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

In document The more you buy, the more you enjoy? The effects of expertise and regulatory focus on hedonic escalation (Page 44-61)

Related documents