探討社會影響對消費者購買意圖之影響：以調節焦點為調節變數

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學管理學院全球經營與策略研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Global Business and Strategy College of Management National Taiwan Normal University Master’s Thesis. 探討社會影響對消費者購買意圖之影響：以調節焦點為調節變數 The effects of Social Influence on Consumer Purchase Intention: Regulatory focus as a moderator. 陳姿心 Chen, Tzu-Hsin. 指導教授：張佳榮博士 Advisor: Chang, Chia-Jung, Ph.D.. 中華民國 109 年 9 月 September 2020.

(2) The Effects of Social Influence on Consumer Purchase Intention: Regulatory Focus as a moderator. ABSTRACT During the shopping process, shopping companions often offer many opinions to the shoppers spontaneously or in response to the shoppers’ inquiry, which often functions as a vital basis for shoppers making purchase decisions. The purpose of this research is to explore how social influence and personality differences impact our daily consumption. This research conducted two experiments to investigate how two kinds of social influence affect consumer’s purchase intention with perceived social value as a mediator and regulatory focus as a moderator. Accordingly, the independent variables are informational and normative influences provided by shopping companions; the dependent variable is purchase intention. In study 1, results showed that social influence from shopping companions would affect purchase intention through perceived social value. In study 2, regulatory focus showed moderating effects on the relationship between social influences and purchase intention. Keywords: social influence, perceived social value, purchase intention, regulatory focus. I.

(3) Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... I Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. II Index of Figures .............................................................................................................. III 1.. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1. 2.. Literature Review...................................................................................................... 5. 3.. 2.1.. Purchase intention .............................................................................................. 5. 2.2.. Social influence ................................................................................................... 6. 2.3.. Regulatory focus ................................................................................................. 8. 2.4.. Social influence and purchase intention ........................................................... 10. 2.5.. Social influence, perceived social value and purchase intention ...................... 13. 2.6.. Social influence, regulatory focus and purchase intention ............................... 17. Method .................................................................................................................... 22 3.1. Study 1 .............................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1. Participants and design ............................................................................. 23 3.1.2. Materials and procedure ........................................................................... 24 3.1.3. Result ......................................................................................................... 28 3.2. Study 2 .............................................................................................................. 32 3.2.1. Participants and design ............................................................................. 32 3.2.2. Materials and procedure ........................................................................... 32 3.2.3. Results ....................................................................................................... 36. 4.. General Discussion .................................................................................................. 41 4.1.. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 41. 4.2.. Theoretical contribution ................................................................................... 44. 4.3.. Practical contribution ....................................................................................... 45. 4.4.. Limitation and future research ........................................................................ 45. References ...................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 53. II.

(4) Index of Figures Figure 1 Interaction effects of regulatory focus on informational social influence ........ 40 Figure 2 Interaction effects of regulatory focus on normative social influence .............. 40. III.

(5) Index of Tables Table 1 ANOVA test results of informational social influence for study 1 ................... 28 Table 2 ANOVA test results of normative social influence results for study 1 ............. 29 Table 3 Linear regression results of perceived social value on informational social influence for study 1 ................................................................................................ 30 Table 4 Linear regression results of perceived social value on normative social influence for study 1 ................................................................................................ 31 Table 5 ANOVA test results of regulatory focus on informational social influence for study 2 ..................................................................................................................... 36 Table 6 ANOVA test results of regulatory focus on normative social influence for study 2 ............................................................................................................................... 37 Table 7 T-test results of regulatory focus on positive informational social influence for study 2 ..................................................................................................................... 38 Table 8 T-test results of regulatory focus on negative informational social influence for study 2........................................................................................................................... 38 Table 9 T-test results of regulatory focus on positive normative social influence for study 2........................................................................................................................... 39 Table 10 T-test results of regulatory focus on negative normative social influence for study 2 ..................................................................................................................... 39. IV.

(6) 1. Introduction. 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.. 1.

(7) 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).. 2.

(8) 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 results, while a prevention focus is related to sensitivity to negative results (Higgins, 1998). For example, the sunblocks experiment is based on the perspective that 3.

(9) 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 as the individual differences in the personalities of consumers themselves. 4.

(10) 2. Literature Review. 2.1. Purchase intention. Purchase intention has been recognized as a part of consumers’ behaviors. The purchase decision on consumers is a successive process. During this process, consumers may receive some information that affects their purchase intention (Engel, Blackwell, & Kollat, 1978). According to Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal's (1991) study, purchase intention was defined as the possibility that customers have willingness to purchase commodities. The higher the possibility is, the stronger the purchase intention will be (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2000). Moreover, a previous study indicated that purchase intention is the accurate prediction item predicting consumers’ purchase behaviors (Morwitz & Schmittlein, 1992). Therefore, purchase intention often becomes an important variable in predicting future actual purchase behavior of consumers.. Many studies have discussed lots of factors such as the price, the brand, the quality of products, and the store information influence consumers’ purchase intention (Andrews & Valenzi, 1971; Chang & Wildt, 1994; Dodds et al., 1991; Monore & Dodds, 1988; Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Rao & Monroe, 1989; Render & O'Connor, 1976; Zeithaml, 1988). Moreover, a previous study has shown that the effects of the atmosphere in the shopping environment, such as lighting, cleanliness, display, and scent, will impact consumers' purchase intention (Hussain & Ali, 2015). However, this research focuses on social influence and explores how social influence from shopping companions affect consumers’ purchase intention.. 5.

