In study 1 and 2, we have already proved that not only food domain people have hedonic experience but also consuming cosmetic products. In study 3, we would like to see if there is difference between purchasing potato chips, atheistic shoes and consuming cosmetic products with regulatory focus mediator. As a result, the same as study 2, study 3 is also a 2 (consumer knowledge: experts vs. novice) x 2 (regulatory focus: promotion focus vs. prevention focus) between-subjects design. A total of 150 total participants in study 3-1 and total 126 participants in study 3-2. The difference between study 2 and study 3 is that we manipulated participants’ regulatory focus into
two version of scenarios (promotion vs. prevention). Furthermore, we changed the scenario to imagining purchasing potato chips and atheistic shoes.
3.3.1 Participants and design
The same as study 2 is a 2 (consumer knowledge: experts vs. novice) x 2 (regulatory focus: promotion focus vs. prevention focus) between-subjects design. A total of 150 Taiwanese participants in study 3-1. On the other hand, a total of 126 Taiwanese participants in study 3-2. Participants were around 21-25 years old in both genders.
We manipulated regulatory focus into two version of scenarios (promotion focus vs.
prevention focus).
3.3.2 Materials and Procedure
In study 3, participants in promotion focus group read the article about his or her
achievements, hopes, and aspirations that the participants wanted to reach for a long
time and all the participants were asked to answer the current situation he or she was
in promotion focus group of participants had to do the manipulation checks on
regulatory focus related to the two items on a scale ranging from 1 (e.g., “take
responsibility”) to 7 (e.g., “achieve success”) (regulatory focus: α = .83). On the other
hand, participants in prevention group read the article about safety, responsibilities,
and obligations that he or she wanted to follow and all the participants were asked to
answer the current situation he or she was the same as promotion group did
(regulatory focus: α = .85).
Second, we tested the participants’ knowledge to the chips. As Punj & Srinivasan
(1989) classified expertise knowledge into three parts which are experiential
knowledge, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge. We asked questions to
the participants to test these three knowledges that the participants have. To test the
experiential knowledge, we asked question (e.g., “How many times did you eat the
potato chips during past six months”) and participants filled in the number they did.
We test subjective knowledge by asking several questions (e.g., “I know a lot about
potato chips”) and participants answered the two items on a scale ranging from 1 (e.g.,
“totally disagree”) to 7 (e.g., “totally agree”) (subjective knowledge: α = .79).
Furthermore, similar to Söderlund (2002) testing the participants’ objective
knowledge by giving the article about potato chips from different brands and checked
whether they were more familiar with chips from different brands and understanding
different characteristics among the chips from around the world. Participants
answered the two items on a scale ranging from 1 (e.g., “totally disagree”) to 7 (e.g.,
“totally agree”) (objective knowledge: α = .81). Furthermore, participants were asked
to answer 10 professional questions (e.g., “The way of making potato chips were
different, such as sliced or powdered chips”) and participants were asked to answer
“yes” or “no”. Participants who answered correctly more than 8 questions were
classified as “expert” group; in contract, participants who answered correctly less than
8 questions were classified as “novice: group. Finally, both groups of participants
were asked to imagine buying the potato chips five times and answered the hedonic
level of each time. (1= “It was bad”; 9 = “It was extraordinary”). Detailed of
questionnaire is in Appendix Study 3-1.
In study 3-2, all the steps were the same as study 3-1; however, we changed the
scenario from buying potato chips to purchasing aesthetic shoes. Participants were
asked to answer the question to test their subjective knowledge, objective knowledge
and experience knowledge. Detailed of questionnaire is in Appendix Study 3-2.
3.3.3 Results
As expected, in study 3-1, regulatory focus moderated the effect of expertise on
hedonic escalation when buying potato chips. Except the first trial, there were
significance difference between expert participants with promotion focus and expert
participants with prevention focus (23 experts with promotion focus vs. 57 experts with
prevention focus) on hedonic response. The effect on the first trial was significant
(!"#$"%&$%'('&)'* = 8.13, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = .91; !"#$"%&$%"'"(&)*( = 7.35, !"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) =
1.88, t = 2.565 and p = .012) , so was the third trial ( "#$%#&'%&()('*(+ = 8.13,
"#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = .96; "#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 7.48, !"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 2.05, t= 2.55 and p
= .012), so was the fourth trial ( "#$%#&'%&()('*(+ = 8.04, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = 1.02;
"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 7.33, !"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 2.25, t= 2.77 and p =.007) and the fifth trial
( "#$%#&'%&()('*(+ = 7.86, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = 1.17; "#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 7.12, !"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) =
2.43, t= 2.72 and p =.008). As expected, expert participants with promotion focus had
higher hedonic escalation than expert participants with prevention focus. However,
there was no significance difference between expert participants with promotion focus
and novice participants with promotion focus (23 experts with promotion focus vs. 36
experts with prevention focus) on the five trials. Expert participants with promotion
focus had similar hedonic response to expert participants with prevention focus in the
five trials. It reveals that effect of expertise had less effect in buying potato chips
scenario.
