The more you buy, the more you enjoy? The effects of expertise and regulatory focus on hedonic escalation

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 Thesis. The more you buy, the more you enjoy? The effects of expertise and regulatory focus on hedonic escalation. 學生：江韋葶 Student: Wei-Ting Chiang. 指導教授：徐美博士、張佳榮博士 Advisor：Mei Hsu Ph.D., Chia-Jung Chang Ph.D.. 中華民國 108 年 7 月 July, 2019.

(2) ii. The more you buy, the more you enjoy? The effects of expertise and regulatory focus on hedonic escalation. ABSTRACT This research conducted three experiments to examine the effects of expertise and the regulatory focus on hedonic escalation. By doing this research, we explore which kind of people experience hedonic escalation. To achieve customer retention and make customers even happier when they buy more, leads to increased revenue of a brand company; this is an important issue. In study1, we found that consumers had hedonic escalation when consuming cosmetic products. Furthermore, based on different consumer knowledge level, expertise consumers had lower hedonic escalation than novice consumers. In study 2, we added regulatory focus personalities as a moderator to test consumers’ hedonic escalation when consuming cosmetic products with different level of consumer knowledge. In study 3, we did the same experiment as study 2, but changed the targeted products from cosmetic products to potato chips and aesthetic shoes. We found the same results as study 2. Keywords: effects of expertise, regulatory focus, hedonic escalation.

(3) iii. Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ ii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2 Literature Reviews .................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Hedonic Escalation ....................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Effects of expertise ...................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Regulatory focus ......................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Effects of expertise and regulatory focus ................................................................. 16 2.5 Effects of expertise and hedonic escalation .............................................................. 18 2.6 Effects of expertise, regulatory focus and hedonic escalation ................................ 20. 3 Method ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Study 1 ......................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Participants and design....................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Materials and Procedure .................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Results .................................................................................................................. 27 3.2 Study 2 ......................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Participants and design....................................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Materials and Procedure .................................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Results .................................................................................................................. 33 3.3 Study 3 ......................................................................................................................... 39 3.3.1 Participants and design....................................................................................... 40 3.3.2 Materials and Procedure .................................................................................... 40 3.3.3 Results .................................................................................................................. 43. 4 General Discussion ................................................................................................ 56 4.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 56 4.2 Theoretical contribution ............................................................................................ 57 4.3 Practical contribution ................................................................................................ 60 4.4 Limitation and future research ................................................................................. 61. References ................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 66.

(4) iv. Index of Figures Figure 1 Dual process model of hedonic response (Crolic and Janiszewski, 2016) .................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 Expert results of study1 ........................................................................... 29 Figure 3 Novice results of study 1 ........................................................................... 29 Figure 4 Results of study 2 ...................................................................................... 37 Figure 5 Expert with promotion focus results of study 2 ..................................... 37 Figure 6 Expert with prevention focus results of study 2..................................... 38 Figure 7 Novice with promotion focus results of study 2 ..................................... 38 Figure 8 Novice with prevention focus results of study 2 ..................................... 39 Figure 9 Results of study 3-1 ................................................................................... 47 Figure 10 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-1................................ 47 Figure 11 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-1 ............................... 48 Figure 12 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-1 ................................ 48 Figure 13 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-1 ................................ 49 Figure 14 Results of study 3-2 ................................................................................. 53 Figure 15 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-2................................ 53 Figure 16 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-2 ............................... 54 Figure 17 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-2 ................................ 54 Figure 18 Novice with prevention focus results of study 3-2 ............................... 55.

(5) v. Index of Tables Table 1 The repeated- measure analysis results of expert and novice ................ 28 Table 2 Descriptive data of study 1......................................................................... 30 Table 3 Descriptive data of study 2......................................................................... 36 Table 4 Descriptive data of study 3-1 ..................................................................... 46 Table 5 Descriptive data of study 3-2 ..................................................................... 52.

(6) 1. 1 Introduction In rational consumption situations, as the consumer gets larger quantities of a commodity, the marginal utility diminishes. That is to say, as consumers buy more quantities of goods, they will feel less excited and less satisfied when the same stimulus is repeatedly again and again. As the consumers’ goods accumulate, the new added marginal utility seems not worth mentioning. This situation was proven by psychological experiment validation, and is also applied in micro economies. We have a lot of these experiences in our daily life. For example, when we taste a mouth-watering steak, we may feel “It’s great!” at first bite, but by the second bite, we feel less delightful surprised. After finishing half the meal, we may feel “Well…it’s just okay”. If the whole steak is too much to eat, sometimes we may even feel nausea or experience vomiting in extreme cases. This situation is the law of diminishing marginal utility.. However, consumers are likely to break this law in the reality. As a wine taster said, every single sip of wine is a complex experience and we can find something different in the next taste. The very greatest wines are seemingly limitless to wine tasters.

(7) 2. because they can always find something different in various wines. As different flavors change their effects in our taste buds, enjoyment can grow with the next sip (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016, p.388). The increased enjoyment in each additional bite is called hedonic escalation (Epstein et al., 2008, p. 254). Some research proved that music, movie, photos, and material purchase all invoke human’s hedonic response (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016). According to dual-process theory of Groves and Thompson (1970), hedonic response is the integration of sensitization and habituation feelings. Several meditators of hedonic response have been proved, such as the goal fulfillment, the fullness feeling and the reduction in the appeal of the food (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016).. Previous related research has focused only on food consumption. When consumers identify more flavors in each successive bite, hedonic escalation is more likely to occur. Furthermore, when consumers’ enjoyment grows with each bite, they increase their consumption of food. Hedonic response is not only in food domain. Some research proved that music, movie, photos, and material purchase all invoke human’s hedonic response (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016, p.389). One of the factors of hedonic.

(8) 3. response – habituation which is affected by hedonic adaptation (Groves and Thompson, 1970). Furthermore, according to Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012), one of the moderators of hedonic adaptation prevention model is varieties in changedrelated experiences. The enjoyment will be remained until the next consumption experience changes. As a result, if hedonic escalation occurs in food consumption because consumers identify additional flavors in their mouth, will consumers experience hedonic escalation when buying an additional product within one brand? Lin, Chen, Yen and Chen (2016) found that among Taiwanese women, cosmetic products improve objective and self-perceived skin status. It reveals that products which elicit self-confidence also bring enjoyment. Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992) found that consumers consider aesthetic shoes with both the hedonic and utilitarian attitudes. In this research, we carried out three experiments about cosmetic products, potato chips and aesthetic shoes as target products to test the changes in the hedonic degree when purchasing these goods.. According to previous research, to enhance the appreciation of a product category, novice consumers seek a diverse set of experiences that broaden their consumption.

