Bachelor Thesis Marketing Distraction and Consumer Decision Making. Name: Daan Meijsen ANR: Year: Supervisor: Dr. D.P.K.

Transcription

1 Bachelor Thesis Marketing Distraction and Consumer Decision Making Name: Daan Meijsen ANR: Year: Supervisor: Dr. D.P.K. Lerouge 1

2 Abstract In 2004, Shiv and Nowlis released a study in which they conducted a short survey with managers which were experts in food sampling. These managers all had the option to either distract shoppers, or to have them pay attention to the product when being sampled. 92% of these managers chose the latter option. Nevertheless does their research show that when linking the survey to other concepts on pain (Ahles, Blanchard, & Leventhal, 1983) they found that preference for the tasted food sample is likely to be stronger when the customer is distracted (p. 600). Their research conflicted with the ideas of the marketing experts. So why did these experts chose to have customers pay attention to the sampled product? Is it their experience or their intuition, and is this right? One of the reasons could be that most research might be using the wrong kind of distraction (memorizing of a number, solving mathematical problems) as a starting point, whereas marketers would use other sorts of distraction. Do other types of distraction have very different effects on consumer decision making? This thesis will be about whether different kinds of distraction affect consumer decision making differently, especially towards the hedonic attributes of a product. 2

3 Contents Abstract... 2 Chapter one: Introduction Problem background Problem definition Problem statement Research questions Relevance Managerial relevance Academic relevance... 6 Chapter two: Conceptual model Conceptual model Definition of constructs Tendency towards hedonic attributes Unpleasant distraction Pleasant distraction... 9 Chapter three: The effect of cognitive load as a distracter Decreased impact of utilitarian component System capacity Lower-order-Affect Summary Chapter four: The effect of pleasant distracters Positive Affect Involvement Cognitive stimulation Summary Chapter five: Conclusions Discussion Future Research References

4 Chapter one: Introduction 1.1 Problem background Consumer choices are driven by utilitarian and hedonic considerations (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000, p.60). When consumers have to make these choices, they have to weigh all the attributes of a product. The hedonic attributes are composed of subjective emotional reactions, and the utilitarian of objective features related to attributes (Shiv and Nowlis, 2004). Most research on this topic uses the example of the binary choice of choosing chocolate cake over a fruit salad. Chocolate cake is hedonic in nature; it is associated with more intense positive affect (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999, p. 281). Nevertheless are there some less favorable cognitions (it makes you fat) to overcome. On the contrary a fruit salad - primarily a utilitarian good is very good for your health, but the emotional reactions arising from eating it are considered lower than chocolate cake. Consuming hedonic goods raises an issue like guilt (chocolate makes you fat), and the need to justify the consumption (Okada, 2005). Okada states that when both products are presented people tend to choose the hedonic alternative. Nevertheless Keller and McGill (1994) state that the weight of an attribute is determined not only by assessed importance but also by other influences. Several studies on distraction (Shiv and Nowlis, 2004, 2005; Shiv and Fedorikhin, 2002) have determined that this might be one of the influences on the tendency towards the hedonic alternative. Also, Böhm and Pfister (1996) argue that people generate a mental representation of all the available options that can be conceived of as an evaluative space (p. 137). The change in focus of attention will cause a distortion in this evaluative space. They concluded that this distortion will lead to a change in the preferences between the different attributes. The studies of Shiv and colleagues use cognitive load as distraction. Participants in their experiments had to memorize a number during the choice between chocolate cake and fruit salad. Though memorizing a number seems like a good distraction for consumers during the task, you can ask yourself whether this distraction fits the moment. When people are being sampled, they usually are distracted by very different factors. These factors can include talking to others, listening to music or watching a video clip. It can be argued that the 4