(11) 2.2. Social influence. Social influence had been long considered and widely discussed as a vital factor in shaping individuals’ consumption behaviors for a long time. In the social psychology field, lots of studies have discussed social influence affecting individuals’ behaviors (Kelman, 1958; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Social psychologists emphasize that when individuals face group pressure, they will change their thoughts or behaviors and tend to be consistent with the group. This phenomenon can be called conformity behavior. Therefore, the definition of conformity in the social psychology aspect is that conformity is the performance of social influence, and its effect comes from individuals being influenced by other members of a group (Allen, 1965). In the marketing field, social influence also plays an essential role in the consumer’s emotional connection, cognition, and behaviors (Ratner & Kahn, 2002; Argo, Dahl, & Manchanda, 2005). Hence, social influence could be regarded as one of the crucial factors affecting consumer decisions.. According to the social influence model, when individuals are induced by others or a group, they will change the outcome of their behaviors (Kelman, 1974). A previous study found that when consumers do not know how to make a decision, they tend to observe others’ behaviors to obtain information, which will be used as a reference for their purchase decisions (Burnkrant & Counineau, 1975). In addition, some research demonstrated conformity behavior is that individuals change their intentions and behaviors to meet others’ expectations when facing others’ purchase intentions and behaviors (Lascu & Zinkhan, 1999). That is to say, when we go shopping to purchase commodities, we often purchase the same brand or same products which our family,. 6.

(12) friends or relatives also buy it, in order to get a sense of belonging from them. Such an act of changing our ideas and attitudes to acquire a sense of belonging from others is a basic conformity behavior.. What causes individuals to conform and why individuals are affected by others? A previous study has distinguished social influence into two kinds, one is normative social influence; the other one is informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). These two distinct kinds of social influence have been recognized in previous literatures (see, e.g., Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989; Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1990; Childers & Rao, 1992; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Price & Feick, 1984; Park & Lessig, 1977). Normative social influence was defined as “the influence to conform with the expectations of another person or a group” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955, p.629). Normative social influence occurs when another person has a relation to the individual’s selfconcept (see, e.g., Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Childers & Rao, 1992; Kelman, 1961; Park & Lessig, 1977). Such behaviors help to increase or maintain an individual’s selfconcept (see, e.g., Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Kelman, 1961; Park & Lessig, 1977). And informational social influence was defined as “the influence to accept information acquired from another person or a group as evidence about reality” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955, p.629). In other words, as evidence about the true state of certain aspects of the environment (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). Here, informational social influence will be influential to some extent, and the information which other person provides can enhance an individual’s understanding of somethings or phenomenon (Mangleburg et al., 2004). In consumption context, on the basis of these considerations, consumers may be affected by the shopping companions’ influence,. 7.

(13) because shopping companions have relevant information about products (informational social influence), or shopping companions are associated with the consumer’s selfconcept (normative social influence).. Regardless of what kind of social influence, experimental studies have found that they could influence individuals’ evaluations of the product (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Cohen & Golden, 1972; Pincus & Waters, 1977). Informational social influence and normative social influence may lead to similar behavioral results. Due to differences in motivation, they operate through different procedures (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Kelman, 1961). In the light of previous studies on social influence in this section, in this research, informational social influence is regarded as the evidence that individuals accept the influence of the information acquired from the shopping companions as the understanding on reality; normative social influence is regarded as the impact that individuals’ behaviors behave to meet the expectations of the shopping companions.. 2.3. Regulatory focus. The theory of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) was widely concerned in the social psychology field in the earlier days, and it has also been gradually used in the realm of marketing, organizational behavior, advertising, and even consumer’s behavior in recent years. Regulatory focus can be used to analyze the individual’s behavior in the process of trying to achieve the expected result, owing to different goal orientations in individuals’ mind, leads to different decision-making ways.. 8.

(14) The initial notion of regulatory focus came from the theory of self-discrepancy (Higgins, 1987). Self-discrepancy theory assumes individuals being inclined to approach the pleasure and avoid the pain as a theoretical basis, and are motivated by two different ways regulating pleasure and pain. The one is self-regulation in relation to ideals which makes individuals tend to be related with attaining their wishes, hopes, and aspirations to achieve desired end-states (approaching strategy for discrepancy reduction); the other one is self-regulation in relation to oughts which makes individuals tend to be related with possessing their duties, responsibilities, and obligations to achieve desired end-states (avoiding strategy for discrepancy reduction). This selfregulation occurs when individuals seek to keep their behaviors and self-concept consistent with their desired end-states or goals.. There is evidence that different ways of regulating pleasure and pain, called regulatory focus, affects individuals’ thoughts, feelings and behaviors. The principle of regulatory focus is presented more completely, simply speaking, ideal self-regulation and ought self-regulation can be seen as involving two distinct types of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1996). The hedonic principle operates the regulatory focus of two different orientations, namely, a promotion focus versus a prevention focus (Higgins, 1998). A promotion focus pays more attention on wishes, hopes or aspirations. It approaches to match with a desired end-state, and it is susceptible to things involving the presence and absence of positive results. A prevention focus pays more attention on duties, responsibilities or obligations. It avoids to mismatch with a desired end-state, and it is susceptible to things involving the absence and the presence of negative results. (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). For example, people who want to maintain a slim figure (a desired goal), people who are with promotion focus will likely do exercise (approaching the. 9.

(15) match to a desired goal), whereas people who are with prevention focus will likely avoid eating high-calorie foods (avoiding the mismatch to a desired goal).. Further in-depth discussion, it can be found that promotion focus and prevention focus are often easily misunderstood as opposing attitudes, but in fact, no matter what type of motivation-oriented individuals, they have a positive attitude towards achieving their goals. Therefore, in terms of regulatory focus, there is no difference between a positive attitude and a negative attitude, but in essence, there may be differences in the length of the regulating process. The short-term regulatory focus is called situational regulatory focus or temporary regulatory focus, it can be manipulated by the situation and stimulated by pictures and slogans. This regulatory focus is temporary and can be stimulated by specific conditions or tasks (Avnet & Higgins, 2006; Chernev, 2004; Higgins, 1997; Jain, Agrawel, & Maheswaran, 2006; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007; Micu & Chowdhury, 2010; Mayer & Tormala , 2010); the long-term regulatory focus is called chronic regulatory focus, which belongs to individual subjective tendencies and is related to individuals’ personality traits. This regulatory focus is a socialization process, which is affected by the accumulation of individuals’ long-term experiences, and is also related to the cultural environment and upbringing process in their life growth. (Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 2002).. 2.4. Social influence and purchase intention. Social influence is a pivotal topic when discussing about consumer behavior. Since some previous studies might discuss about that how retailers influence the consumer's decision, but it is also an eventful issue that opinions from others may change consumers’ purchase decisions. Therefore, this research focuses on how shopping 10.

