An Explorative Study of How Visceral States Influence the Relationship between Social Proof Heuristics and Donation Behavior When Consumers Are Using Self-Service Kiosks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Visceral States and Donation Behavior
2.2. Social Proof and Donation Behavior
3. Method
3.1. Participants and Procedure
3.2. Design
4. Findings
5. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
Stimuli and Levels | |||
---|---|---|---|
Stimulus Card | Social Proof Heuristic | Price Format | Cause Proximity |
1 | Low level | Included | Close |
2 | Low level | Included | Local |
3 | Not mentioned | Included | Local |
4 | Medium level | Included | Local |
5 | High level | Included | Local |
6 | Low level | Separately | Far |
7 | Low level | Separately | Local |
8 | Not mentioned | Separately | Far |
9 | High level | Separately | Local |
10 | High level | Included | Far |
11 | Medium level | Separately | Close |
12 | Not mentioned | Separately | Local |
13 | Medium level | Included | Far |
14 | High level | Separately | Close |
15 | Medium level | Separately | Local |
16 | Not mentioned | Included | Close |
17 | Not mentioned | Included | Far |
18 | Not mentioned | Separately | Close |
19 | High level | Separately | Far |
20 | Low level | Included | Far |
References
- Inman, J.J.; Nikolova, H. Shopper-facing retail technology: A retailer adoption decision framework incorporating shopper attitudes and privacy concerns. J. Retail. 2017, 93, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.; Fiorito, S.S. Self-service technology in retailing. The case of retail kiosks. Symph. Emerg. Issues Manag. 2010, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Puzder, A. Why restaurant automation is on the menu. The Wall Street Journal, 24 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Whitten, S. McDonald’s to Add Self-Order Kiosks to 1000 Stores Each Quarter. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/world/?region=world (accessed on 4 June 2018).
- Vakulenko, Y.; Hellström, D.; Oghazi, P. Customer value in self-service kiosks: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 46, 507–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demoulin, N.T.; Djelassi, S. An integrated model of self-service technology (SST) usage in a retail context. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2016, 44, 540–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Harris, J.; Patterson, P.G. Customer choice of self-service technology: The roles of situational influences and past experience. J. Serv. Manag. 2012, 23, 54–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meuter, M.L.; Ostrom, A.L.; Bitner, M.J.; Roundtree, R. The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehner, M. Translating sustainability: The role of the retail store. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 386–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, G.-F.; Yang, H.-T. Does consumer empathy influence consumer responses to strategic corporate social responsibility? The dual mediation of moral identity. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. Shopping for tomorrow: Promoting sustainable consumption within food stores. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 935–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Giesen, R.; Leenheer, J. Towards more interactive and sustainable food retailing. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belk, R.W. Situational variables and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1975, 2, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, S.; Robertson, T.S. Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Baghi, I.; Gabrielli, V. Brand prominence in cause-related marketing: Luxury versus non-luxury. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2018, 27, 716–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croson, R.; Handy, F.; Shang, J. Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2009, 19, 467–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, J.; Croson, R. A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econ. J. 2009, 119, 1422–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nook, E.C.; Ong, D.C.; Morelli, S.A.; Mitchell, J.P.; Zaki, J. Prosocial conformity: Prosocial norms generalize across behavior and empathy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 42, 1045–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loewenstein, G. Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loewenstein, G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996, 65, 272–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Otterbring, T. Time orientation mediates the link between hunger and hedonic choices across domains. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, A.J.; Schwarz, N.; Wyer, R.S. Hunger promotes acquisition of nonfood objects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 2688–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huppert, E.; Shaw, A.; Decety, J. The effect of hunger on children’s sharing behavior and fairness preferences. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2020, 192, 104786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briers, B.; Pandelaere, M.; Dewitte, S.; Warlop, L. Hungry for money: The desire for caloric resources increases the desire for financial resources and vice versa. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 939–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harel, I.; Kogut, T. Visceral needs and donation decisions: Do people identify with suffering or with relief? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 56, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185, 1124–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salmon, S.J.; de Vet, E.; Adriaanse, M.A.; Fennis, B.M.; Veltkamp, M.; De Ridder, D. Social proof in the supermarket: Promoting healthy choices under low self-control conditions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004, 55, 591–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, N.J.; Cialdini, R.B.; Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schultz, P.W.; Nolan, J.M.; Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J.; Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 18, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salmon, S.J.; Fennis, B.M.; De Ridder, D.; Adriaanse, M.A.; De Vet, E. Health on impulse: When low self-control promotes healthy food choices. Health Psychol. 2014, 33, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sigurdsson, V.; Larsen, N.M.; Alemu, M.H.; Gallogly, J.K.; Menon, R.G.V.; Fagerstrøm, A. Assisting sustainable food consumption: The effects of quality signals stemming from consumers and stores in online and physical grocery retailing. