1 / 52

Entertainment Expectations

mauve
Download Presentation

Entertainment Expectations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Entertainment Expectations How Affective Forecasting and Regret Cause Consumers to Prefer Familiar Mediocrity Over Superior Novelty Justin Anderson with Deborah J. MacInnis (chair) 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium April 8, 2006

    2. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 2 At the Movies Which of these two movies would you rather see?

    3. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 3 At the Movies Which of these two movies would you rather see if you would feel regret about not enjoying your selection?

    4. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 4 At the Movies Results of pretest (N=32)

    5. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 5 Phenomenon Consumers tend to choose familiar mediocrity over (possibly) superior novelty Movie sequels instead of original movies Famous authors instead of new names Aging rock stars instead of young pop stars

    6. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 6 Phenomenon Consumers tend to choose familiar mediocrity over (possibly) superior novelty Contradicts variety-seeking literature Consumers prefer a variety of experiences (Lattin 1987, McAlister 1982) Especially for hedonic goods (Inman 2001) Even if it means making suboptimal choices (Ratner et al 1999)

    7. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 7 Research Question Why do consumers prefer familiar, mediocre entertainment goods over more novel, possibly superior, alternatives?

    8. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 8 Research Question Why do consumers prefer familiar, mediocre entertainment goods over more novel, possibly superior, alternatives? Explore using Affective Forecasting theory

    9. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 9 Theoretical Development Affective Forecasting Consumers forecast the affective experience that goods will provide (Gilbert et al 1998, Richard et al 1996) Valence: + / -; pleasant/unpleasant Intensity: strength of response Duration: length of response

    10. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 10 Theoretical Development Affective Forecasting Decision Affect Theory: affective forecasts are created through a probabilistic assessment of likelihoods of possible responses (Mellers et al 1997) Possible outcomes weighted by probability

    11. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 11 Theoretical Development Affective Forecasting Anticipated emotions affect choice (Lopez 1984, 1987, 1990) Consumers make choices that minimize regret (Simonson 1992, Zeelenberg et al 1996)

    12. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 12 Theoretical Development H1: Affective Expectations are formed as a multiplicative combination of a consumer’s (a) Affective Forecast and (b) Forecast Confidence H2: The more consumers desire to avoid feeling regret, the more heavily they weigh Forecast Confidence in H1

    13. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 13 Conceptual Model

    14. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 14 Conceptual Model Multiplicative utility model: AE = (AFa)(FCb*RA) LN(AE) = a*LN(AF) + b*RA*LN(FC)

    15. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 15 Empirical Methodology Design Quasi-experimental 2 x 2 x 2 design Regret Avoidance: High vs. Low Affective Forecast: Positive vs. Neutral Forecast Confidence: High vs. Low N = 82 undergrads; random assignment Appropriate sample for movie context

    16. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 16 Empirical Methodology Manipulation: seeing a comedy movie RA: You will feel a lot of regret (not much) if you don’t feel happier after viewing AF: Actor is extremely (somewhat) funny FC: Actor’s movies always (never) make you feel the same way; critics agree (disagree) about the movie

    17. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 17 Results Hypothesis Testing LN(AE) = a*LN(AF) + b*RA*LN(FC) H1a, H1b, H2 are all supported

    18. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 18 Results: H1a,b, H2 supported

    19. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 19 Discussion Consumers create expectations for entertainment goods based on forecasted affect, confidence in that forecast, and desire to avoid feeling regret As RA grows, they weight FC more heavily When consumers are regret-avoiding, they prefer goods they know will be mediocre over better goods that they aren’t sure about

    20. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 20 Implications Theory: affective forecasts are weighted by confidence, which is moderated by regret; must account for these effects in affective forecast research Practice: in addition to making an entertainment good look enjoyable, firms need to increase consumers’ confidence about enjoyment, especially when consumers want to avoid regret

    21. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 21 Limitations Laboratory study with “forced” manipulations of AF, FC, RA Repeat in realistic context w/o manipulation No actual description of the movie Stuck in movies, like other Mktg. Studies Need to broaden to other Ent. categories

    22. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 22 Future Directions Study 2: Examine antecedents to AF, FC How do consumers forecast affect? How do they evaluate confidence? How can firms influence these factors?

    23. Entertainment Expectations How Affective Forecasting and Regret Cause Consumers to Prefer Familiar Mediocrity Over Superior Novelty Questions/Comments?

    24. Appendix

    25. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 25 Empirical Methodology Measures Affective Expectation (disagree - agree) I expect that watching this movie will make me very happy Watching this movie probably won’t improve my mood at all (reverse-scored) There is a very good chance that watching this movie will make me laugh It is very likely that watching this movie will make me feel better

    26. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 26 Empirical Methodology Measures Regret Avoidance (disagree – agree) I want to avoid a feeling of regret about watching this movie I am willing to accept the possibility that this movie will not make me feel better (reverse) It is very important for my mood that this movie makes me feel happier I want to make sure that I don’t feel disappointed about watching this movie

    27. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 27 Empirical Methodology Measures Affective Forecast (neutral - very) Neutral ? Very Happy Neutral ? Very Good Neutral ? Very Positive AF as valence and intensity, not duration

    28. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 28 Empirical Methodology Measures Forecast Confidence (disagree - agree) I am very confident about how this movie will make me feel I am very uncertain about how this movie will affect my mood I can accurately predict how this movie will affect my emotions