(9) 4. knowledge, whereas experts seek to deepen their consumption knowledge (Clarkson, Janiszewski & Cinelli, 2012, p.1313). That is to say, the deeper the experts’ knowledge in a product category, the more they will know what they need in the next consumption experience. In the same product category, compared to novice consumers, expert consumers tend to have higher goal fulfillment, know each brand of products, have the ability to identify products’ different functions of each brand, so that they tend to buy items across different brands which are suitable for them. A thorough understanding of a product attributes leads to different consumer behavior between expert and novice consumers. Based on Heuristic -- System Model, experts with high issue involvement tend to choose a systematic information processing strategy, whereas novices with low issue involvement use a heuristic processing strategy (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Chaiken, 1980). As a result, do consumers, based on different consumer knowledge, have different levels of hedonic escalation when purchasing within the same brand? Most previous research studied consumer behavior among different brands (Maison, Greenwald & Bruin, 2004; Mathur, 2010; Fournier, 1998). However, they overlooked the issue of consumers buying various products in just one brand. By doing this research, we could figure out which marketing strategies.

(10) 5. can keep consumers within one brand company. To achieve customer retention and make customers even happier when they buy more, will lead to increased revenue of a brand company.. Based on self-discrepancy theory and regulatory focus theory, people with different regulatory focus have different decision making methods (Avnet & Higgins 2006, p.36). Previous research related to regulatory focus comprehensively studied two types of people acting in different ways, for example, strong promotion people activate knowledge presented as gain/non-gain, whereas strong prevention people activate knowledge presented as non-loss/loss (Rodriguez, 2011, p.4). Studies also found that regulatory focus influences financial knowledge and financial risk tolerance in discussions on the reasons for stimulating saving behavior (Magendans, Gutteling & Zebel, 2017, p.3). Previous research found that when encountering the safety condition, prevention focus customers think more critically and use systematic information processing (Harris, Hanks, Line & McGinley, 2017, p. 73). Moreover, although experts and novices have been widely discussed, few researchers have examined the consumer behavior of experts and novices in different regulatory focus.

(11) 6. personalities. As a result, we add two types of regulatory focus personality (promotion focus vs. prevention focus) as moderator to test if the different regulatory focus of experts and novices exhibits different levels of hedonic escalation.. In Study 1, in addition to food consumption, we tested if people buying an additional product within a brand have hedonic escalation. Furthermore, different knowledge levels of consumers have an impact on hedonic escalation. Compared to novices, experts have deeper knowledge of all products in each brand so that experts have less hedonic escalation when consuming cosmetic products within one brand. In Study 2, we explored if people with different personalities and consumer knowledge have different degrees of hedonic escalation. In promotion focus personality, expert consumers will have higher hedonic escalation than novice participants do because it is a common phenomenon that experts aggregate their unique and shared knowledge to connect with social members in a social group. However, in prevention focus personality, novice consumers who have little cosmetic knowledge tend to avoid negative outcomes by using other brands so that novice consumers have greater hedonic escalation than expert consumers do. Among expert consumers, promotion.

(12) 7. focus personality has higher hedonic escalation than prevention focus personality because, based on high consumer knowledge, prevention focus experts are likely to buy products among different brands which suit them. On the other hand, among novice consumers, prevention focus personality consumers tend to avoid possible failures from using other brands and stick to the same brand so that prevention focus personality consumers have higher hedonic escalation compared to promotion focus personality consumers. In study 3, we changed the target products from cosmetic products to potato chips and aesthetic shoes. We found the same results as study 2. Once again proving that besides food domain, hedonic escalation happened on consuming cosmetic products successfully.. In sum, by designing three experiments, this study aims to discover whether consumers have hedonic escalation when purchasing products besides tasting potato chips. Second, this study aims to understand how the effects of expertise influences hedonic escalation and which kind of regulatory focus personality consumers have greater degree of hedonic escalation..

(13) 8. 2 Literature Reviews 2.1 Hedonic Escalation No matter in ancient time or current time, “Happiness” is always what human pursues. Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BCE.) who was the student of Socrates formulates the idea of Hedonism. Hedonism is the school which argues the most important human goals is the pursuit of pleasure. A Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BCE.) told us that our life goal should be minimize pain and maximize pleasure or happiness (Benson, N., Collin, C., Ginsburg, J., Grand, V., Lazyan, M., & Weeks, M. , 2012). It proves that from ancient time when great thinkers started to think about “Who we are” and “How should we live our lives”, they thought about what the human being needs is -- happiness.. Happiness is English translation from eudaimonia in. Aristotle's (1985) Nicomachean Ethics (Waterman, 1993, p. 678). Self-realization which is concerned as natural happiness is linked to Eudaimonia. According to Waterman (1993) a sense of personal identity, self– actualization, and principled moral reasoning are activities accumulated in the body and foster the process of self – realization. Contemporary term of happiness is refer to hedonic enjoyment. Hedonic enjoyment is brought by pleasant feeling, for example, getting the unsatidifed needs..

(14) 9. Thus, happiness included two concepts which are eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment. (Waterman, 1993, p. 679) In this research, we focus on the hedonic enjoyment in our experiments, then further indicate that consumers’ happiness whether contain eudaimonia as another source of pleasant feeling.. In marketing research nowadays, the concept of hedonic product (Raghunathan, R., & Irwin, J. R., 2001), hedonic consumption (Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B.,1982) and hedonic theory analysis of consumer behavior (Kristensen, K. ,1984) come to researchers’ mind. According to Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan (2008), when products meet or exceed consumers’ hedonic wants, fulfill promotion goals enhance consumers’ delight. Studies research show that delighting customers improves customer loyalty which was measure by repurchase intention and word of mouth. In other words, the pleasure of consumer is one of the factors of repurchase intention.. One’s life happiness can be changed by positive or negative events (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2009). Going through the hedonic treadmill experiments, individuals have a Hedonic Response. The Hedonic Response is the integration of the Sensitization and.

(15) 10. Habituation functions. Sensitization and Habituation functions are a kind of non-associate learning. Sensitization function is when the sensitivity of individuals increase when the action repeatedly, for example, the process of seeing a thrilling movie or be annoyed by a mosquito in the midnight. However, habituation function is the opposite effect of sensitization function. Habituation function decreases the pleasure when individuals go through repetition stage (Crolic and Janiszewski, 2016).. Figure 1 Dual process model of hedonic response (Crolic and Janiszewski, 2016). The idea of hedonic escalation revealed from Crolic and Janiszewski (2016) that the pleasure of people increases under sensation function in the initial trial and be ended.