(16) companions influence consumers’ behavior on purchase intention. When we go shopping, we often seek out information about the products, such as price and quality of the product. However, when we go shopping with shopping companions, they may become a source of influence on our purchase intentions because they may provide information that affects our purchase decisions. Furthermore, findings show that shopping with the shopping companions can reduce perceptions of risk and uncertainties before purchasing (Kiecker & Hartman, 1993), and it also enhances the consumer confidence and believes that they made a wise and appropriate purchase decision (Kiecker & Hartman, 1994).. These viewpoints are almost consistent with our points and can be comprehensively discussed under social comparison theory context. Festinger (1954) proposed social comparison theory, which pointed out that people could understand themselves and afterwards change their own self perceptions by comparing with other people to evaluate their abilities and opinions. The author emphasized that precise selfevaluation is the goal of social comparison. In faith, succeeding studies have shown that social comparison is one of the considerable means for individuals to attain selfrelated information, and the most possible reason is the high availability of social comparison information (Wood, 1989; Wood & Wilson, 2003). Social comparisons usually take place automatically, and may even occur out of individuals consciousness (Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992).. Based on social comparison theory, individuals indeed have a basic need for selfevaluation, when individuals are lack of objective standards to evaluate their own behaviors and attitudes, they will be prone to compare with other people and use social. 11.

(17) bases of comparison as the evaluation standard (Moschis, 1976; Price & Feick, 1984; Feick, Price, & Higie, 1986). In the context of consumption, consumers use the information given by others as a standard for comparison. Informational social influence from others is a comparative basis of personal knowledge ability to understand the familiarity with commodities; normative social influence from others is a comparative basis of personal opinions to understand the similarities and differences between your own opinions and those of others. Previous studies have shown that individuals sometimes conform with others to stay consistent, not only because they are under pressure from others, but also because they acquire new information about the condition from others’ responses (Kelley, 1952; Asch, 1955). Furthermore, previous studies have found that informational social influence indeed have the influence on the consumer’s decision process about product evaluations (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Cohen & Golden, 1972; Pincus & Waters, 1977) and brand or product selection (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Park & Lessig, 1977).. In summary, when consumers go shopping with shopping companions, they would be affected by informational social influence from shopping companions, because shopping companions may offer some information about the knowledge relating to products, for example, the quality, materials, and durability etc. Then consumers will be prone to use the information given by shopping companions as a standard for comparison on their purchase intentions. In addition, consumers would be subject to normative social influence from shopping companions, because shopping companions may be associated with the consumer’s self-concept, and they may care about the selfdefining relationship between themselves and shopping companions. Then consumers. 12.

(18) will be prone to behave to meet expectations of shopping companions on their purchase intentions. This research proposes the following hypothesis: H1a: Informational social influence from shopping companions will positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions. H1b: Normative social influence from shopping companions will positively influence consumers’ purchase intentions.. 2.5. Social influence, perceived social value and purchase intention. In Zeithaml (1988) study, the conception of consumer value was originated from utility theory in economics, which supposes consumers’ purchase decision are in accordance with product evaluations. The most commonly used the definition and conceptualization of consumer perceived value in the literature is Zeithaml (1988) study. It proposed that perceived value can be considered as the consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of a product (or service) in view of the perceptions of what is received and what is given, that reflects the tradeoff between perceived benefits and perceived risks. In other words, value is what consumers perceive (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). When consumers have the perception of value, they would generate having purchase intention, and consumers' purchase intention usually depends on benefits and values acquired by their perception (Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers will evaluate value based on the benefits of the product, that derives from the perceived quality of products’ features, as well as the psychological, physical and financial sacrifices which are resulting from purchases and uses of the product (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). And the two core factors affect consumers’ perceived value are the measurement of consumers’ perceived benefits (value) and sacrifices (risks) at the time of purchase. In addition, previous research demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between 13.

(19) consumers’ perceived value and their purchase intention (Grewal, Monroe, & Krishnan, 1998; Zeithaml, 1988).. Based on Sweeney & Soutar (2001) study, people use perceived value to measure their purchase decision. There are four value dimensions determining consumers’ value-driving purchasing behavior: price value, quality value, social value and emotional value, among these dimensions, social value is defined as “the utility derived from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept” (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001, p.211). Therefore, social value often comes from the using of products shared with other people. We redefine social value is the value derived from the shopping companion’s ability to enhance the consumer’s social self-concept. In the context of consumption, factors such as people’s interactions in shopping, the relationship between consumers and shopping companions, and the social support or the enhancement of social self-concept obtained during shopping process can create social value. The consumer’s perceived social value is determined when the consumer feel being accepted by shopping companions they are with.. However, the information offered by the shopping companions in the consumption context is not only used as a standard for consumers to make comparisons on purchase decisions, but also can reduce their uncertainty. Moreover, adopting the opinion from shopping companions can satisfy consumers their self-defining relationship, and then maintain or enhance their social self-concept. Previous study has mentioned that there are two functions of using shopping companions during shopping processes: control consumers’ risk perception and reduce their uncertainty. And the perception of risks consumers may face during the shopping process can be divided into two categories:. 14.

(20) functional risks and social risks (Mangleburg, Doney & Bristol, 2004). The functional risks refer to the risk of a product’s quality or performance; the social risks refer to owning or using a product may cause social embarrassment or harm to our self-esteem. Therefore, using shopping companions during the shopping process can satisfy assistance motivations to provide consumers with social support and professional information about products. Furthermore, in addition to reducing the perception of risks and uncertainties associated with purchase decisions, it also enables consumers to have higher confidence and believe that they have made the wise and appropriate purchase decision (Kiecker & Hartman, 1994). If consumers believe they have the social support and being accepted by their shopping companions, it is likely to enhance consumers’ social self-concept and increase social value, thus further increasing their purchase intention.. When consumers go shopping with companions, shopping companions may offer positive or negative opinions to consumers, the positive opinion consumers received will perceive benefits, and it will generate the social support from shopping companions, the social value consumers perceived will be higher, and thus it also enables consumers to have higher confidence on their purchase intention. On the contrary, the negative opinion consumers received will perceive risks, and it will not generate the social support from shopping companions, the social value the consumer perceived will be lower, and thus it also enables consumers to have lower confidence on their purchase intention.. To speak more clearly, when consumers are affected by the informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, the statement shopping. 15.