5 factors which normally apply in food sampling conditions are pleasurable distractions. The distraction of music, video clips or scent could have a very different effect on the consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian attributes. My thesis will be about to what extent a pleasant distraction differs from an unpleasant distraction (like cognitive load) with respect to hedonic attributes. Through this research I will try to find out if the food sampling experts from Shiv and Nowlis have a point in trying to get consumers focused on the taste of a product instead of being distracted Problem definition The problem background describes that different kinds of distraction might have very different effects on the tendency towards hedonic attributes. An unpleasant distracter might have a different effect than a pleasant distracter on the tendency towards hedonic attributes. 1.2 Problem statement To what extent differs the affect of pleasant distracters and unpleasant distracters in the tendency towards hedonic attributes? Research questions Do hedonic attributes weigh more than utilitarian attributes in product decision making? In what way does unpleasant distraction influence the tendency towards hedonic attributes? In what way does pleasant distraction influence the tendency towards hedonic attributes? 1.3 Relevance Managerial relevance In 2004, Shiv and Nowlis conducted a short survey among managers which were experts in food sampling. These managers all had the option to either distract shoppers, or to have them pay attention to the product when being sampled. 92% of these managers chose the latter option. The study however found that distraction leads to an increased impact of the affective component (p.606). Also, Shiv and Fedorikhin (2002) state that any factor which increases cognitive load in the shopping environment is likely to increase buying based on affect rather than cognitions. 5

6 These managers chose exactly the opposite of what the research found. This indicates a very interesting contradiction. This would implicate that managers who want to sample their products should have their customers distracted during the sampling instead of having them pay attention to the product. If it is true that pleasant distraction will have the same effect as unpleasant distraction (that it is better to distract customers during a sampling moment) this would contradict the intuition of the marketing experts and will provide a different point of view for marketers Academic relevance To fully understand the pattern of choice, it is important that any explanation of consumer behavior is accompanied by a complete understanding of the interplay between a consumer s functional goals and experiential preferences within the decision context (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2004, p.2). A lot of research has been done about cognitive load as a distracter in this decision context. In most of the literature, subjects have to memorize an eight-digit number (Shiv and Nowlis 2004, 2005; Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999, 2002). But little research has been done about other sorts of distraction and its influence on the tendency towards hedonic attributes (or this is very scattered). The goal of this thesis is to take different kinds of distraction into account to get a full view on how these distracters affect the tendency towards hedonic attributes. 6

7 Chapter two: Conceptual model 2.1 Conceptual model 2.2 Definition of constructs Based on my problem statement and research questions I have come up with conceptual model above, describing five variables which will be explained in this chapter. The dependent variable is the tendency towards the hedonic attributes of a product. The independent variable is distraction consisting of three possibilities: no distraction, unpleasant distraction, or pleasant distraction Tendency towards hedonic attributes To get a full view of how distraction affects the tendency towards hedonic attributes I will first discuss what hedonic attributes are and what moves a customer to choose for hedonic products over utilitarian products. Hedonic attributes are often looked at as attributes which are fun, pleasurable, and exciting. Utilitarian attributes are more functional and instrumental (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Both of these types contribute, in different degrees, to the overall goodness of a consumer good or behavior (Batra and Ahtola, 1990, p.161). Typically, hedonic goods provide immediate benefits without explicit negative delayed consequences. Utilitarian goods typically provide their benefits post-consumption, without particular negative consequences during consumption (Khan, Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2004, p.19). Okada (2005) defines the issue as the choice between wants (hedonic) and shoulds (utilitarian). The wants are more appealing to a consumer, both affectively as experientially. In other words, hedonic attributes make you feel good. 7