(16) 11. by habituation function when action repeats again and again. Hedonic escalation is a consequence of a “alliesthesia– reverse alliesthesia” feedback loop. To illustrate, hedonic escalation considers the interaction of motivation and liking systems. Alliesthesia occurs when increased motivation (e.g., increase in hunger) results in the increasing liking of food. Reverse alliesthesia occurs when the increased liking of food (e.g., eating a more palatable food) results in the increasing of motivation to consume (Cabanac and Lafrance, 1990, p. 389). Berridge (2009) proposes that flavor in a taste experience is the “key” to unlock the activation of the brain “liking” system.. 2.2 Effects of expertise Based on different levels of consumer knowledge people engage in different consumer behaviors. Knowledgeable consumers may delve deeply into a product category. As noted by several researchers, expert consumers have three kinds of knowledge. The first kind of knowledge is subjective knowledge that consumers think he or she knows the products. The second knowledge is objective knowledge that expert consumers actually know which products they will choose. The third kind of knowledge called experiential knowledge deals with how the knowledge was formed.

(17) 12. and processed (Punj & Srinivasan, 1989, p. 2). Experts organize and form their knowledge differently from those beginners or novices. Experts apply both knowledge and experience to solve problem or perform tasks (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001, p. 5) In other words, expert consumers with their knowledge and experiences know more alternatives within a product category than those who are less knowledgeable.. Moreover, experts tend to generate more attribute-oriented thoughts without spending much time, while novices tend to use category-based affective processing and rely on prior experiences to create their evaluation strategies (Sujan, 1985, p. 153). According to Cowley (2005), experts who know functional attributes of products would effectively remember this information; novices would learn faster and more effectively when expose to brand information. It reveals that novices pay more attention on category-based information, such as a brand name. Experts using experiential knowledge and objective knowledge may be adventurous in their exploration of new products (Vigar Ellis, Pitt & Berthon, 2015, p. 6) and thoroughly seek to understand all brands in a product category, whereas novice consumers are.

(18) 13. likely to stick to a particular brand. Many previous researchers also discovered that high knowledge consumers are more concerned with product attributes. The view of items in the memory and the way to distinguish features, experts and novices show differently (Diamond & Carey, 1986, p. 107). Experiments show that consumer knowledge and attribute information are significantly correlated. High knowledge consumers’ use of attribute information creates expectations regarding the quality of the products (Gustafson, Lybbert & Sumner 2016, p. 9).. Experts use a conscious decision-making process, whereas novices are generally exhibit an unconscious decision-making process (Brucks, 1985; Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). That is, experts with high issue involvement choose a systematic information processing strategy, so that they tend to focus on functional product information, whereas novices with low issue involvement use a heuristic processing strategy, so they tend to be more influenced by non-product information such as a salesperson’s opinion (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Chaiken, 1980). In other words, novices tend to base on surface information of the features to make decision, while experts build up an organization of their knowledge meaning, have better ability to cross-referring and.

(19) 14. connect to other features (Bedard, & Chi, 1992, p. 136).. 2.3 Regulatory focus Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) initially originates from self-discrepancy theory. Self-discrepancy assumes that self-regulation occurs in response to the negative affect experienced as the result of a discrepancy. This self-regulation occurs through a discrepancy-reducing feedback process in which individuals exert changes on their behavior in response to a noticed discrepancy and remove disparity in self-guides (Orellana-Damacela, Tindale, & Suárez-Balcázar, 2000; Strauman, 1992). Higgins (1998) proposed that the motivation that drives people to avoid the pain of hunger and thirst differs from the motivation driving people to seek the pleasure of serenity and accomplishment. The hedonic principle operates the regulatory focus of two different types: a promotion focus versus a prevention focus (Higgins, 1998). The promotion focus is concerned with accomplishments, hopes, and aspirations. It regulates the presence and absence of positive outcomes. The prevention focus is concerned with safety, responsibilities, and obligations; it regulates the absence and presence of negative outcomes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997, p. 3)..

(20) 15. People with different regulatory focus personalities have two ways of decision making and exhibit different consumer behaviors. For example, prevention focus people are more interested in safety-oriented aspects when buying products (Werth & Foerster, 2007). Previous research found that promotion focus customers make quick, heuristic judgments without considering deeply whether a restaurant presents good or poor health safety, while prevention focus customers think more critically and use systematic information processing, especially when encountering a poor health safety restaurant (Harris, Hanks, Line & McGinley, 2017, p. 73). Moreover, prevention focus customers hold mood and familiarity in high regard, to a greater degree than promotion focus customers when making decisions (Pula, Parks & Ross, 2014, p. 4).. Without surprise, research found that the utilitarian benefits provide confidence and security which satisfy the feelings of prevention emotion, whereas hedonic benefits provide cheerfulness and excitement which delight the feelings of promotion emotion (Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2008, p. 48). In other words, this feeling-right experience make people with prevention focus personality value utilitarian benefits.

(21) 16. than people with promotion focus personality do. When speaking to approaching the desire-resistance goal, however, individuals with a prevention focus have less intense desire but also less able to control themselves, for example compulsive shopping, gambling, and eating disorders (Dholakia, Gopinath, Bagozzi, & Nataraajan, 2006, p. 173).. 2.4 Effects of expertise and regulatory focus When buying products, expert consumers tend to have more structure of knowledge, included subjective knowledge, objective knowledge and experiential knowledge compared to novice consumers (Merrie Brucks, 1985, p. 1). Combining these three kinds of knowledge, expert consumers generate more thoughts and have the ability to associate these thoughts with their memories (Sujan, 1985, p.43).. When consumers’ experiential knowledge is gained from buying more products, regulatory fit subjects consider their decisions to be more correct, and feel less regret about the decisions they made (Itzkin, Van Dijk & Azar 2016, p. 12). Promotion focus subjects evaluate eager strategies (e.g., encouraging one to succeed) as more correct,.