(21) companions say will be like “this product has good quality and performance in using”, and consumers will perceive benefits and have the social support from shopping companions on this product, the social value which consumers perceived will be higher, and thus consumers’ purchase intention will be higher. When consumers are affected by the informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, the statement shopping companions say will be like “this product has bad quality and performance in using”, and consumers will perceive risks and not have the social support from shopping companions on this product, the social value which consumers perceived will be lower, and thus consumers’ purchase intention will be lower. When consumers are affected by the normative social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, the statement shopping companions say will be like “this product you have and use will give others good impressions, it is very suitable for you”, and consumers will perceive benefits, it is likely to enhance consumers’ social self-concept from shopping companions on this product, the social value which consumers perceived will be higher, and thus the consumers’ purchase intention will be higher. When consumers are affected by the normative social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, the statement shopping companions say will be like “this product you have and use may cause social embarrassment, it is not suitable for you”, and consumers will perceive risks, it is likely to harm consumers’ self-esteem from shopping companions on this product, the social value which consumers perceived will be lower, and thus consumers’ purchase intention will be lower.. In conclusion, we predict when consumers go shopping with shopping companions, they may be affected by normative social influence and informational social influence from shopping companions, and influences with positive opinions will. 16.

(22) have higher purchase intention through higher perceived social value. This research proposed the following hypotheses: H2a: Perceived social value will mediate the relationship between informational social influence and purchase intention. H2b: Perceived social value will mediate the relationship between normative social influence and purchase intention.. 2.6. Social influence, regulatory focus and purchase intention. Based on the regulatory focus theory, individuals who are with promotion focus are more concerned with achievement and advancement, and they are sensitive to gain and non-gain. They tend to expect positive results, so they will tend to be risky to pursue their goals. On the contrary, individuals who are with prevention focus are more concerned to duties and responsibilities, and they are sensitive to loss and non-loss. They tend to avoid negative results, so they will tend to be more safety to accomplish their goals (Higgins et al., 2001). As a result, this research considers two types of regulatory focus as the moderator to test if consumers with different regulatory focus personalities reveals different levels on purchase intention.. When consumers who are in promotion focus personality are affected by the informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, consumers with promotion focus will perceive benefits, because consumers with promotion focus are more care about positive results, so they will listen to positive opinions given by shopping companions, and thus they will have great social support in knowledge from shopping companions on this product, and it further greatly increase their purchase intention. When consumers who are in promotion focus personality are 17.

(23) affected by the informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, consumers with promotion focus will perceive risks, but because consumers with promotion focus tend to be more risky to approach their goals, so they will not listen to negative opinions given by shopping companions. Even if they do not have social support in knowledge from shopping companions on this product, their purchase intention may still be high, but it will not be higher than purchase intention with positive opinions.. To put it another way, when consumers who are in prevention focus personality are affected by the informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, consumers with prevention focus will perceive benefits, because consumers with prevention focus tend to select the safety choice, so they will listen to positive opinions given by shopping companions, and thus they will have social support in knowledge from shopping companions on this product, and it further increase their purchase intention. When consumers who are in prevention focus personality are affected by the informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, consumers with prevention focus will perceive risks, because consumers with prevention focus tend to avoid negative results, so they will listen to negative opinions given by shopping companions. Since they do not have social support in knowledge from shopping companions on this product, it further greatly decreases their purchase intention.. When consumers who are in promotion focus personality are affected by the normative social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, consumers with promotion focus will perceive benefits, because consumers with. 18.

(24) promotion focus expect positive results, so they will listen to positive opinions given by shopping companions, and thus it is likely to enhance consumers’ self-concept from shopping companions on this product, and it further greatly increase their purchase intention. When consumers who are in promotion focus personality are affected by the normative social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, consumers with promotion focus will perceive risks, because consumers with promotion focus tend to be more risky on their choice, so they will not listen to negative opinions given by shopping companions. Even if it is likely to harm consumers’ selfesteem from shopping companions on this product, their purchase intention may still be high, but it will not be higher than purchase intention with positive opinions.. On the other hand, when consumers who are in prevention focus personality are affected by the normative social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, consumers with prevention focus will perceive benefits, because consumers with prevention focus tend to select the safety choice and avoid failure, so they will listen to positive opinions given by shopping companions, and thus it is likely to enhance consumers’ self-concept from shopping companions on this product, and it further increase their purchase intention. When consumers who are in prevention focus personality are affected by the normative social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, consumers with prevention focus will perceive risks, because consumers with prevention focus are more afraid of negative results happening and they will tend to avoid negative results, so they will listen to negative opinions given by shopping companions. Since it is likely to harm consumers’ self-esteem from shopping companions on this product, and it further greatly decreases their purchase intention.. 19.

(25) General speaking, this research assumes that consumers who are affected by the normative social influence and informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions, promotion focus personality results has higher purchase intention compared to prevention focus personality because promotion focus consumers tend to have strong desire and pursue achievement and advancement in connection with products.. On the other hand, this research assumes that consumers who are affected by the normative social influence and informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, prevention focus personality has lower purchase intention compared to promotion focus personality. The reason is that prevention focus consumers tend to avoid potential failures resulting from using and having products, so they will make safety decisions on purchase. To summarize, this research proposed the following hypotheses: H3a: Consumers in promotion focus have higher purchase intention than consumers in prevention focus on informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions H3b: Consumers in prevention focus have lower purchase intention than consumers in promotion focus on informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions H3c: Consumers in promotion focus have higher purchase intention than consumers in prevention focus on normative social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions. 20.