8 The choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods is a widely investigated area in consumer decision making. These choices represent an important domain of consumer decision making (Khan et al., 2004, p.1). The research on consumers picking the hedonic alternative over the utilitarian has come up with several theories which I will try to explain. By nature people have a tendency to enjoy themselves (Okada, 2005), so this should mean that people are inclined to choose for the chocolate cake. People are more excited about the prospect of fun than the prospect of practicality (p. 52). Especially when the utilitarian alternative is not necessary, and the attractiveness of the hedonic is much bigger. Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) state that the choice of the hedonic alternative is based more on feelings while the utilitarian option is based on calculation. Also, Khan et al. (2004) suggest that the choice of affect-poor goods is likely to be based on analytical rules and assessments (p.5). These calculations have been described as the issue of guilt (Okada, 2005). Both sorts of attributes offer benefits to the consumer but the justification of these benefits is a lot harder with hedonic goods. People tend to feel guilty choosing the hedonic good over the alternative (eating chocolate cake makes you fat). Okada argues the preferences differ when the decision context is different (in an immediate decision environment). She concludes that people tend to choose the utilitarian option over the hedonic one when both are presented together, because when choosing one alternative means rejecting the other and this would increase guilt of the hedonic alternative. Also Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) found that it is the context in which some attributes weigh more than others. However, they state that when there is a forfeiture choice (you have to dismiss one alternative), the tendency to keep the hedonic good is much bigger than when there is an acquisition choice (you can receive one alternative). These contradicting views might implicate that there are other factors which influence this choice. Böhm and Pfister (1996) argue that people generate a mental representation of all the available options that can be conceived of as an evaluative space (p. 137). The change in focus of attention will cause a distortion in this evaluative space. They concluded that this distortion will lead to a change in the preferences between the different attributes. 8

9 2.2.3 Unpleasant distraction As discussed in the problem background, most of the research on distraction has been done by memorizing a number. For instance, Shiv and Nowlis have done research in this area (2004, 2005), always taking a control group which has to memorize a two-digit number (low cognitive load), and the test group which has to memorize an eight-digit number (high cognitive load). Most research on distraction uses a cognitive load as a distracter, and it can be argued that this type of distraction can be regarded as unpleasant. That is why I will use this type of distraction as an example in my thesis. Miller (1956) found that the processing capacity of the short-term memory was around seven bits of information. More than seven chunks would result in too much information for the short-term memory, resulting in an information overload. Garbarino and Edell (1997) find that subjects with less cognitive load tend to take more time to make the decision. This could mean that the subjects would choose the fruit salad instead of the chocolate cake. A lot of research agrees on the fact that cognitive load influences the tendency towards hedonic aspects (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 2002; Hahn, Lawson and Lee, 1992). Hahn et al. (1992) suggest that information overload depends mostly on the time a consumer has to make his decision. The less time a consumer has the less quality his decision will be of. But because my thesis will be about quick decision making (e.g. product sampling) I will not take this factor into account Pleasant distraction When sampling an item, consumers may be distracted while talking to others, looking at other types of information, thinking about other tasks that need to be done, or through many other means (Shiv and Nowlis, 2004, p.606). Not only information load can count as a distracter. Several studies have been done on the impact of different pleasant distractions on the tendency towards hedonic attributes. Affect can have a significant impact on both judgment and choice (Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003, p. 619). For instance, Chebat J-C., Chebat C.G., and Vaillant (1999) describe in their paper that music stimulates cognition. They share the same view as Borling (1981), who found out that music can help the ability to focus the attention of the customer onto a product. This would implicate that music has an effect on product decision making. Also, Zhu and Meyers-Levy (2005), describe that music can help to emerge a greater hedonic value. Whether this has an 9

10 effect on the decision between hedonic and utilitarian goods will be investigated in this thesis. Not only music can be considered distracting: What is proven for music may likely prove to be also shown for colors and odors (Chebat et al., 1999, p.122). Also a moving animation attracts user attention because it encompasses motion (Lai, Kuan, Hui, and Liu, 2008, p.4). In the next chapters, I will assess both the pleasant as the unpleasant distracters and describe how they influence the tendency towards hedonic attributes. 10