(22) 17. compared to prevention focus subjects, while prevention focus subjects evaluate vigilant strategies (e.g., removing anything causing trouble) as more right compared to promotion focus subjects (Camacho, 2003, p. 505).. When under regulatory fit, promotion focus subjects and prevention focus subjects behave differently. Promotion-oriented people who experience fit will be more ‘gain seeking’ than those who do not experience fit, whereas prevention-oriented people who experience fit will be more loss averse than those who do not experience fit (Avnet & Higgins, 2006, p. 17). In other words, based on previous consumer experience, promotion focus consumers are associated with openness to change, whereas prevention focus consumers will be associated with a preference for stability and status quo (Liberman, Idson, Camacho & Higgins, 1999; Chernev 2004). According to Chernev (2004), prevention focus subjects are more loss sensitive than are promotion focus subjects, and use the status quo alternative when evaluating outcomes as either gains or losses..

(23) 18. Regulatory fit effect also affect consumers’ information behavior and decision making process, especially low- involvement individuals with heuristic processing (Wang, & Lee, 2006, p. 37). That is to say, novices consumers are easily affected by regulatory focus with heuristic processing strategy.. 2.5 Effects of expertise and hedonic escalation Consumers’ level of experiential knowledge has an effect on the enhancement of appreciation within a product category (Clarkson, Janiszewski & Cinelli, 2012). In order to explore consumer taste experience, Peryam and Pilgrim (1957) used a 9-point hedonic scale to test consumers’ food preferences. It was found that hedonic ratings changed significantly from a blind to an informed tasting condition, particularly for consumers in their twenties (Guinard, Uotani & Schlich, 2001). In other words, novice consumers have more enjoyment buying products they already know, or when they are informed about the attributes of products which they are not familiar with.. Previous research also found that when participants have no experience with the product, it results in more hedonic escalation compared to those with prior experience..

(24) 19. When participants have the ability to taste additional flavors, the result is more sensitization; this leads to greater hedonic escalation (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016). Because consumers who can identify different flavors across trials are more likely to have hedonic escalation, we assume that hedonic escalation also occurs when consumers buy different products within one brand. Novices who do not have much information on products use category-based affective processing when buying items, while experts have more attribute-oriented thoughts when consuming products and are eager to explore new products of other brands (Vigar Ellis, Pitt & Berthon, 2015). Expert consumers know products’ different characteristics of each brand; they tend to purchase each brand’s best product or the most suitable product for them. To experts, consuming products within the same brand leads to less hedonic escalation than is the case for novice consumers. On the other hand, because novice consumers have little knowledge, a good experience leads to their high satisfaction and brand loyalty (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).. The mediating process of hedonic adaption includes habituation, goal fulfillment, and the decrease of appealing of food with repetition (Crolic and Janiszewski, 2016)..

(25) 20. Speaking to goal fulfillment, Ladan and Janiszewski (2009) assumed goals are positive outcome dimensions of needs (e.g., achievement, happiness, relaxation, pleasure). Experts with high issue involvement tend to have higher goal fulfillment. That is to say, experts are not feel pleasure easily until reach their goals. Cosmetic product experts are not satisfied by purchasing items in a brand. As a result, compare to experts, the more items within a brand that novice consumers buy, the greater the hedonic escalation they will experience. Thus, this study explores the impact of consumer knowledge on the hedonic degree, and propose the following hypotheses: H1: Novice consumers tend to have greater hedonic escalation than expert consumers when buying products within a brand.. 2.6 Effects of expertise, regulatory focus and hedonic escalation Although experts have been widely discussed in relevant research, few of them discussed the impact of experts’ personality on their consumer behavior. People with different personalities have different decision-making approaches, as do experts; as a result, we chose regulatory focus as the moderator in this research. As regulatory focus influences consumer behavior (Werth & Foerster, 2007), we assume that based.

(26) 21. on consumers’ knowledge, two types of regulatory focus moderate the level of hedonic escalation when buying products within a brand.. People with promotion focus personality are tend to expect positive outcomes. Expert consumers with promotion focus personality are more likely to experience hedonic escalation than novice consumers with promotion focus personality because promotion expert consumers seek to deepen their consumer knowledge regarding all the brands of products (Vigar Ellis, Pitt & Berthon, 2015; Clarkson, Janiszewski & Cinelli, 2012). Experts assume the responsibility of aggregating information and share knowledge in social groups. Furthermore, experts are more likely to emphasize their own unique knowledge and contribute to others (Thomas-Hunt, Ogden & Neale, 2003). Currently, social marketing is a widely popular way to build one’s own reputation, connect with social members and even have the opportunity to collaborate with brand manufacturers.. On the other hand, people with prevention personality tend to avoid negative results. prevention novice consumers with little knowledge of other brands, tend to worry that.

(27) 22. using other brands may result in negative results, such as allergic reactions. To avoid negative results from using other brands, novice consumers have much higher hedonic escalation when purchasing within a brand than do expert consumers with a prevention focus.. General speaking, expert consumers are high-involvement, actively seek information and retain their knowledge to enhance future decision-making (Neeley, C. R., Sam Min, K., & Kennett-Hensel, P. A.,2010). We assume that to expert consumers, promotion focus personality results in greater hedonic escalation compared to prevention focus personality because promotion focus experts tend to have intense desire and pursue accomplishment in relation to products within a brand, whereas prevention focus experts based on high consumer knowledge are likely to buy products according to the functional attributes across different brands.. On the other hand, we assume that to novice consumers, prevention focus personality has higher hedonic escalation compared to promotion focus personality. The reason is that prevention focus novices tend to avoid possible failure resulting from using other.

(28) 23. brands, so they stick to the same brand they have used for a long time, while prevention focus experts are likely to avoid spending unnecessary money on products within a brand; they clearly know which product attributes across different brands they want. To summarize, we propose the following hypotheses: H2: Regulatory focus moderates the relationship between expertise effects and hedonic escalation, i.e. Expert consumers with promotion (prevention) focus have greater(lower) hedonic escalation than novice consumers with promotion(prevention); expert (novice) consumers with promotion focus have greater (lower) hedonic escalation than experts (novice) with prevention focus..

(29) 24. 3 Method 3.1 Study 1 Most of previous studies use consumption to measure motivation, however, Kahhneman and Snell (1992) found method to measure liking combined with motivation so as to evaluate hedonic escalation. Though the majority people experience hedonic adaptation, research still shows that some people exhibit hedonic escalation when tasting food. The more flavors participants could identify, the more hedonically escalate they do (Crolic and Janiszewski, 2016). It is curious that besides consuming food, whether people would have the same experience to break diminishing marginal utility law. As a result, the first study had two objectives: (1) show that besides tasting food, whether women consume different cosmetic products also have hedonic escalation. The more items within a brand they purchase, the more enjoyment they feel. (2) based on different consumer knowledge, consumers would have different level of hedonic escalation.. 3.1.1 Participants and design Study 1 is a two level of consumer knowledge (consumer knowledge: experts vs..

