirect experiences (e.g. product advertisement) before a product trial. They would firstly receive the information about the advertised product which is equipped with many functions. Even if consumers change their considerations toward feasibility-related thoughts, compared with no simulation condition, to remind the connection between increasing the number of product features and the difficulty of using a product before trial can be a precaution for consumers. It may prevent from the direct impact of product features on usability to induce frustrated or dissatisfied (Thompson, Hamilton, and Rust 2005) when they engage in a product trial. It may further attenuate the effect of feature fatigue to detract consumers’ purchase intention after trial. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

H2a: Consumers who engage in process simulation would give more weight to product usability than to product capability in product evaluation before trial.

H2b: Process simulation (before trial) is more likely to result in preference consistency.

H2c: Relative to no simulation, process simulation (before trial) is more likely to lead to higher level of purchase intention.

For situations after a product trial, concrete construals play a dominant role to make consumers put more weight on product usability when evaluating products, whereas abstract construals are neglected. Since outcome simulation could activate abstract construals and increase desirability-related considerations, outcome

18

simulation after trial may lead consumers to put more weight on product capability, making them more consistent with preferences that naturally arise before trial and attenuate the reduction in purchase intention. However, process simulation may not be effective in shifting the weights for consumers in product evaluation, because it redundantly focuses on the naturally evoked concrete, feasibility-related considerations. Thus, we propose the hypotheses:

H3a: Consumers who engage in outcome simulation would give more weight to product capability than to product usability in product evaluation after trial.

H3b: Outcome simulation (after trial) is more likely to result in preference consistency.

H3c: Relative to no simulation, outcome simulation (after trial) is more likely to lead to higher level of purchase intention.