(26) H3d: Consumers in prevention focus have lower purchase intention than consumers in promotion focus on normative social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions.. 21.

(27) 3. Method. Pilot test This research selected the products of the experiment through a pilot test. The design of the questionnaire is according to the literature of Crowley, Spangenberg, and Hughes (1992) and Chang, Pan, Chang, Lan and Lin (2018), the purpose of pilot study was to select both hedonic and utilitarian products from the ten products, six products (stereo/ luggage/ jewelry/ jeans/ cold weather-jacket/ athletic shoes) were chosen from Crowley et al. (1992) literature, and four additional products (polaroid instant camera/ watch/ play station/ backpack) that are more in line with modern times were added. The main purpose of adding some more modern products for testing is to update the era. Furthermore, this research chose products to be tested on the basis that products could be manipulated by independent variable context. Fifty people participated in this pilot study and were asked to evaluate eight dimensions (nice/ happy/ agreeable/ pleasant/ beneficial/ useful/ wise/ valuable) for ten products taking on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 “totally disagreeable” to 7 “totally agreeable.” Four dimensions (nice vs. awful/ happy vs. sad/ agreeable vs. disagreeable/ pleasant vs. unpleasant) for hedonic items, and four dimensions (beneficial vs. harmful/ useful vs. useless/ wise vs. foolish/ valuable vs. worthless) for utilitarian items. The outcome indicated that backpack and athletic shoes are representative products for both hedonic and utilitarian products (M. hedonic backpack. = 4.775, M. utilitarian backpack. 4.275, M utilitarian athletic shoes = 4.325).. 22. = 4.775 vs. M. hedonic athletic shoes. =.

(28) Main study 3.1. Study 1 Study 1 aims to investigate the main effect whether two kinds of social influence might affect consumers’ purchase intention when they go shopping with shopping companions, and this study also tested the mediating effect whether two kinds of social influence might affect consumers’ purchase intention through perceived social value. Thus, this study is to check, under two kinds of social influence conditions, how different levels of opinions (positive and negative) from shopping companions affect consumer’ purchase intentions. Study 1 selected one product (backpack) to put into the context, and it was tested by the pilot test as a product of both hedonic and utilitarian. The condition was manipulated by this research. Study 1 is used to examined H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b.. 3.1.1. Participants and design Study 1 is a 2 (social influence: informational vs. normative) x 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design. This research manipulated social influence into two versions of scenarios (informational vs. normative), and two kinds of social influence were manipulated into two different conditions: positive opinions and negative opinions. In this study, informational social influence and normative social influence were divided into two independent experiments to test separately. Group 1 is an informational social influence with positive opinions and negative opinions from shopping companions. Group 2 is a normative social influence with positive opinions and negative opinions from shopping companions. All of the participants would read the positive opinion scenario first, and then read the negative opinion scenarios after answering some questions. A total of 120 participants were in the experiment, and the 23.

(29) average age of participants was 25 years old in both genders, all of them were randomly assigned to two groups (informational social influence (n=60), normative social influence (n=60)) and did the survey online. Then, their perceived social value and purchase intention with the conditions were measured.. 3.1.2. Materials and procedure In order to explore the effects of two kinds of social influence with different levels opinions on purchase intention, this research was conducted by dividing the participants into two groups. Group 1 is the scenario that informational social influence with positive opinion and negative opinion from shopping companions. Group 2 is the scenario that normative social influence with positive opinion and negative opinion from shopping companions. The materials for this study was presented in the form of questionnaires, and the simulated scenarios were designed in the form of scripts. We gave all of the participants the story and asked them to imagine that they go shopping with their shopping companions. In the process, their shopping companions would separately provide them positive opinion and negative opinion about the product. After reading the story of simulated scenarios, all participants were required to complete questionnaires to answer the questions that how they would behave in this condition.. The definition of informational social influence from others is a comparative basis of personal knowledge ability to understand the familiarity with commodities; normative social influence from others is a comparative basis of personal opinions to understand the similarities and differences between your own opinions and those of others. Thus, this research described the product’s function and quality as the statement. 24.

(30) of informational social influence, and the description related to the product’s social and psychological risks is the statement of normative social influence. Furthermore, in positive (negative) opinion with informational social influence condition, this research described the product with the advantages (disadvantages) of function and quality as the statement; in positive (negative) opinion with normative social influence condition, this research described the product with the advantages (disadvantages) of social attributes.. In group 1 which is in the informational social influence condition, participants were required to read the following script: Imagine today that you and your shopping companion are shopping in a shopping mall and see a backpack with various colors and styles on display. So, you and your shopping companion decide to go in and have a look. After entering the backpack shop, you are attracted by a kind of good-looking backpack with good color and special design, which makes you a little excited. After you take it up and have a look, you suddenly feel hesitant because you have never heard of this brand or even bought a product of this brand. So, you decide to ask your shopping companion for opinions. Thus, in positive opinion condition, shopping companion said “I heard that pressure-reducing straps and wear-resistant fabrics are the main features of this brand's backpack, and this one is also made of water-proof material. Moreover, there is also a layer of waterproof glue inside, and the use of YKK zippers is also more durable. It's a heavy-duty backpack!” In the contrary, in negative opinion condition, shopping companion said “Although this backpack is made of pressure-reducing shoulder strap and memory cotton filling, the thickened shoulder strap will be very stiff, and it will be very uncomfortable at the beginning. Moreover,. 25.