11 Chapter three: The effect of cognitive load as a distracter There are some different points of view about how cognitive load affects the tendency towards the hedonic attributes. I will try to assess these different points of view to form a conclusion about how exactly cognitive load works as a distracter which later can be compared with the effects of pleasant distracters Decreased impact of utilitarian component In their paper of 2004, Shiv and Nowlis argue about the extremity of the different product attributes. First of all they consider hedonic attributes of more extremity than the utilitarian alternative. In a normal situation, both the (extreme) hedonic as the (less extreme) utilitarian attributes serve as inputs while choosing between the chocolate cake and the fruit salad. When consumers are distracted (by memorizing an eight-digit number), they found that the hedonic attributes serve as the predominant input. In other words, the utilitarian attributes become less important. This would mean that the consumers would prefer chocolate over the fruit salad. When there is no distraction, both attributes serve as inputs. These inputs, in combination, are likely to be less extreme than the affective component that is likely to predominate when the level of distraction is high (p.601). Shiv and Nowlis (2005) have put this theory into a model (p. 159). The informational component (utilitarian attributes) is negatively influenced by distraction, whereas the affective component (hedonic attributes) is positively influenced by distraction. Both serve as inputs to pleasure resulting in the choice of the hedonic alternative when distracted. 11

12 3.1.2 System capacity Research on information load (Malhotra, 1982) suggests that consumers have finite limits to absorb and process information during any given unit of time (p.419). When there is too much information, overload occurs which results in poor decision making. Research from Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) suggest when information load increases, the information processing increases as well. Only when overload occurs (exceeding capacity) the information processing decreases. Hahn et al. (1992) also found that our system is normally not in a state of overload because we tend to allocate the scarce additional resources among various stimuli. A state of overload exists only when the attentional system is no longer able to allocate its resources (p.366). The relationship between information processing and information load can be described as a U curve (as shown in Hwang and Lin, 1999, p. 214) When consumers are faced with information overload they tend to simplify their strategies or heuristics (Malhotra, 1982). This means that consumers do not compare the alternatives and all the attributes adequately. As Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) found that the choice of the utilitarian alternative is based on calculation. One can argue that because of this, when information overload occurs, people will tend to choose for the hedonic alternative Lower-order-Affect There are two routes through which affect can influence decision making (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 2002): a lower order route, and a higher order route. The lower order route influences choice through automatic affective processes, the higher order through more controlled processes (focus on adverse consequences). The availability of processing resources influences whether a decision is made through higher or lower order affect. Any factor which constrains processing resources is likely to prevent the onset of higher order processes, resulting in choices that are influenced by lower order processes (p.346). They state that when cognitive load is high, the availability of the processing resources is low. This would mean that choices are driven by the lower-order. Because lower order focuses more on appetitive goals instead of aversive goals, this would result in the choice of the chocolate cake. 12

13 3.2 Summary All in all I have described three ways in which cognitive load could possibly influence the tendency towards hedonic attributes. The balance between the extremity of the attributes, the lower-order affect, and the information overload. The first theory describes that distraction decreases the impact of the utilitarian component resulting in a tendency to pick the chocolate cake. The latter two describe how too much information can cause an overload and how the availability of resources results in more affective processes. Also these theories conclude that when people are distracted they choose for the hedonic alternative. Though the conclusions of these theories with respect to the tendency towards hedonic attributes are all the same, all conducted different reasons why the distracted participants chose the chocolate cake. What all research agrees on is that cognitive load reduces the impact of the utilitarian attributes. 13