    29. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 29 Results DV: Affective Expectation

    30. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 30 References Gilbert, Daniel et al (1998) “Immune Neglect: A Source of Durability Bias in Affective Forecasting,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 617-638 Inman, Jeffrey J. (2001) “The Role of Sensory-Specific Satiety in Attribute-Level Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 105-120 Lattin, James M. (1987) “A Model of Balanced Choice Behavior,” Marketing Science, 6 (10) (Winter), 48-65 Lopes, L L. (1984) “Risk and Distributional Inequality,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10 (4), 465-485 Lopes, L. L. (1987) “Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology Risk,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 255-95 Lopes, Lola L. (1990) “Re-modeling Risk Aversion: A Comparison of Bernoullian and Rank Dependent Value Approaches,” In: von Furstenberg (Ed.) Acting Under Uncertainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions. Boston: Klewer. 267-99

    31. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 31 References McAlister, Leigh (1982) “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 141-150 Mellers, B. A. and P. A. McGraw (2001) “Anticipated Emotions as Guides to Choice,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 (6), 210-214 Ratner, Rebecca K., Barbara E. Kahn, and Daniel Kahneman (1999) “Choosing Less-Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 1-15 Richard, Rene, Joop van der Pligt, and Nanne de Vries (1996) “Anticipated Affect and Behavioral Choice,” Basic and Applies Social Psychology, 18 (2), 111-129 Simonson, Itamar (1992) “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 105-118 Zeelenberg, M., J. Beattie, J. van der Plight and N. K. de Vries (1996) “Consequences of Regret Aversion: Effects of Expected Feedback on Risky Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (2), 148-158

    32. Entertainment Extensions How Brand Extensions Cause Consumers to Prefer Familiar Mediocrity Over Superior Novelty Justin Anderson with Deborah J. MacInnis (chair) 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium April 8, 2006

    33. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 33 Phenomenon Consumers tend to choose familiar mediocrity over (possibly) superior novelty Movie sequels instead of original movies Famous authors instead of new names Aging rock stars instead of young pop stars

    34. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 34 Research Question Why do consumers prefer these familiar entertainment brand extensions over more novel alternatives?

    35. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 35 Research Question Why do consumers prefer these familiar entertainment brand extensions over more novel alternatives? Explore using Brand Extension theory

    36. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 36 Theoretical Development Consumers transfer affect associations from parent brands to brand extensions (Boush et al 1987) Greater similarity facilitates greater transfer (Aaker & Keller 1990)

    37. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 37 Theoretical Development In entertainment, the “extension” might be: A movie sequel or book series (e.g., Indiana Jones 4) A movie starring a famous actor or book by a famous author (e.g., Harrison Ford) A movie or book that evokes a previous experience (e.g., Tomb Raider ? Indiana Jones) The “parent brand” is the referent

    38. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 38 Conceptual Model

    39. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 39 Empirical Methodology Design Experimental 2 x 2 design Referent Affective Experience: Positive vs. Neutral Referent-Focus Similarity: High vs. Low N = 84 undergrads; random assignment

    40. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 40 Empirical Methodology Manipulation: reading a book for pleasure RAE: you’ve enjoyed the author’s previous books very much (somewhat) SIM: this book is very similar to (very different from) the author’s previous books

    41. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 41 Results – Manipulation Checks Referent Affective Experience - OK Referent-Focus Similarity - OK

    42. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 42 Results – Hypothesis Tests Hypothesis Tests (DV: AF); H3a, H3b OK

    43. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 43 Results – Hypothesis Tests Hypothesis Tests (DV: AF); H3a, H3b OK

    44. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 44 Results Hypothesis Tests (DV: FC); H4 OK

    45. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 45 Results: H3a,b, H4 supported

    46. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 46 Discussion Consumers create affective forecasts by transferring affect from similar referent experiences Consumers become more confident in their affective forecasts when the focal good is more similar to the referent experience

    47. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 47 Implications Theory: Consumers draw upon referent experiences to develop affective forecasts of new goods These referent experiences need not be “parent brands” in a traditional sense, but any referent that is perceived to be similar to the foal good Consumers prefer mediocre brand extensions over possibly superior new brands Broadens entertainment research beyond movies Practice: firms can improve AF by evoking enjoyable referent experiences E.g., “From the producers of …”

    48. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 48 Limitations Laboratory study with “forced” manipulations of RAE, SIM Repeat in realistic context w/o manipulation No actual description of the book

    49. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 49 Future Directions Without prompting, how do consumers evoke referent experiences? Reverse exemplar processing? How do consumers judge similarity between referents and focal goods? Difference between means, or typicality of a distribution of referents?

    50. Entertainment Extensions How Brand Extensions Cause Consumers to Prefer Familiar Mediocrity Over Superior Novelty Questions/Comments?

    51. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 51 References Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990) “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, v54 (January), 27-41 Boush, David, Shannon Shipp, Barbara Loken, Esra Gencturk, Susan Crockett, Ellen Kennedy, Bettie Minshall, Dennis Misurell, Linda Rochford, and Jon Strobel (1987) “Affect Generalizations to Similar and Dissimilar Brand Extensions,” Psychology and Marketing, v4 n3, 225-237

    52. Justin Anderson 2006 Houston Doctoral Symposium 52 Conceptual Model

More Related