Second, as study 2 did, we classified each group of participants into hedonic
escalation, stable ratings and hedonic adaptation groups. We did the repeated-measure
analysis of ANOVA. It showed that there was significant effect of the five trial on
hedonic response (F (1,160) = 6.923, p = .009). In the group of 23 expert participants
with promotion focus, 13 % of the experts showed hedonic escalation (3/23), 65%
showed stable ratings (15/23), and 22% showed hedonic adaption (5/23). In the group
of 39 expert participants with prevention focus, 31% of novices showed hedonic
escalation (12/39), 46% of novices showed stable ratings (18/39), and 23% showed
hedonic adaptation (9/39). In the 50 novice participants with promotion focus group,
28% of novices showed hedonic escalation (14/50), 30% of novices showed stable
ratings (15/50), and 42% showed hedonic adaptation (21/50). In 48 the novice
participants with prevention focus group, 33% of novices showed hedonic escalation
(16/48), 25% of novices showed stable ratings (12/48), and 42% showed hedonic
adaptation (20/48).
Different from purchasing cosmetic products, in buying potato chips scenario, the
proportion of expert participants with promotion focus showing hedonic escalation
were not more than expert participants with prevention focus. However, the hedonic
scores of expert participants with promotion focus were higher than expert
participants with prevention focus. Furthermore, the hedonic scores of expert
participants with promotion focus were also higher than novice participants with
promotion focus.
Table 4 Descriptive data of study 3-1
Figure 9 Results of study 3-1
Figure 10 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-1
Figure 11 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-1
Figure 12 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-1
Figure 13 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-1
In study 3-2, on the other hand, in the purchasing aesthetic shoes scenario, regulatory
focus also moderated the effect of expertise on hedonic escalation as expected. There
was significance difference between expert participants with promotion focus and
expert participants with prevention focus (34 experts with promotion focus vs. 37
experts with prevention focus) on the first trial (!"#$"%&$%'('&)'* = 6.64, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), =
1.93; !"#$"%&$%"'"(&)*( = 4.89, !"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 2.31, t = 2.60 and p = .011) and the
fifth trial ( "#$%#&'%&()('*(+ = 6.55, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = 2.27; "#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 4.13,
!"#$%#&'%&#(#)'*+) = 2.63, t = 2.65 and p = .010). Furthermore, there was also significance
difference between expert participants with promotion focus and novice participants
with promotion focus on the fourth trial (!"#$"%&$%'('&)'* = 6.64, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = 1.93;
!"#$%&'
()#*#+%#" = 5.00, !"#$%&'()*$+$,&$# = 2.33, t = 3.15 and p = .002) and the fifth trial
( "#$%#&'%&()('*(+ = 4.48, "#$%&$'(&')*)(+), = 2.27; "#$%&'()*$+$,&$# = 6.55, !"#$%&'()*$+$,&$# =
4.48, t= 3.46 and p = .001). It reveals that expert participants with promotion focus
had higher hedonic response than expert participants with prevention focus;
furthermore, expert participants with promotion focus had higher hedonic response
than novice participants with prevention focus in the fourth and the fifth trial. Thus,
H2 was also supported in the purchasing aesthetic shoes scenario.
Second, after classifying each group of participants into hedonic escalation, stable
ratings and hedonic adaptation groups, we did the repeated-measure analysis of
ANOVA. It shows that there was significant effect of the five trial on hedonic response
(F (1,123) = 9.352, p = .003). In the expert participants with promotion focus group, it
showed that in 34 participants, 35 % of the experts showed hedonic escalation (12/34),
26% showed stable ratings (9/34), and 38% showed hedonic adaption (13/34). In the
40 expert participants with prevention focus group, 10% of novices showed hedonic
escalation (4/37), 13% of novices showed stable ratings (5/37), and 75% showed
hedonic adaptation (28/37). In the novice participants with promotion focus group,
15% of novices showed hedonic escalation (5/33), 18% of novices showed stable
ratings (6/33), and 67% showed hedonic adaptation (22/33). In the 22 novice
participants with prevention focus group, 32% of novices showed hedonic escalation
(7/22), 27% of novices showed stable ratings (6/22), and 41% showed hedonic
adaptation (9/22). As we expected, there were more expert participants with
promotion focus showing hedonic escalation than expert participants with prevention
focus. Furthermore, there were also more expert participants with promotion focus
showing hedonic escalation than novice participants with promotion focus. Thus, H2
was once again supported.
Table 5 Descriptive data of study 3-2
Figure 14 Results of study 3-2
Figure 15 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-2
Figure 16 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-2
Figure 17 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-2
Figure 18 Novice with prevention focus results of study 3-2
4 General Discussion