(30) 25. novices) to one variable (hedonic escalation) between-subjects design. A total of 120 Taiwanese women around 21-25 years old participated in the experiment. Participants randomly divided into two groups (experts vs. novices) and did the survey online. Participants who are manipulated to be an expert would read the characteristics of cosmetic products information of different brands first. They would be told each brand’s most popular product and the products’ attributes in the year of 2017.. 3.1.2 Materials and Procedure In order to explore the effects of expertise on hedonic escalation. Participants are manipulated into two groups. First, expert group of participants are asked to read following cosmetic information: According to UrCosme 1 , the leader website of cosmetic sharing experiences, in first half of 2017, there are some changes of popular products. For example, LANCOME laser whitening light cushion powder - flawless version is the most popular product in 2017 summer season. On the other hand, Pure Color Envy Oil-Infused Sculpting Lipstick is injected into 25% Luxury Essential Oil to innovate product and to satisfy consumers’ need. Following form include. 1. UrCosme is the leader platform of cosmetic sharing experiences in Taiwan. Providing latest and abundant cosmetic information. Up to now, the website has accumulated 716,041 reviews of consumers and 45,066 cosmetic products in database..

(31) 26. consumers’ favorite characteristics of each brand. The detailed information of form is in Appendix Study1.. After reading the article about most popular and best-selling cosmetic products in year 2017, they are asked to answer if they clearly know “each brand” most popular product, the attributes of each product and whether they are more familiar with products of each brand. To do the manipulation checks on “expert group”, participants are asked to answer the two items ranging from 1 (“totally not agree”) to 7 (“totally agree”) (effects of expertise: α = .83). In novice group of participants, however, they are not asked to read this article.. Second, the same procedure to test participants’ hedonic degree as Crolic and Janiszewski (2016), however, not repeatedly tasting chips five times but imagine buying cosmetic product five times. Both two groups of participants were told, Imagine you bought a cosmetic product of a brand one day. You are satisfied with the product and the liking feeling invoke your motivation to buy the second product of the same brand….

(32) 27. Then, they were told to answer the question, “How much did you enjoy the consume experience?” (1= “It was bad”; 9 = “It was extraordinary”). Participants are asked to imagine she buys the second cosmetic product of the same brands and answer the same question as question of first product. Participants were told to repeatedly imagine how she will feel when she buys the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth product. 3.1.3 Results As expected the novice participants had higher hedonic response after the first trial than expert participants. There was significance difference between expert and novice group ( ) ' ) on the fourth trial (!"#$"%& = 6.96, "#$%&$'( = 1.63; !"#$%&' = 7.49, !"#$%&'( =. ( ) 1.63, t = -2.11 and p = .036) and the fifth trial ( "#$%#&' = 6.86, "#$%&$'( = 1.71;. ) ) "#$%&'( = 7.47, !"#$%&'( = 1.88, t= -2.33 and p = .021). Novice participants had. higher hedonic response on the fourth and the fifth trial than expert participants.. Second, we separated different level of knowledge and did the repeated-measure analysis again. For the expert aspect, there was significant effect of the five trial on.

(33) 28. hedonic response (F (1,59) = 2076, p < .001), and so was novice (F (1,59) = 2198.57, p <.001). As Crolic and Janiszewski (2016) did, we classified each group (experts vs. novices) into three groups, either hedonic escalation (i.e., the liking of the cosmetic product increased), hedonic adaptation (i.e., the liking of the cosmetic product fell), or stable ratings (i.e., the liking of the cosmetic product did not change during the five trials). It showed that in 120 participants (60 experts vs. 60 novices), 6.7 % of the experts showed hedonic escalation (4/60), 25% showed stable ratings (15/60), and 68.3% showed hedonic adaption (41/60). However, 43.3% of novices showed hedonic escalation (26/60), 30% of novices showed stable ratings (18/60), and 26.7% showed hedonic adaptation (16/60). As we expected, there were more participants in novice group showing hedonic escalation. Thus, H1 was once again supported.. Table 1 The repeated- measure analysis results of expert and novice. !"#. Sum of Squares. df. Mean Square. F. p. Expert. 104.746. 4. 26.162. 35.864. <0.001 0.378. Novice. 13.687. 4. 3.422. 2.789. .027. Residual. 118.433. 8. 29.584. Note. Type III Sum of Squares. 0.045.

(34) 29. Figure 2 Expert results of study1. Figure 3 Novice results of study 1.

(35) 30. Table 2 Descriptive data of study 1 Purchasing trial n. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Escalation. 4. 7.25. 6.25. 6.00. 6.50. 7.75. Stable. 15. 8.73. 8.73. 8.73. 8.73. 8.73. Adaptation. 41. 8.51. 7.46. 6.82. 6.36. 6.09. All. 60. 8.48. 7.70. 7.25. 6.96. 6.86. Escalation. 26. 7.23. 6.96. 7.15. 7.88. 8.19. Stable. 18. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. Adaptation. 16. 8.75. 7.43. 6.5. 5.87. 5.50. All. 60. 8.23. 7.70. 7.45. 7.49. 7.47. Escalation. 30. 7.23. 6.86. 7.00. 7.70. 8.13. Stable. 33. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. 8.72. Adaptation. 57. 8.57. 7.45. 7.45. 6.23. 5.93. All. 120. 8.28. 7.65. 7.65. 7.28. 7.25. Experts. Novice. Total. 3.2 Study 2 After finding that experts and novices have different level of hedonic escalation when consuming cosmetic products within a brand, we do study 2 to further research different regulatory focus personality of experts and novices have different level of hedonic escalation..

(36) 31. 3.2.1 Participants and design Different from study 1, 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 160 total participants in study 2. (experts vs. promotion focus (n=40), experts vs. prevention focus(n=40), novices vs. promotion focus (n=40), and novices vs. prevention focus (n=40)). Participants were Taiwanese women around 21-25 years old. We still manipulated consumer knowledge into two version of scenarios (experts vs. novices). Participants randomly chose either expert-scenario or novice-scenario on the platform.. 3.2.2 Materials and Procedure Similar to study 1, participants in expert group read the article about most popular and best-selling cosmetic products in 2017 and answer whether they clearly know each brands’ most popular products and each attributes of the products are. As study 1, all the participants are asked to answer whether they clearly know most popular product of each brand, the attributes of each product and whether they are more familiar with products of each brand. Expert group of participants had to do the manipulation.