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 112, 458–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, T.T.L.; Kroese, F.M.; Fennis, B.M.; De Ridder, D. The Hunger Games: Using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts. Appetite 2017, 116, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lindersson, L.; Guntell, L.; Carlsson, R.; Agerström, J. Reassessing the impact of descriptive norms on charitable giving. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2019, 24, e1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bartke, S.; Friedl, A.; Gelhaar, F.; Reh, L. Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving. Econ. Lett. 2017, 152, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agerström, J.; Nicklasson, L.; Guntell, L.; Carlsson, R. Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016, 52, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, S.; Zagefka, H.; González, R.; Álvarez, B.; Valdenegro, D. Don’t forget the group! The importance of social norms and empathy for shaping donation behaviour. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 55, 518–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmetz, J.; Tausen, B.M.; Risen, J.L. Mental simulation of visceral states affects preferences and behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 44, 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keesman, M.; Aarts, H.; Vermeent, S.; Häfner, M.; Papies, E.K. Consumption simulations induce salivation to food cues. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shalev, I. Implicit energy loss: Embodied dryness cues influence vitality and depletion. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Green, P.E.; Srinivasan, V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 1978, 5, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittink, D.R.; Vriens, M.; Burhenne, W. Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1994, 11, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, P.E.; Srinivasan, V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, G.D.; Pracejus, J.W.; Brown, N.R. When profit equals price: Consumer confusion about donation amounts in cause-related marketing. J. Public Policy Mark. 2003, 22, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pracejus, J.W.; Olsen, G.D.; Brown, N.R. On the prevalence and impact of vague quantifiers in the advertising of cause-related marketing (CRM). J. Advert. 2003, 32, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grau, S.L.; Garretson, J.A.; Pirsch, J. Cause-related marketing: An exploratory study of campaign donation structures issues. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2007, 18, 69–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varadarajan, P.R.; Menon, A. Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grau, S.L.; Folse, J.A.G. Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. J. Advert. 2007, 36, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulshreshtha, K.; Bajpai, N.; Tripathi, V.; Sharma, G. Cause-related marketing: An exploration of new avenues through conjoint analysis. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 2017–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, J.K.; Patterson, L.T.; Stutts, M.A. Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1992, 20, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, S.M.; Alcorn, D.S. Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. J. Consum. Mark. 1991, 8, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, A.; Choshen-Hillel, S. It’s not fair: Folk intuitions about disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2017, 12, 208. [Google Scholar]
- Sweeney, P.D. Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory prediction. J. Bus. Psychol. 1990, 4, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casado-Aranda, L.-A.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Ibáñez-Zapata, J. Ángel; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J. How consumer ethnocentrism modulates neural processing of domestic and foreign products: A neuroimaging study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101961. [Google Scholar]
- De Nisco, A.; Mainolfi, G.; Marino, V.; Napolitano, M.R. Effect of economic animosity on consumer ethnocentrism and product-country images. A binational study on the perception of Germany during the Euro crisis. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stimuli | Levels |
---|---|
Social proof heuristic | 1. High level 2. Medium level 3. Low level 4. Not mentioned |
Price format | 1. Donation mentioned separately 2. Donation included as a percentage |
Cause proximity | 1. Local 2. Region: Close 3. Region: Far |
Likelihood to Buy | |||
---|---|---|---|
Stimuli and Levels | Impact Estimate | Standard Error | Importance Values |
Social proof heuristic | 41.33% | ||
1. High level | 0.121 | 0.060 | |
2. Medium level | −0.047 | 0.060 | |
3. Low level | −0.044 | 0.060 | |
4. Not mentioned | −0.029 | 0.060 | |
Price format | 16.55% | ||
1. Donation mentioned separately | −0.067 | 0.035 | |
2. Donation included as a percentage | 0.067 | 0.035 | |
Cause proximity | 42.12% | ||
1. Local | −0.174 | 0.046 | |
2. Region: Close | −0.112 | 0.054 | |
3. Region: Far | 0.286 | 0.054 | |
(Constant) | 3.573 | 0.037 |
Scenarios | Cases | Social Proof Heuristic | Price Format | Cause Proximity | Preference Scores | Maximum Utility 1 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High level | A | High level | Separately | Local | 3.453 | 14.1% | |
B | High level | Included | Far | 4.047 | 16.3% | ||
Medium level | C | Medium level | Separately | Local | 3.285 | 4.5% | |
D | Medium level | Included | Far | 3.878 | 14.8% | ||
Low level | E | Low level | Separately | Local | 3.288 | 7.6% | |
F | Low level | Included | Far | 3.881 | 15.3% | ||
Not mentioned | G | Not mentioned | Separately | Local | 3.303 | 8.1% | |
H | Not mentioned | Included | Far | 3.898 | 19.4% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pawar, S.; Fagerstrøm, A.; Sigurdsson, V. An Explorative Study of How Visceral States Influence the Relationship between Social Proof Heuristics and Donation Behavior When Consumers Are Using Self-Service Kiosks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229477
Pawar S, Fagerstrøm A, Sigurdsson V. An Explorative Study of How Visceral States Influence the Relationship between Social Proof Heuristics and Donation Behavior When Consumers Are Using Self-Service Kiosks. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229477
Chicago/Turabian StylePawar, Sanchit, Asle Fagerstrøm, and Valdimar Sigurdsson. 2020. "An Explorative Study of How Visceral States Influence the Relationship between Social Proof Heuristics and Donation Behavior When Consumers Are Using Self-Service Kiosks" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229477
APA StylePawar, S., Fagerstrøm, A., & Sigurdsson, V. (2020). An Explorative Study of How Visceral States Influence the Relationship between Social Proof Heuristics and Donation Behavior When Consumers Are Using Self-Service Kiosks. Sustainability, 12(22), 9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229477