The Effect of Common Features on Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus

재몰유선택적정황하공동특성대우고객희호적영향(在没有选择的情况下共同特性对于顾客喜好的影响): 조절초점적조절작용(调节焦点的调节作用)

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."

本文研究共同特性对于无选择权的影响, 并涉及到了调节焦点理论. 本文主要着眼于这三个因子以及他们之间的关系. 之前的研究已经广泛涉及到这三个方面. 第一, 共同特性影响已经被广为研究. Tversky (1972) 开创了这个理论, EBA 模型: 通过消除方面. 根据这个理论, 消费者在比较的过程中更易于注意特殊的特性, 而忽略共同特性. 最近, 更多的研究开始针对于此模型对于消费者行为的影响. Chernev (1997) 认为增加共同特性可以减少选择距离. 但是, 随后Chernev (2001) 的研究指出共同特性可能是消费者认知上的负担, 所以他们更喜欢启发式的过程而不是系统式的过程. 这些研究提出了一系列问题: 共同特性是否影响顾客选择? 如果是的话, 这些影响是什么样子的? 第二, 一些研究指出没有选择的状况是消费者最好的选择, 他们在犹豫不决时用这种方法回避选择. 其他关于这一理论的研究是时间的压力, 消费者自信, 以及可供选择的数量. 第三, 调节聚焦理论在目前非常流行. 消费者有两个焦点目标: 促进和制止. 促进聚焦主要和希望, 野心, 成功, 获得等有关; 而制止聚焦和责任, 职责, 安全, 规避等有关. 调节聚焦理论预测了顾客的感情, 创造, 态度, 记忆, 表现, 和判断. 而这些都是市场营销研究的领域这些文献为本文的研究提供了一些理论支持. 特别是增加共同特征而不是忽略他们可以增加选择过程中克制消费者的没有选择状况的比重, 其对于促进消费者的作用确实相反的. 本文通过两个试验进行验证. 第一个是2 X 2 组间的设计(共同特性X调节聚焦), 数码相机作为相关的客体. 特别的是, 调节聚焦变量是从11个问题中取得的. 共同特性包括焦距, 重量, 记忆卡, 电池, 而像素和价格作为独特特性. 结果证明了我们的假设, 那就是增加共同特性增加了克制消费者的无选择比重, 而对促进消费者没有作用. 第二个试验被用来复制第一个实验的结果. 这个实验和之前的基本相同, 只有两个方面不同—主要控制和研究客体. 在促进的前提下, 研究对象必须一些词例如: 利润, 野心, 高兴, 成功, 发展等. 在克制的前提下, 他们必学写下坚持, 安全, 保护, 规避, 损失, 责任等词. 实验证明我们假设是成立的. 本研究说明了共同特性对于顾客选择的二重效果. 增加共同特性可以提高或者降低无选择状况. 本文对于理论研究和实践上都有着贡献. 对于市场营销人员来说, 他们可能需要根据顾客的划分来考虑产品的共同特性. 理论上, 研究结果支持共同特性和无选择状况的调节变量. 最后, 本文也有一些不足, 例如过于强调态度的重要性等. 我们希望本文能够为未来的研究做出抛砖引玉的作用.