14 Chapter four: The effect of pleasant distracters There are several pleasant distracters which affect the tendency towards hedonic attributes. Lai et al. (2008) for instance that a moving animation attracts user attention because it encompasses motion (p. 4). Also, according to Chebat et al. (2001) music has the ability to attract attention onto itself. They also state that their findings are likely to be also shown for odors, colors, and lighting. All of these pleasant distracters can arouse customers (Lai et al.). To see whether these distracters have a different affect than the unpleasant distracters I will try to find conflicting theories in the literature Positive Affect Music heightens stimulation and thus positive hedonic value (Zhu and Meyers-Levy, 2005, p.334). According to this theory, consumers get a positive, hedonic feeling from music. These feelings are expected to positively influence the hedonic shopping value (Babin and Attaway, 2000). These feelings are feelings of arousal. A pleasant distracter arouses consumers (Lai et al. 2008; Chebat and Michon, 2003). In an aroused state the perception of the hedonic attributes is also raised. This will result in a hedonic product (chocolate cake) being perceived as even more hedonic. However, there has been some debate in the literature about the way in which a pleasant distracter influences the tendency towards a hedonic product. Arousal does not only raise perceptions of the hedonic attributes, but also the utilitarian attributes (Isen, 1987). Car shoppers showed more efficiency when induced with positive affect. Also Chebat et al. (2001) conclude that the contribution of positive affect is similar for both hedonic as utilitarian attributes. Especially Lai et al. have done research in this area. They have come up with a number of hypotheses which were tested in an experiment in which consumer had to choose between a robotic dog (hedonic) and a calculator (utilitarian). They found that a moving animation enhances both the hedonic as the utilitarian value of a product. Also, they found that the effect on a product s hedonic value is weaker for a product that is high on the hedonic dimension than a product on the utilitarian dimension (p.11). This means that the resulting impact of pleasant distraction is not so significant if the hedonic perception is already high. They refuted the hypothesis that utilitarian perception is higher when there is no distraction at all. They argue that this is because of involvement, which I will discuss in 14

15 the next section. In the situation of the chocolate cake and the fruit salad, these findings would mean that a pleasant distracter would influence both alternatives positively. But because the chocolate cake is already high in hedonic value, the distraction would have less impact Involvement According to Laurent and Kapferer (1985) pleasure can lead to involvement. Since Sundar and Kalyanaraman (2004) state that a moving animation can help to make an environment more pleasurable, a video clip can make a customer more involved in the decision making process. Lai et al. (2008) found that when highly involved subjects in an experiment attended to more information they may be able to process more functionality and features of the displayed products (p.21-22). This would lead to a higher perceived value of the utilitarian attributes. Celsi and Olson (1988) conducted an experiment in which they had different groups looking at ads from tennis magazines. One group got the information that they could receive a bonus if they did their task well (completing several rating schemes). They found that the high involvement of this group lead to a better comprehension of the task given because of the exertion of greater cognitive effort. Though this seems like cognitive stimulation (see below), Celsi and Olson make a clear distinction. Involvement is the motivation to process, not the ability to process. The ability to process more functionality together with the better comprehension of all given features during the task might result in consumer preferring the utilitarian alternative over the hedonic. The functional aspects of the fruit salad will be more favorable than the affect-laden attributes of the chocolate cake Cognitive stimulation Utilitarian, goal-oriented consumption is mostly cognitively driven (Lai et al., p.12). Just as Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004), and Khan et al. (2004) they found that when choosing a product with more utilitarian attributes choices are made by calculation, analytical rules and assessments of all functional attributes. Chocolate cake is bad for you, fruit salad is good for you. According to Borling (1981), pleasant distracters do not only arouse customers, but can also help to concentrate on the decision task. Soothing music would increase the alpha 15

