1 / 0

Premature Purchase Plans

Premature Purchase Plans. Forming implementation intentions reduces purchase likelihood of novel products. Siegfried Dewitte Research Center Marketing Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Louvain La Neuve November 2009. Overview . Amazing power of implementation intentions

yuri
Download Presentation

Premature Purchase Plans

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. Premature Purchase Plans

    Formingimplementationintentionsreducespurchaselikelihood of novelproducts Siegfried Dewitte Research Center Marketing Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Louvain La Neuve November 2009
  2. Overview Amazing power of implementationintentions Goal noveltymoderates Demonstration of the effect (Studies 1-3) The process (Studies 4-6) Whatnext?
  3. Amazing power of implementationintentions
  4. What? Goal intention ‘I amgoing to buy a bike’ Implementationintention: ifSituation X occurs, I will do Y. ‘nextThursdayafterwork, I willbuy a bike in store A’ Effect sizes .50-1.0 Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). American Psychologist, 54, 493-504 Gollwitzer, P.M. & Sheeran P. (2006). Advances in ExperimentalSocialPsychology, 38, 69-116
  5. How? Perceptionof Xfacilitated X-Yassociationreinforced Flexibledelegationof control to cues Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-504 Webb & Sheeran (2007). How do implementation intention promote goal attainment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295-302
  6. Where? Organizationbehavior Health behavior Educationalpsychology Marketing? Budden, J.S., Sagarin, B.J., (2007). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 391-401. Luszczynska, A.; Scholz, U., & Sutton, S. (2007). Journal of Psychosomatic Research 63 (5): 491-497 Webb, T.L., Christian, J., & Armitage, C.J. (2007). Learning and IndividualDifferences, 17, 316-327
  7. Goal noveltymoderates
  8. Goal system theory Network of goals and means Goal intentions Non-exclusive links Addingmeans Dilution effect Claim: II analogous to addingmeans Fishbach, A., J.Y. Shah, and A. Kruglanski (2004), Journal of ExperimentalSocialPsychology, 40 (6), 723–38. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advancesin experimentalsocialpsychology(Vol. 34, pp. 331–378)
  9. Cost and benefits of II + more efficientorganization Input is catalyzed --Dilution effect Addingmeansreduces triggering power of othermeans Pivotalrole of associativestrength Novelty is reallife proxy Fishbach, A., J.Y. Shah, and A. Kruglanski (2004), Journal of ExperimentalSocialPsychology, 40 (6), 723–38. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advancesin experimentalsocialpsychology(Vol. 34, pp. 331–378)
  10. Consistent evidence Reversedeffect fordifficult “outcome” goals Reversedeffect amongsociallyprescribedperfectionists No II effect whenno goal intention Dewitte, S, Verguts, T. & Lens, W. (2003). CurrentPsychology: Development, Learning, Personality, Social, PlannedBehavior, 22, 73-89. Powers, T.A. Koestner, R & Topciu, RA (2005). Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 31, 902-912 Sheeran, P. Webb, T. L., & Gollwitzer, P. (2005). Personalityand SocialPsychology Bulletin, 31, 87–98.
  11. Present project Formingimplementationintentionshindernovel goal enactment  Studies 1 - 3 Associationstrengthplays a crucialrole Study 4 moderationbyindividualdifference Studies 5-6 experimentalcausalchain design
  12. Demonstration of the effect
  13. Study 1 Do implementationintentionreducepurchaselikelihoodfornovelproducts? PHASE 1 Two (novelty) bytwo (I.I. vs. None) Both withinsubjects factors Four goal intentions per person (n = 75, 299 goals, 203 final) Price Manipulationchecks
  14. Study 1 PHASE 2 Two weeks later By e-mail Goal intentionslisted Fivecategoryscale Purchased as planned Purchasedbut in anotherway Went to the store butdidnotbuy Thought of it, butdidnot act uponit Didnotthink of itanymore
  15. Study 1: a few examples
  16. Study 1: Results (percentage)
  17. Study 1: Results (enactmentrate)
  18. Study 1: withinrepeat plans
  19. Study 1: Results Priceproblem Replicationweak Novelty: artificial?
  20. Study 2 Price and replicationproblem: activitiesratherthanproducts Artificialityproblem: Measurenoveltyratherthanmanipulateit
  21. Study 2: Method Identical to Study 1, except Activitiesratherthanproducts Novelty was measuredratherthanmanipulated D.V. measuredon a 100-point scale 25 students
  22. Study 2: A few examples Revalidationactivities (walking, biking) Paintingmy student room Learninghow to cook Decoratingmy student room Searching a student job shopping Work as a job student foranother week Givingmyfishfresh water Buy stuff formy student room Go to the movies
  23. Study 2: Results
  24. Study 3: Supermarket Likestudy 1, except Onlysupermarketproducts 4 weeks delay Priceproblemsolved
  25. Study 3: Supermarket
  26. Interim summary Formingimplementationintentions hindersnovelpurchase plans and activities How?
  27. What is the process? Study 4: moderationbyprocrastination Study 5 & 6: experimentalcausalchain design
  28. Study 4 Procrastinators vs. Prudents Behavioraldefinition: postponingintentions Procrastinators and prudents: top-downorganization Procrastinators: Dilution effect weaker II relatively more efficient Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (1999). EuropeanJournal of Personality, 14, 121-140. Steel, P. (2007). PsychologicalBulletin, 133, 65-94.
  29. Study 4 Identical to study 2, except Betweensubjects DV: enactment of twonovelgoals (novel versus repeat) Interphase interval 8 weeks Workplace: workingadults (50 in bothphases) Lay’sprocrastinationscale Lay CH. 1986. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.
  30. Study 4: Results (novelgoals)
  31. Study5&6: Process ExperimentalCausalChain design Manipulate A measure B Manipulate B measure C Usefulifmeasuring and manipulating B is undebatable: “A causes C via B” Spencer, SJ, Zanna M, & Fong GT 2005. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 89, 845-851
  32. Study5 parallels Study 1, 30 participants D.V.1 in phase 1 (following a filler of 10’): Free ‘continuous’ associationtaskwith the product as a source stimulus
  33. Study5: Results
  34. Study 6 Likestudy 1, but Associationstrengthmanipulated Associateeither 1 or 4 timeswith the product (between-subjects) For novel goals withimplementationintentiononly
  35. Study 6
  36. Study 5 & 6 II leads to weakerassociationswith goal in novel goals Forgingassociationswith goal increasesenactmentrate Chain: II leads to lowerenactmentrate in novel goals due to weakerassociations Interpretation: premature delegation
  37. Future research Summary Spontaneous planning: do peoplerealize the moderation? Perhaps planning occursonlyif Noveltyis onlyderivative of associationstrength. Otherinterestingside-effects of associationstrength? Whyand how do I.I. help procrastinators?
More Related