(37) 32. checks on expertise effect related to the two items on a scale ranging from 1 (“totally not agree”) to 7 (“totally agree”) (effects of expertise: α = .89). Participants in novice group still do not read the article.. Second, both groups of participants are asked to imagine consuming cosmetic products five times and answered the hedonic level of each time. (1= “It was bad”; 9 = “It was extraordinary”). Third, based on the study of Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002), participants are asked to do a questionnaire which designed to measure promotion and prevention personality. Both subscales of questionnaire were reliable (promotion: α = .81, prevention: α = .75). Each group of participants answered 16 questions to test participants’ regulatory focus goal. In questionnaire, they will be asked such questions, “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my goals and aspirations.” Or “I am focused on preventing negative events in my life.” (1= “Not at all true of me”; 9 = “Very true f me”) to test participants’ personalities are promotion focus or prevention focus. Detailed of questionnaire is in Appendix Study 2..

(38) 33. 3.2.3 Results As expected regulatory focus moderated the effect of expertise on hedonic escalation. There was significance difference between expert participants with promotion focus $%'('&)'*. and expert participants with prevention focus on the first trial (!"#$"%& &')*)(+),. "#$%&$'(. <. .001),. $%"'"(&)*(. = 1.99; !"#$"%&. the. %&#(#)'*+). fourth. trial %&#(#)'*+). "#$%#&'. = 6.55, !"#$%#&'. %&()('*(+. ( "#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 8.42, !"#$%#&' %&()('*(+. ( "#$%#&'. =. = 6.57,. = .84, t = -5.39 and p. 7.32,. &')*)(+),. "#$%&$'(. =. 1.54;. = 2.00, t= 1.92 and p = .005), and the fifth trial. &')*)(+),. = 7.57, "#$%&$'(. %&#(#)'*+). = 1.50; "#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 5.65, !"#$%#&'. =. 2.88, t= 3.74 and p <.001). In the beginning, expert participants with promotion focus had higher hedonic escalation, but as expected, expert participants with prevention focus gradually had greater happiness in the fourth and the fifth trial. Furthermore, there was also significance difference between expert participants with promotion $%'('&)'*. focus and novice participants with promotion focus on the first trial (!"#$"%& &')*)(+),. 6.57, "#$%&$'(. ()#*#+%#". = 1.99; !"#$%&'. %&()('*(+. p = .026), the fourth trial ( "#$%#&' )*$+$,&$#. "#$%&'(. %&()('*(+. ( "#$%#&'. )*$+$,&$#. = 6.10, !"#$%&'(. = 1.50, t = -2.27 and &')*)(+),. = 7.32, "#$%&$'(. =. 1.54;. = 1.85, t= 3.21 and p = .002), and the fifth trial. &')*)(+),. = 7.57, "#$%&$'(. )*$+$,&$#. = 7.47, !"#$%&'(. =. %&#(#)'*+). = 1.50; "#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 5.85, !"#$%#&'. =.

(39) 34. 1.94, t= 4.446 and p <.001). It reveals that 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 supported successfully.. 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 (1,159) =36.66, p < .001). In the expert participants with promotion focus group, there was significant effect of the five trial on hedonic response (F (1,39) = 11.898, p = .001). It showed that in 40 participants, 47.5 % of the experts showed hedonic escalation (19/40), 37.5% showed stable ratings (15/40), and 15% showed hedonic adaption (6/40). In the expert participants with prevention focus group, there was significant effect of the five trial on hedonic response (F (1,39) = 30.727, p < .001). In 40 participants, 15% of novices showed hedonic escalation (6/40), 30% of novices showed stable ratings (12/40), and 55% showed hedonic adaptation (22/40). In the novice participants with promotion focus group, there was significant effect of the five trial on hedonic response (F (1,39) = 19.751, p < .001). In 40 participants, 22.5% of.

(40) 35. novices showed hedonic escalation (9/40), 25% of novices showed stable ratings (10/40), and 52.5% showed hedonic adaptation (21/40). In the novice participants with prevention focus group, there was significant effect of the five trial on hedonic response (F (1,39) = 5.533, p < .001). In 40 participants, 25% of novices showed hedonic escalation (10/40), 50% of novices showed stable ratings (20/40), and 25% showed hedonic adaptation (10/40). 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..

(41) 36. Table 3 Descriptive data of study 2 Purchasing trial n. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Escalation. 19. 5.15. 6.37. 6.73. 7.26. 7.78. Stable. 15. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. Adaptation. 6. 7.33. 6.33. 5.66. 5.66. 5.66. All. 40. 6.57. 7.00. 7.07. 7.32. 7.57. Escalation. 6. 8.00. 6.16. 6.33. 7.00. 7.50. Stable. 12. 8.66. 8.66. 8.66. 8.66. 8.66. Adaptation. 22. 8.40. 7.09. 6.54. 5.27. 3.50. All. 40. 8.42. 7.42. 7.15. 6.55. 5.65. Escalation. 9. 7.00. 7.55. 7.44. 7.66. 7.33. Stable. 10. 6.20. 6.20. 6.20. 6.20. 6.20. Adaptation. 21. 8.28. 6.71. 6.00. 5.38. 5.38. All. 40. 7.47. 6.77. 6.37. 6.10. 5.85. Escalation. 10. 7.60. 7.20. 7.20. 7.70. 8.00. Stable. 20. 8.40. 8.40. 8.40. 8.40. 8.40. Adaptation. 10. 8.00. 6.50. 5.70. 5.20. 4.50. All. 40. 8.10. 7.62. 7.42. 7.42. 7.32. Escalation. 44. 6.47. 6.77. 6.93. 7.40. 7.70. Stable. 47. 7.98. 7.98. 7.98. 7.98. 7.98. Adaptation. 59. 6.77. 6.77. 6.11. 5.33. 4.44. All. 160. 7.20. 7.20. 7.00. 6.85. 6.60. Experts - promotion. Experts - prevention. Novice - promotion. Novice - prevention. Total.

(42) 37. Figure 4 Results of study 2. Figure 5 Expert with promotion focus results of study 2.

(43) 38. Figure 6 Expert with prevention focus results of study 2. Figure 7 Novice with promotion focus results of study 2.

(44) 39. Figure 8 Novice with prevention focus results of study 2. 3.3 Study 3 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.

(45) 40. 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.