(31) there are few layers in the backpack, which makes it difficult to classify items.” The detailed information is provided in Appendix study 1A.. After reading the script, first, participants were required to answer one question for the manipulation checks in order to test whether participants know that this was an experiment of shopping with shopping companions. The question is “Do you know that you are shopping with friends in a simulated shopping scenario instead of shopping alone?” (Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001). And participants were required to answer this question taking on a seven-point scale (1= “Totally don’t know” to 7= “Totally know”), when the participants choose this item above five, it means that the experimental manipulation of this study is successful.. Second, participants were required to answer four questions taking on a sevenpoint scale (1= “Totally disagree” to 7= “Totally agree”) to check if they generated “perceived social value” (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) with the product from shopping companions’ opinions. Four questions are: 1. “Purchasing this product will make me feel acceptable to others?” 2. “Purchasing this product will improve the way my friends perceive me?” 3. “Purchasing this product will have a good impression on my friends?” 4. “Purchasing this product will obtain a social approval from others?” And then participants were required to answer three questions taking on a seven-point scale (1= “Very low” to 7= “Very high”) of purchase intention as Dodds et al. (1991) and Zeithaml (1988) were performed. Three questions are: 1. “The likelihood I purchase this product is?” 2. “The probability that I take this product into consideration to purchase is?” 3. “My willingness to recommend this product to my family and friends?”. 26.

(32) In group 2 which is in the normative social influence condition, participants were required to read the following script: Imagine today that you and your shopping companion are shopping in a shopping mall and see a backpack with various colors and styles on display. So, you and your shopping companion decide to go in and have a look. After entering the backpack shop, you are attracted by a kind of good-looking backpack with good color and special design, which makes you a little excited. After you take it up and have a look, you suddenly feel hesitant because you have never heard of this brand or even bought a product of this brand. So, you decide to ask your shopping companion for opinions. Thus, in positive opinion condition, shopping companion said “I heard that this backpack is the latest popular style now! You can carry it and have a good look. It's very suitable for you! If you carry it out, many people will envy you. It's the front end of fashion.” In the contrary, in negative opinion condition, shopping companion said “There are too many people carrying this backpack. No matter where you go, you will bump into others' bags. It has been out of fashion for a long time! And I think it’s not suitable for you, not good at all!” The detailed information is provided in Appendix study 1B.. After reading the script, procedures and questions were similar as group 1. First, participants were required to answer one question for the manipulation checks to test whether participants know that this was an experiment of shopping with shopping companions (Dahl et al., 2001) taking on a seven-point scale (1= “Totally don’t know” to 7= “Totally know”). Second, participants were required to answer four questions about perceived social value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) taking on a seven-point scale. 27.

(33) (1= “Totally disagree” to 7= “Totally agree”), and finally answered three questions about purchase intention (Dodds et al., 1991; Zeithaml, 1988) taking on a seven-point scale (1=“Very low” to 7=“Very high”).. 3.1.3. Result Using one-way ANOVA to analyze the effects of informational social influence on purchase intention, and the results are shown in Table 1. As this research predicted, the participants in Group 1 were affected by informational social influence from shopping companions to influence their purchase intentions (F (1, 118) = 49.273, p < .001). The result found that there was a significant difference between positive opinions and negative opinions on purchase intention in informational social influence condition (M positive = 4.68, SD = 0.97, M negative = 3.27, SD = 1.21).. Table 1 ANOVA test results of informational social influence for study 1 SS. df. MS. F. p. ηp2. InformationalSI. 59.737. 1. 59.737. 49.273. .000. .295. Residual. 143.059. 118. 1.212. Total. 2096.222. 120. Source. Note. SS = Type III Sum of Squares; df = degree of freedom; MS = Mean square; ηp2 = Partial eta squared = Effect size; InformationalSI = Informational Social Influence. The same procedure this research used one-way ANOVA to analyze the effects of normative social influence on purchase intention, and the results are shown in Table 2. As this research predicted, the participants in Group 2 were affected by normative social. 28.

(34) influence from shopping companions to influence their purchase intentions (F (1, 118) = 66.875, p < .001). The result found that there was a significant difference between positive opinions and negative opinions on purchase intention in normative social influence condition (M positive = 4.71, SD = 1.18, M negative = 2.93, SD = 1.21).. Table 2 ANOVA test results of normative social influence for study 1 SS. df. MS. F. p. ηp2. NormativeSI. 95.408. 1. 95.408. 66.875. .000. .362. Residual. 168.346. 118. 1.427. Total. 2014.333. 120. Source. Note. SS = Type III Sum of Squares; df = degree of freedom; MS = Mean square; ηp2 = Partial eta squared = Effect size; NormativeSI = Normative Social Influence. So as to test the mediating effect of perceived social value, this research separately performed linear regression using The Baron and Kenny's Approach, B-K method (Baron & Kenny, 1986) for two independent groups, and set positive / negative level of social influence as 0-1 dummy variables, where 1 means positive level of social influence and 0 means negative level of social influence, the results are shown in Table 3. First step, this research tested the path X to Y by regressing the informational social influence on purchase intention (βXY = .543, t = 7.019 and p < .001); this result was significant for confirming that informational social influence affects purchase intention. Second step, this research tested the path X to M by regressing the informational social influence on perceived social value (βXM = .311, t = 3.561 and p = .001); this result was significant, showing that informational social influence has a significant effect on perceived social value. Third step, this research tested the path M to Y by regressing. 29.

(35) the perceived social value on purchase intention (βMY = .510, t = 6.448 and p < .001); it was also significant that this research can confirmed that perceived social value has a significant effect on purchase intention.. At last, this research performed a test regressing purchase intention on both informational social influence and perceived social value. This research found that X to Y was significant (βXY = .425, t = 5.754 and p < .001), as well as M to Y was significant (βMY = .378, t = 5.119 and p < .001). To summarize the above results, this research can confirm that perceived social value is a mediator between informational social influence and purchase intention. All results proved that H2a was supported.. Table 3 Linear regression results of perceived social value on informational social influence for study 1 β. t statistic. p value. Informational social influenceàPurchase intention. .543. 7.019. <.001. Informational social influenceàPerceived social value. .311. 3.561. .001. Perceived social valueàPurchase intention. .510. 6.448. <.001. Informational social influence, Perceived social. .425. 5.754. <.001. valueàPurchase intention. The same step this research performed linear regression using The Baron and Kenny's Approach, B-K method (Baron & Kenny, 1986) so as to test the mediating effect of perceived social value, and the results are shown in Table 4. First step, this research tested the path X to Y by regressing the normative social influence on purchase intention (βXY = .601, t = 8.178 and p < .001); this result was significant for confirming 30.

