An examination of the role of construal level theory in explaining differences in the level of regret experienced by maximisers and satisficers

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "An examination of the role of construal level theory in explaining differences in the level of regret experienced by maximisers and satisficers"

Lauren Harris
5 years ago
Views:

1 An examination of the role of construal level theory in explaining differences in the level of regret experienced by maximisers and satisficers INTRODUCTION A recent research strand in psychology is the resurgence of interest in the maximising (e.g. Schwartz et al., 00; Iyengar et al., 006; Dar-Nimrod et al., 009; Polman, 010). Maximisers are individuals who strive for the best possible option as opposed to satisficers who aim to choose an option which they consider good enough. The concept stems from Simon s original work which focused on the notion of the rational man and economic man where he argued that rational man did not exist but rather that individuals are bounded by rationality (Simon, 1955, 1956). It was, however, not until Schwartz et al. s (00) seminal article that research interest in this area gathered pace as a result of their idea that perhaps some individuals are chronically maximisers. The nascent literature suggests that maximisers are less happy than satisficers (Polman, 010). Maximisers suffer a maximisation paradox (Dar-Nimrod et al., 009) where maximisers are willing to expend more time and effort in choice-making (e.g., driving to an out of town supermarket to gain access to a larger assortment instead of choosing from a smaller assortment available at a nearby shop) yet suffer less satisfaction with the product obtained. Several studies suggest that such dissatisfaction results in an increased tendency to experience regret (e.g., Schwatz et al., 00; Iyengar et al., 006) but very little is known regarding which factors might lessen the impact of maximisation on regret, this knowledge gap forms the basis of our research. This paper will outline pertinent research in the area of maximisation and introduce hypotheticality, based on construal level theory (CLT), which we argue could moderate the relationship between maximisation and regret felt. Findings from an initial study will test the hypothesis proposed. MAXIMISATION AND CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY To date few studies have examined differences between maximisers and satisficers within consumer decision-making. Chowdhury et al. (009) found that maximisers engaged more than satisficers in prepurchase browsing behaviour, and additionally felt more time pressure. These results were moderated by assortment size, with maximisers more likely to change their initial decisions when a large assortment was presented. Carrillat et al. (010) investigated the Sisyphus effect where they found evidence that maximisers do not rely on past decision-making experience when making a choice. Rather, maximisers tend to start afresh each time they make a decision in their search for the best possible option. Carter and Gilovich (010) found that consumers tend to adopt a maximising strategy when selecting material goods but on the other hand satisfice when selecting consumption experiences (such as holidays). Taken together these studies highlight that important differences in consumer behaviour are attributed to the maximisation the consumer exhibits. We extend prior literature by exploring whether or not the relationship between maximisation and important consumer outcome (regret) is influenced by construal level. Regret has been characterized as an undesired emotion when one compares what is against what might have been (Sugden, 1985). Decision regret negatively impacts post-purchase satisfaction with the outcome (e.g., Tsiros and Mittal, 000; Zeelenberg and Pieters, 006). The potential for decision regret is much higher for maximizers as they strive for the best outcome as opposed to satisficers who settle for good enough (Schwartz et al. 00). Further, Schwartz et al. (00) asserted that, unlike satisficers, maximizers tend to second guess their own decisions leading to heightened anticipation of regret even before the decision has been taken. CLT (Trope and Liberman, 003) is a recent framework which postulates the link between abstraction and distance. It concerns how people form mental representations of near and

2 distant events. Low level construals represent near events and typically focus on how (e.g., how to bake a cake) while high level construals represent events which are further away (distant) and typically focus on why (e.g., why bake a cake). The moving from a low to a high level construal decontextualises the activity and brings in additional meanings beyond the event itself. Consider baking a cake, in the low level construal one is considering what recipe to use, what ingredients are needed and how long it takes. While in the higher level construal one considers the purpose of baking the cake giving rise to thoughts about the joy of eating the cake. Thus additional meanings to the event are evident. Trope and Liberman (010) discuss four different psychological distances, namely, temporal (e.g., now versus future), social (e.g., you versus others), spatial (e.g., near versus far) and hypotheticality (e.g., high chance versus low chance) distances that determine the level of construal. In the consumer behaviour literature, Trope et al. (007) discussed the potential of using CLT as psychological distance to enhance our understanding of consumer behaviour. We therefore use this theory to explore the role of hypotheticality. High level construal is associated with more abstract representations of the target event that arises from perceiving the event as distant (i.e. low probability of occurrence in our study). Events that are perceived as more distant are less likely to provoke feeling of regret, even for maximisers. For example, purchasing a summer holiday six months in advance would bring forth anticipated feelings of pleasure to be had but as the summer draws nearer, one may start to regret regarding better deals now on offer or other opportunities foregone. Thus, given a more certain outcome (i.e., psychologically perceived as near and more concrete) maximisers would be more likely to experience regret. Specifically, we expect an interaction effect between CLT and maximisation on regret where maximisers are more likely to experience regret when the probability of the event is high (i.e., when the event is considered nearer and more concrete). METHOD We investigate these effects by conducting an experiment with consumers at a national UK food fair which attracted over 0,000 visitors in September 010. Potential respondents were approached by one of three trained interviewers who handed out copies of the questionnaire during the event. Incentives were given (free snack) in order to facilitate acceptance of the offer to participate. Overall data were collected from 139 consumers (M age = 39; 63% female) who were randomly assigned into one of two (low: n = 71; high: n = 68) hypotheticality conditions via a hypothetical scenario presented in the questionnaire. The scenario asked respondents to consider a new magazine subscription that presented them with the option of winning one of two options as a result of taking up the subscription. Option A was winning a set of 6 towels while option B was winning a case of 6 bottles of wine. Respondents were told that the options were of equivalent monetary value. Further in the low hypotheticality condition respondents were informed that they had a 5% chance of willing their chosen option while those in the high hypotheticality condition were told that there was a 95% chance of winning their chosen option. As a manipulation check respondents were asked whether they thought that the probability of winning the free gift was very low (= 0) to very high (= 6). An independent samples t-test revealed that the manipulation of hypotheticality was successful (M Low = 1.15 vs. M High = 4.85; t = , p <.001). Respondents indicated their preferred option after reading the scenario and completed the full 13-item maximisation scale (Schwartz et al., 00; α = 0.7; range 0-6, higher values indicate greater tendency to be a maximiser). Other measures were included in the questionnaire to ensure that respondents did not identify the true nature of the research. Towards the end of the questionnaire, respondents in both conditions also reported on their regret regarding their choice of option using a single item ( You regret your choice with