16 brain waves which would stimulate cognition. Also scent has this ability (Chebat and Michon, 2003). That soothing music can stimulate cognition has also been investigated by Thompson, Schellenberg, and Husain (2001); and Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky (1995). This research is about the so-called Mozart effect. By experimenting with having people listen to Mozart would temporarily increase their IQ, resulting in more abstract reasoning ability (Chabris, 1999). Reasons for this effect would be that enjoyable stimuli induce positive affect and heightened levels of arousal (Thompson et al., 2001, p.251), which would lead to increased cognitive performance. It is assumed that this Mozart effect can also be applied to other pleasant distracters, because these also induce positive affect. Taking these assumptions into account, when faced with the choice between the fruit salad and the chocolate cake, pleasant distracters might reduce the impact of the hedonic attributes. The heightened level of arousal stimulates cognition, resulting in a more calculated, analytic choice. The guilt associated with the hedonic alternative will be harder to justify (Okada, 2005). This could move consumers to choose for the fruit salad which has long term benefits (practical functionality) instead of choosing for the guilty pleasures of the chocolate cake. 4.2 Summary In this chapter I have determined the effects of pleasant distracters on the tendency towards hedonic attributes. These effects are the impact of positive affect, involvement, and cognitive stimulation. Pleasant distracters arouse customers and this heightens the hedonic value of a product. This leads to hedonic products being perceived as more hedonic. Nevertheless does research show that also the utilitarian attributes are raised by arousal. The effect is even bigger on a product low on hedonic value than a product high on hedonic value. Involvement has been shown to have a positive impact on the task comprehension. Also customers are able to process more functionality of the alternatives. Hereby reducing the impact of the hedonic attributes. Also, pleasant distracters increase cognitive performance. This is shown by research on the Mozart effect and alpha brain waves, which concluded that music has positive affect on the abstract reasoning ability. This makes is harder for customers to justify the choice of the hedonic alternative. 16

17 Chapter five: Conclusions Based on my literature study I have found several factors through which distraction can have an effect on the tendency towards hedonic attributes. I have tried to show the difference in which pleasant distraction and unpleasant distraction affect the choice between the hedonic chocolate cake and the utilitarian fruit salad. In the following chapter I will assess all different factors and discuss them. 5.1 Discussion The choice for hedonic products is based on feelings, whereas the choice for utilitarian products is based on calculation. Both offer the consumer benefits, whether these are short- or long term. The context in which the products are presented determines the preferences of the consumer. Cognition seems to be playing a large role in this choice. People have limited capacity to store information. Normally we are able to process all information, but when a lot of information is added there is a state of overload. This overload makes it impossible for consumers to fully process all functionality of the products, resulting in the choice of the chocolate cake. Furthermore does information load prevent the onset of higher order processes and decisions are then made by lower order processes. These higher order processes focus on adverse consequences, the lower order use automatic affective processes. This also results in choosing the hedonic alternative. However, other research argues that pleasant distracters improve and stimulate cognition. Music and scent can help to concentrate on the decision task. This concentration makes it harder for the consumer to justify their guilt towards the hedonic alternative. Pleasant distracters do not only enhance the ability to process, but also the motivation to process. Involvement in the task leads to better comprehension of all attributes and the ability to process more functionality. This would mean that consumers would be less inclined to pick the hedonic alternative. So where unpleasant distracters reduce the cognitive capacity and information processing, pleasant distracters increase it and help consumers to better comprehend the choice. 17

18 Utilitarian attributes might become less important when there is high informational load. In a normal situation both the hedonic as the utilitarian attributes serve as inputs. In a state of information overload the hedonic attributes serve as the predominant input. In other words: the hedonic attributes become more important, the utilitarian attributes less. Where unpleasant distracters especially focus on cognition, pleasant distracters also create more pleasurable feelings. These feelings lead to arousal. Arousal positively influences hedonic value and thus the tendency towards the chocolate cake, but it is also shown that it increases the utilitarian perception as well. When a product is already high on hedonic value the impact of arousal is much less than when a product is low on hedonic value. So it might raise utilitarian perception even more. 5.2 Future Research My thesis describes a very interesting contradiction. On the one hand unpleasant distracters cause a consumer to pick for the hedonic alternative, whereas pleasant distracters might cause a choice for the utilitarian option. Because little research has been done which takes both kinds of distraction into account, there is a lot to be researched. For instance, I name involvement as a result from pleasant distractions. This involvement leads to a better task comprehension. Whether the mediating role of involvement to the tendency towards hedonic attributes has a big impact on choice has yet to be researched. Also there are conflicting views on the affect of arousal. On the one hand, arousal causes a hedonic product to be perceived as more hedonic. On the other hand does it raise the perception of the utilitarian attributes as well. This interesting paradox leaves a lot of ground for further research. 18