(36) that normative social influence affects purchase intention. Second step, this research tested the path X to M by regressing the normative social influence on perceived social value (βXM = .427, t = 5.133 and p < .001); this result was significant, showing that normative social influence has a significant effect on perceived social value. Third step, this research tested the path M to Y by regressing the perceived social value on purchase intention (βMY = .572, t = 7.573 and p < .001); it was also significant that this research can confirmed that perceived social value has a significant effect on purchase intention.. At last, this research performed a test regressing purchase intention on both normative social influence and perceived social value. This research found that X to Y was significant (βXY = .437, t = 5.942 and p < .001), as well as M to Y was significant (βMY = .385, t = 5.241 and p < .001). To summarize the above results, this research can confirm that perceived social value is a mediator between normative social influence and purchase intention. All results proved that H2b was supported.. Table 4 Linear regression results of perceived social value on normative social influence for study 1 β. t statistic. p value. Normative social influenceàPurchase intention. .601. 8.178. <.001. Normative social influenceàPerceived social value. .427. 5.133. <.001. Perceived social valueàPurchase intention. .572. 7.573. <.001. Normative social influence, Perceived social. .437. 5.942. <.001. valueàPurchase intention. 31.

(37) 3.2.. Study 2 After finding that informational social influence and normative social influence. with positive opinions and negative opinions create different levels on purchase intention, this research did study 2 to further explore different regulatory focus personality with consumers have different degrees on purchase intention. Study 2 mainly explored the moderating effect of regulatory focus on the relationship between two kinds of social influence and purchase intention. Study 2 selected one product (athletic shoes) to put into the context, and it was tested by the pilot test as a product of both hedonic and utilitarian. Study 2 is used to examined H3a, H3b, H3c and H3d.. 3.2.1. Participants and design Study 2 is a 2 (social influence: informational vs. normative) x 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design and this study also measures regulatory focus to examine the moderating effect between social influence and purchase intention. Two kinds of social influence were manipulated into two version of scenarios with positive and negative level opinions same as study 1. In total, 120 participants were in study 2, and the average age of participants was 25 years old in both genders, all of them were randomly assigned to two groups (informational social influence (n=60), normative social influence (n=60)) and did the survey online. Then, their regulatory focus personality and purchase intention with the conditions were measured.. 3.2.2. Materials and procedure Similar as study 1, this study divided the participants into two groups. Group 1 is the scenario that informational social influence with positive opinion and negative 32.

(38) opinion from shopping companions. Group 2 is the scenario that normative social influence with positive opinion and negative opinion from shopping companions. The materials for this study was presented in the form of questionnaires, and the simulated scenarios were designed in the form of scripts. We gave all of the participants the story and asked them to imagine that they go shopping with their shopping companions. In the process, their shopping companions would separately provide them positive opinion and negative opinion about the product. After reading the story of simulated scenarios, all participants were required to complete questionnaires to answer the questions that how they would behave in this condition.. In group 1 which is in the informational social influence condition, participants were required to read the following script: Imagine that you and your shopping companions are shopping in a shopping mall today, and you see a store displaying various athletic shoes. You just want to buy a new pair of athletic shoes recently, so you and your shopping companions decide to go in and have a look. After entering the athletic shoes store, you are attracted by a kind of athletic shoes with good color and design that suits you, which makes you a little excited. After you took it up and looked at it, you suddenly hesitated, because you had never heard of this brand or even bought a product of this brand. So, you decided to ask your shopping companion for opinions. Thus, in positive opinion condition, shopping companion said “The sole of these athletic shoes is made of polyurethane (PU) material. It is light, comfortable to wear, good wear resistance, high elasticity, density and hardness. It is conducive to natural decomposition after being discarded and buried, without causing environmental burden.” In the contrary, in negative opinion condition, shopping companion said “The sole of these athletic shoes is made of polyurethane (PU), which has poor air 33.

(39) permeability, easy yellowing and strong water absorption. If it is not worn for a long time, the space between the soles is easy to be invaded by water molecules in the air, resulting in hydrolysis, and the sole is easy to rot.” The detailed information is provided in Appendix study 2A.. In group 2 which is in the normative social influence condition, participants were required to read the following script: Imagine that you and your shopping companions are shopping in a shopping mall today, and you see a store displaying various athletic shoes. You just want to buy a new pair of athletic shoes recently, so you and your shopping companions decide to go in and have a look. After entering the athletic shoes store, you are attracted by a kind of athletic shoes with good color and design that suits you, which makes you a little excited. After you took it up and looked at it, you suddenly hesitated, because you had never heard of this brand or even bought a product of this brand. So, you decided to ask your shopping companion for opinions. Thus, in positive opinion condition, shopping companion said “I heard that these athletic shoes are the latest popular style now! It is popular throughout Japan and South Korea, and this style and color match well with the clothes. You wear it in a better visual overall proportion. Many people will say it looks good on you; you are at the forefront of fashion!” In the contrary, in negative opinion condition, shopping companion said “These athletic shoes are out of fashion now! You can see other people wearing this pair of shoes when walking on the street a while ago. These shoes hit rate is super high! And I think this pair of shoes is not suitable for you. It doesn't match your usual style of dressing; it doesn't look good at all!” The detailed information is provided in Appendix study 2B.. 34.

(40) First, based on the study of Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002), participants were required to do the regulatory focus personality questionnaire which was designed to measure personality in promotion focus or in prevention focus taking on a sevenpoint scale (1= “Totally disagree” to 7= “Totally agree”). There were total eighteen questions, nine questions for promotion focus and nine questions for prevention focus. The detailed questionnaire for eighteen questions is in Appendix study 2. Regulatory focus tendency of the participants was analyzed according to their questionnaire results. This research added up the values of nine questions for each of the two personalities, and compared its average, which is larger, the participants tend to be that type of regulatory focus personality.. Second, same as study 1, we gave all of the participants the story and asked them to imagine that they go shopping with their shopping companions. In the process, their shopping companions would separately provide them some positive opinion and negative opinion about the product. After reading the story of simulated scenarios, participants were required to answer one question for the manipulation checks to test whether participants know that this was an experiment of shopping with shopping companions (Dahl et al., 2001) taking on a seven-point scale (1= “Totally don’t know” to 7= “Totally know”). At last, participants were required to answer three questions about purchase intention (Dodds et al., 1991; Zeithaml, 1988) taking on a seven-point scale (1= “Very low” to 7= “Very high”).. 35.