3 endpoints strongly agree (6) and strongly disagree (0)). The experiment was analysed as a (Hypotheticality: Low/High) measured maximisation between design. RESULTS mmaximising tendency was found to significantly influence regret (F(1, 105) = 6.36, p <.05, η p =.06). Overall, maximisers were more likely to experience regret (M Max = 1.0 vs. M Sat = 0.50, t = -.17, p <.05). Choice was not a significant factor in influencing regret (F(1, 105) =.95, p =.09). CLT did not have a main effect on regret (F(1, 105) =.63, p =.11). The interaction between CLT and maximisation was significant (F(1, 105) = 5.37, p <.05, η p =.0). Figure 1 provides the interaction plots for each group. Follow-up tests revealed that satisficers and maximisers both experienced little regret when hypotheticality was low, however when hypotheticality was high, maximisers experienced significantly more regret than satisficers (M Max = 1.7 vs. M Sat = 0.5, t = -3.08, p <.001). The interaction between maximisation and choice was also significant (F(1, 105) = 4.9, p <.05, η p =.04) with maximisers more likely to experience regret compared to satisficers if they chose the towel set (M Max = 1.35 vs. M Sat = 0.00, t = -3.9, p <.01), but no differences regarding the wine (M Max = 0.63 vs. M Sat = 0.9, t = -1.51, p = 0.14). Finally the interaction between CLT and choice was not significant (F(1, 105) = 0.13, p = 0.7). Figure 1. Interaction plot CLT and Maximising 1.5 Regret purchase Low probability High probability Satisficers Maximisers CONCLUSION Our study confirms that maximisers, when compared to satisficers, do experience higher levels of regret. Importantly, the results also confirmed our proposition that level of construal alters the relationship between maximisation and regret. When consumers believe that the likelihood of an outcome (winning the free gift) is high (95% chance), maximisers reported significantly higher levels of anticipated regret regarding their choice. This difference between maximisers and satisficers is not observed when hypotheticality is low (5% chance of winning). These results show that when events are more concrete (i.e., high hypotheticality) maximisers will experience more regret when compared to satisficers, but this effect does not occur when events are abstract. Marketers should lead maximisers (via advertising or personal sales tactics) to approach decisions regarding the purchase of products or services in a more abstract manner by encouraging them to consider higher level goals and benefits resulting from the purchase (e.g., the pleasures of a holiday rather than the mechanism of booking or travel arrangements etc.). While the authors recognise that the current study is limited in scope, it does provide evidence to support the important role of CLT in clarifying the relationship between maximisation and regret, a relationship which has only recently been suggested in the literature. This opens up many potentially rich avenues for future research that are already underway by the authors, through research which initially seeks to replicate the current findings in different consumption contexts.

4 REFERENCES Carrillat, F.A., Ladik, D.M., & Legoux, R. (011). When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers. Marketing Letters,, Carter, T.J. & Gilovich, T. (010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, Castaño, R., Sujan, M., Kacker, M., & Sujan, H. (008). Managing consumer uncertainty in the adoption of new products: temporal distance and mental simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, Chowdhury, T.G., Ratneshwar, S., & Mohanty, P. (009). The time harried shopper: exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers. Marketing Letters, 0, Dar-Nimrod, I., Rawn, C.D., Lehman, D.R., & Schwartz, B. (009). The maximization paradox: the costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, Diab, D.L., Gillespie, M.A., & Highhouse, S. (008). Are maximizers really unhapppy? The measurement of maximizing tendency. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gunasti, K., & Ross, W.T. Jr. (009). How inferences about missing attributes decrease the tendency to deter choice and increase purchase probability. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Iyengar, S.S., Wells, R.E., & Schwartz, B. (006). Doing better but feeling worse: looking for the Best job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, Lai, L. (010). Maximising without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates. Judgement and Decision Making, 5, Nenkov, G.Y., Morin, M., Ward, A., Schwartz, B., & Hulland, J. (008). A short form of the maximization scale: factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, Polman, E. (010). Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (00). Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral model of rationale choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, Simon, H.A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, Sugden, R. (1985). Regret, recrimination, and rationality. Theory and Decision, 19, Strebel, J., O Donnell, K., & Myers, J. G. (004). Exploring the connection between frustration and consumer choice behavior in a dynamic decision environment. Psychology & Marketing, 1, Tsiros, M., & Mittal V. (000). Regret: A model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(March), Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17,

5 Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters R. (006). Looking backward with an eye on the future: propositions toward a theory of regret regulation. In L.J. Sanna & E.C. Chang (eds.), Judgments over time: the interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 10-9). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

On The Meaning And Measurement Of Maximization

Swarthmore College Works Psychology Faculty Works Psychology 3-1-2016 On The Meaning And Measurement Of Maximization Nathan Norem Cheek, '15 Barry Schwartz Swarthmore College, bschwar1@swarthmore.edu Let