19 References Ahles, T.A., Blanchard, E.B., & Leventhal, H. (1983). Cognitive Control of Pain: Attention to the Sensory Aspects of the Cold Pressor Stimulus. Cognitive therapy and Research. 7, Babin, B.J., & Attaway, J.S. (2000). Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value and Gaining Share of Customer. Journal of Business Research. 49, Batra, R., & Ahtola, O.T. (1991). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters. 2(2), Böhm, G., & Pfister H-R. (1996). Instrumental or emotional evaluations: What determines preferences? Acta Psychologica. 93, Borling J.E. (1981). The effects of sedative music on alpha rhythms and focused attention in high-creative and low-creative subjects. Journal of Music Therapy. 28(2), Chabris, C.F., (1999). Prelude or Requiem for the Mozart Effect? Nature. 400, Chebat, J-C., Chebat, C.G., & Vaillant, D. (2001). Environmental background Music and in-store selling. Journal of Business Research. 54, Chebat, J-C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of competititve causal theories. Journal of Business Research. 56, Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research. 37, Garbarino, E.C., & Edell, J.A. (1997). Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 24, Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research. 50, Hahn, M., Lawson, R., & Lee, YG. (1992). The Effects of Time Pressure and Information Load on Decision Quality. Psychology & Marketing. 9 (5), Hsee, K.C., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 133, Hwang, M.I., & Lin, J.W. (1999). Information dimension, information overload and decision quality. Journal of Information Science. 25(3), Isen, A.M. (1987). Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes and Social Behavior. Inside: Advances in Experimental Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, L. Academic Press, New York, pp Keller, P.A., & McGill, A.L. (1994). Differences in the Relative Influence of Product Attributes Under Alternative Processing Conditions: Attribute Importance Versus Attribute Ease of Imagability. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 3(1), Lai, Y-L., Kuan, K.K.Y., Hui, K-L., & Liu, N. (2008). The Effects of Moving Animation on Recall, Hedonic and Utilitarian Perceptions, and Attitude. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 56(3), Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement Profiles. Journal of Marketing Research. 22,

20 Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J.S. (2003). The Role of Affect in Decision Making. Inside: Handbook of affective sciences, ed. Davidson, R.J., Scherer, K.R., & Goldsmith, H.H. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p ). Malhotra, N.K. (1982). Information Load and Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research. 8(4), Miller, G.A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review. 63, Okada, E.M. (2005). Justification on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research. 42, Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G.L., & Ky, K.N. (1995). Listening to Mozart enhances spatialtemporal reasoning: Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters. 185, Sanbonmatu, D.M., & Kardes, F.R. (1988). The Effects of Physiological Arousal on Information Processing and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research. 15(3), Schroder, H.M., Driver, M.J., & Steufert, S. (1967). Human Information Processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research. 26, Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (2002). Spontaneous versus Controlled Influences of Stimulus-Based Affect on Choice Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 87 (2), Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S.M. (2004). The Effect of Distractions while Tasting a Food Sample: The Interplay of Informational and Affective Components in Subsequent Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 1 (3), Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S.M. (2005). The Influence of Consumer Distractions on the Effectiveness of Food-Sampling Programs. Journal of Marketing Research. 42, Sundar, S.S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, Memory, and Impression-Formation Effects of Animation Speed in Web Advertising. Journal of Advertising. 33(1), Thompson, W.F., Schellenberg, E.G., Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, Mood, and the Mozart Effect. Psychological Science. 12 (3), Wertenbroch, K., Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2004). A Behavioral Decision Theoretic Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice. Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires, ed. Ratneshawar, S., & Mick, D.G. New York: Routledge, Zhu, R.J., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2005) Distinguishing Between the Meanings of Music: When Background Music Affects Product Perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research. 42,