(46) 41. 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.

(47) 42. 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..

(48) 43. 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, !"#$%#&' %&()('*(+. 1.88, t = 2.565 and p = .012) , so was the third trial ( "#$%#&' &')*)(+),. "#$%&$'(. %&#(#)'*+). = .96; "#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 7.48, !"#$%#&' %&()('*(+. = .012), so was the fourth trial ( "#$%#&' %&#(#)'*+). "#$%#&'. %&()('*(+. ( "#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 7.33, !"#$%#&'. = 8.13,. = 2.05, t= 2.55 and p &')*)(+),. = 8.04, "#$%&$'(. = 1.02;. = 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.

(49) 44. 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.

(50) 45. 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..

(51) 46. Table 4 Descriptive data of study 3-1 Purchasing trial n. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Escalation. 3. 6.00. 7.33. 7.33. 7.33. 7.00. Stable. 15. 8.46. 8.46. 8.46. 8.46. 8.06. Adaptation. 5. 8.20. 7.60. 7.60. 7.20. 6.60. All. 23. 8.08. 8.13. 8.13. 8.04. 7.86. Escalation. 12. 6.41. 7.16. 7.83. 7.75. 7.75. Stable. 18. 7.94. 7.94. 7.94. 7.94. 7.72. Adaptation. 9. 7.11. 6.44. 6.11. 5.56. 5.11. All. 39. 7.28. 7.35. 7.48. 7.33. 7.12. Escalation. 14. 6.28. 7.07. 7.21. 7.57. 7.85. Stable. 15. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. 8.06. Adaptation. 21. 8.57. 7.85. 7.71. 6.85. 7.14. All. 50. 7.78. 7.70. 7.68. 7.42. 7.62. Escalation. 16. 6.87. 7.00. 7.06. 8.00. 8.00. Stable. 12. 8.58. 8.58. 8.58. 8.58. 8.67. Adaptation. 20. 7.70. 6.85. 6.15. 6.15. 5.60. All. 48. 7.64. 7.33. 7.06. 7.37. 7.16. Escalation. 45. 6.51. 7.08. 7.33. 7.75. 7.82. Stable. 60. 8.28. 8.52. 8.25. 8.23. 8.18. Adaptation. 55. 7.98. 7.23. 6.87. 6.41. 6.20. All. 150. 7.68. 7.57. 7.51. 7.47. 7.40. Experts - promotion. Experts - prevention. Novice - promotion. Novice - prevention. Total.

(52) 47. Figure 9 Results of study 3-1. Figure 10 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-1.

(53) 48. Figure 11 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-1. Figure 12 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-1.

(54) 49. 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 $%'('&)'*. experts with prevention focus) on the first trial (!"#$"%& $%"'"(&)*(. 1.93; !"#$"%&. %&()('*(+. fifth trial ( "#$%#&' %&#(#)'*+). !"#$%#&'. %&#(#)'*+). = 4.89, !"#$%#&'. = 2.31, t = 2.60 &')*)(+),. = 6.55, "#$%&$'(. &')*)(+),. = 6.64, "#$%&$'(. =. and p = .011) and the %&#(#)'*+). = 2.27; "#$%#&'. = 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.

(55) 50 $%'('&)'*. with promotion focus on the fourth trial (!"#$"%& ()#*#+%#". !"#$%&'. %&()('*(+. ( "#$%#&'. )*$+$,&$#. = 5.00, !"#$%&'(. = 1.93;. = 2.33, t = 3.15 and p = .002) and the fifth trial. &')*)(+),. = 4.48, "#$%&$'(. &')*)(+),. = 6.64, "#$%&$'(. )*$+$,&$#. = 2.27; "#$%&'(. )*$+$,&$#. = 6.55, !"#$%&'(. =. 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.

(56) 51. 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..

(57) 52. Table 5 Descriptive data of study 3-2 Purchasing trial n. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Escalation. 12. 5.50. 6.50. 7.75. 7.75. 8.16. Stable. 9. 7.78. 7.78. 7.78. 7.78. 7.78. Adaptation. 13. 7.38. 6.38. 5.76. 4.84. 4.32. All. 34. 6.82. 6.79. 6.91. 6.64. 6.55. Escalation. 4. 6.75. 6.50. 7.00. 7.25. 8.00. Stable. 5. 8.20. 8.20. 8.20. 8.20. 8.20. Adaptation. 28. 7.17. 6.14. 5.00. 3.96. 2.85. All. 37. 7.27. 6.45. 5.64. 4.89. 4.13. Escalation. 5. 5.40. 7.00. 6.40. 6.40. 6.60. Stable. 6. 7.33. 7.33. 7.33. 7.33. 7.33. Adaptation. 22. 7.54. 6.54. 5.40. 4.04. 3.22. All. 33. 7.18. 6.60. 6.00. 5.00. 4.48. Escalation. 7. 6.14. 6.57. 7.14. 6.71. 7.14. Stable. 6. 7.50. 7.50. 7.50. 7.50. 7.50. Adaptation. 9. 7.33. 6.44. 5.11. 4.11. 4.00. All. 22. 7.00. 6.77. 6.40. 5.86. 5.95. Escalation. 28. 5.78. 6.50. 7.28. 7.28. 6.60. Stable. 26. 7.69. 7.69. 7.69. 7.69. 6.50. Adaptation. 72. 6.94. 5.90. 4.87. 3.73. 3.41. All. 126. 6.84. 6.40. 5.99. 5.34. 4.76. Experts - promotion. Experts - prevention. Novice - promotion. Novice - prevention. Total.

(58) 53. Figure 14 Results of study 3-2. Figure 15 Expert with promotion focus results of study 3-2.

(59) 54. Figure 16 Expert with prevention focus results of study 3-2. Figure 17 Novice with promotion focus results of study 3-2.

(60) 55. Figure 18 Novice with prevention focus results of study 3-2.

(61) 56. 4 General Discussion 4.1 Conclusion This research conducted three experiments to examine the effect of expertise and regulation focus on hedonic escalation. The results of all the studies showed that besides consuming food, people have hedonic escalation when purchasing products. In study1, experts who read the article of different brands product had lower hedonic escalation than novice escalation when keep consuming products within one brand especially after the third trial. Experts group had higher degree hedonic adaptation after the first consume experience because they just got the information that the product’s function of other brands even better than she chooses in the same brand. However, novices group had much higher hedonic escalation because they didn’t have much information of other brands. When they are told to consume a good cosmetic product repeatedly, they have more enjoyment than experts group do. It revealed the same results from Alba & Hutchinson (1987) that when people have little knowledge refer to specific product, they are easily to be affected by positive information given by a salesman..