(41) 3.2.3. Results In order to examine the moderating effect of regulatory focus, this research performed general linear model analysis using two-way ANOVA, and the results are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. According to the results, the interaction effect between informational social influence with positive opinions and negative opinions and regulatory focus has a significant difference in purchase intention (F (1, 116) = 5.468, p = 0.021), and the results are shown in Table 5. So, this research found that regulatory focus plays a moderator role between informational social influence with positive opinions and negative opinions and purchase intention. Moreover, the interaction effect between normative social influence with positive and negative opinions and regulatory focus has a significant difference in purchase intention (F (1, 116) = 6.892, P = 0.01), and the results are shown in Table 6. Thus, this research found that regulatory focus plays a moderator role between normative social influence with positive and negative opinions and purchase intention.. Table 5 ANOVA test results of regulatory focus on informational social influence for study 2 SS. df. MS. F. P. ηp2. .582. 1. .582. .436. .510. .004. Informational with positive &negative. 110.438. 1. 110.438. 82.709. .000. .416. Regulatory focus * Informational with positive &negative. 7.301. 1. 7.301. 5.468. .021. .045. Residual. 154.890. 116. 1.335. Total. 1626.621. 120. Source Regulatory focus. Note. SS = Type III Sum of Squares; df = degree of freedom; MS = Mean square; Informational with positive & negative = Informational social influence with positive and negative opinions; ηp2 = Partial eta squared = Effect size 36.

(42) Table 6 ANOVA test results of regulatory focus on normative social influence for study 2 SS. df. MS. F. P. ηp2. Regulatory focus. 12.688. 1. 12.688. 6.906. .010. .056. Normative with positive &negative. 82.834. 1. 82.834. 45.089. .000. .280. Regulatory focus * Normative with positive &negative. 12.662. 1. 12.662. 6.892. .010. .056. Residual. 213.108. 116. 1.837. Total. 2207.363. 120. Source. Note. SS = Type III Sum of Squares; df = degree of freedom; MS = Mean square; Normative with positive & negative = Normative social influence with positive and negative opinions; ηp2 = Partial eta squared = Effect size. This research further performed t-test to examine whether different regulatory focus personality in different kinds of social influences creates different degrees of purchase intention. The results found that different regulatory focus personality has significant differences in informational social influence with positive opinions condition (t = 2.295, p = 0.025), and the results are shown in Table 7. Participants in promotion focus have higher purchase intention than participants in prevention focus on informational social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions (M promotion positive. = 4.63, SD promotion = 1.08; M prevention = 4.00, SD prevention = 1.05), so this research can positive positive positive. confirm that H3a is supported.. Similarly, using the same procedure tested the condition of informational social influence with negative opinions. The results found that different regulatory focus personality has not significant differences in informational social influence with. 37.

(43) negative opinions condition (t = - 1.108, p = 0.272), and the results are shown in Table 8. Participants in prevention focus not have lower purchase intention than participants in promotion focus on informational social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions (M prevention = 2.57, SD prevention = 1.19; M promotion = 2.22, SD promotion = negative negative negative negative 1.27), then this research can confirm that H3b is not supported.. Table 7 T-test results of regulatory focus on positive informational social influence for study 2 M (SD) Promotion Prevention focus focus 4.63 (1.08) 4.00 (1.05). df. t. Purchase 58 2.295 intention Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; df = degree of freedom. P. .025. Table 8 T-test results of regulatory focus on negative informational social influence for study 2 M (SD) Promotion Prevention focus focus 2.22 (1.27) 2.57 (1.19). df. t. Purchase 58 - 1.108 intention Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; df = degree of freedom. P. .272. This research used the same procedure to test the condition of normative social influence with positive opinions again. The results found that different regulatory focus personality has significant differences in normative social influence with positive opinions condition (t = -4.258, p < 0.001), and the results are shown in Table 9. Participants in promotion focus not have higher purchase intention than participants in prevention focus on normative social influence with positive opinions from shopping companions (M promotion = 4.14, SD promotion = 1.15; M prevention = 5.44, SD prevention = 1.20), so positive positive positive positive this research can confirm that H3c is not supported.. 38.

(44) Similarly, using the same procedure tested the condition of normative social influence with negative opinions. The results found that different regulatory focus personality has not significant differences in normative social influence with negative opinions condition (t = - 0.002, p = 0.999), and the results are shown in Table 10. Participants in prevention focus not have lower purchase intention than participants in promotion focus on normative social influence with negative opinions from shopping companions, two types of regulatory focus personality have quite degree on purchase intention (M prevention = 3.134, SD prevention = 1.58; M promotion = 3.133, SD promotion = 1.42), thus, negative negative negative negative H3d is not supported.. Table 9 T-test results of regulatory focus on positive normative social influence for study 2 M (SD) Promotion Prevention focus focus 4.14 (1.15) 5.44 (1.20). df. t. Purchase 58 -4.258 intention Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; df = degree of freedom. P. .000. Table 10 T-test results of regulatory focus on negative normative social influence for study 2 M (SD) Promotion Prevention focus focus 3.133 (1.42) 3.134 (1.58). df. t. Purchase 58 -0.002 intention Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; df = degree of freedom. 39. P. .999.

(45) Infomational social influence with positive and negative opinions 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1. Positive opinions. Negative opinions. Promotion focus. Prevention focus. Figure 1 Interaction effects of regulatory focus on informational social influence. Normative social influence with posituve and negative opinions 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1. Positive opinions. Negative opinions. Promotion focus. Prevention focus. Figure 2 Interaction effects of regulatory focus on normative social influence. 40.