(62) 57. Study 2 further proved that different personality focus people have different degree of hedonic escalation experience. We found that there were a significant interaction effect between consumer knowledge and regulatory focus on hedonic escalation. In the promotion focus personality, expert participants have higher hedonic escalation than novice participants do. Among expert participants, promotion focus personality has higher hedonic escalation compared to prevention focus personality.. In Study 3, we did the same procedure as study 2 but change the product from cosmetic product to potato chips and aesthetic shoes. It revealed that people with different regulatory focus personality either consumed cosmetic product or tasted a piece of chips both had the same result of hedonic experience. It further shows that personality causes human being have the same feeling when consuming products and has strong influence on consumer’s behaviors.. 4.2 Theoretical contribution Based on these findings, this paper firstly extended the hedonic experience from hedonic products to utilitarian goods. Crolic and Janiszewski (2016) did six studies to.

(63) 58. research why and how hedonic escalation happened on people when consuming chips. In this paper, the first two studies we researched the hedonic degree when people purchasing cosmetic products. It showed that consumers also would have hedonic escalation experience when consuming not only hedonic products. Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992) studied twenty four categories of goods(i.e., photo chips, chocolate candy bar, jeans, jewelry store, car, 35 mm camera, etc.) , only photo chips and chocolate bars were preceived a hedonic goods, but twenty two of them were preceived both hedonic and utilitarian aspects. Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992) didn’t studied cosmetic products, but we could resonablely think cosmetic products to some girls may be as necessary as a pair of jeans, or as luxury as jewelry. Furthermore, it’s reasonable to think cosmetic products are not only in hedonic dimension as a package of photo chips and also aesthetic shoes. As a result, this paper extended the hedonic experience form hedonic goods to a certain degree of utilitarian goods successfully.. Second, this paper also extended the theoretical link between expertise effect and hedonic escalation. In the research of Sujan (1985), Vigar-Ellis, Pitt, and Berthon.

(64) 59. (2015), and Gustafson, Lybbert, and Sumner (2016), the results revealed consumers knowkedge have effect on the way of consumer made the decisions. In this paper, we proved that consumers knowledge also have impact on the hedonic degree when consuming goods. It shows that expertise effect influnces consumers’ mind when making the decision.. Third, our findings extended the theoretical linkage between the effect of expertise and hedonic escalation with regulatory focus. Two regulatory focus personalities moderate the expertise effect on hdonic escalation. We found out experts with promotion focus personality and novices with prevention focus personality have higher hedonic degree than others.. Thus, combined with three findings in this paper, future studies may further research different hedonic degree when purchasing other products and also other variables to extend the understanding of consumers’ hedonic escalation experience..

(65) 60. 4.3 Practical contribution In Crolic and Janiszewski (2016) findings, the effect of hedonic escalation and consuming volume is positive relationship. Since we extended the products from tasting potato chips to buying goods, a sight comes to companies which sell these products that how to promote the goods, for example traing salesman the way to know more about consumers’ personalities, and how to make consumers enjoy the buying process when buying more and more in a brand.. On the other hand, although the results of study 2 and study 3 all supported the hypotheses successfully, there is still some difference between consuming costmetic products, buying chips and aesthetic shoes. In the further analysis, for example, much fewer promotion focus personality experts and promotion focus personality novices have hedonic adaptation experience when buying chips than when buying cosmetic products. It reveals that people consuming higher utilitarian degree goods will not easily to have hedonic escalation experience. As a result, future study may research other goods to see the difference degree of hedonic esclation..

(66) 61. 4.4 Limitation and future research The limitation in this paper is that the experiments did not ask the participants buying cosmetic products and tasting chips five times repeatedly for real. Participants only imagine how they feel and then answer the question. It may cause some difference compared to participants buying the products in person.. Furthermore, in manipulate participants’ knowledge part, come participants may have already a cosmetic product expert in real life, but she randomly chose “novice” experiment. It may bring the different feeling compared to a real novice consumer in the reality. We could not control each participants’ knowledge level before doing the test. As a result, future studies may provide an experiment room for the participants to do the test after knowing each participants’ knowledge background to improve this paper and do a more authentic experiment..

(67) 62. References Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing research, 43(1), 1-10. Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. (1992). Expertise. Current directions in psychological science, 1(4), 135-139. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of marketing, 73(3), 52-68. Cabanac, M., & Lafrance, L. (1990). Postingestive alliesthesia: the rat tells the same story. Physiology & behavior, 47(3), 539-543. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 557-565. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal–attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 141-150. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of marketing, 72(3), 48-63. Clarkson, J. J., Janiszewski, C., & Cinelli, M. D. (2012). The desire for consumption knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1313-1329. Collin, C., Benson, N., Ginsburg, J., Grand, V., Lazyan, M., & Weeks, M. (2012). Behaviorism. In The Psychology Book (pp. 58-59). Dorling Kindersley. Crolic, C., & Janiszewski, C. (2016). Hedonic escalation: When food just tastes better and better. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 388-406. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132. Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories. Marketing letters, 3(3), 239-249. Cowley, E. (2005). What do novice consumers remember?. ACR North American Advances. Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The role of.

(68) 63. regulatory focus in the experience and self-control of desire for temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 163-175. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2009). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. In The science of well-being (pp. 103-118). Springer, Dordrecht. Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychological review, 77(5), 419. Guinard, J. X., Uotani, B., & Schlich, P. (2001). Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference, 12(4), 243-255. Gustafson, C. R., Lybbert, T. J., & Sumner, D. A. (2016). Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 65, 85-94. Harris, K. J., Hanks, L., Line, N. D., & McGinley, S. (2017). Understanding responses to posted restaurant food safety scores: An information processing and regulatory. focus. perspective.. International. Journal. of. Hospitality. Management, 60, 67-76. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46. Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of applied psychology, 86(6), 1232. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of marketing, 46(3), 92-101. Itzkin, A., Van Dijk, D., & Azar, O. H. (2016). At Least I Tried: The Relationship between Regulatory Focus and Regret Following Action vs. Inaction. Frontiers in psychology, 7. Jha, S. (2015). Conscious and Non-conscious Decision Making in Consumer Choice: A Conceptual Model. South Asian Journal of Management, 22(3), 122. Joseph, A., & Wesley Hutchinson, J. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of consumer research, 13(4), 411-454. Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what.