“i” seek pleasures & “we” avoid pains : the role of self-regulatory goals in information...

“I” Seek Pleasures & “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing & Persuasion

JENNIFER L. AAKER

ANGELA Y. LEE

Theories Inferences

IV

– Dual Self-View

• Chronic (Cultural)

• Temporal (Priming)

– Self-Regulatory Goal

DV

– Persuasion & Information Processing

• Attitude (ex. affinity)

• Recall

• Discern

INDependent self-view

INTerdependent self-view

PROmotiongoal

PREventiongoal

COMpatible

INCompatible

Overview

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

COM

INC

Attitude

Recall

Discern

Ex 1

Ex 2

Ex 3, 4

IV DV

Dual Self-View

Heine et al, 1999

CHRONIC(Cultural-Dif.)

TEMPORAL(Coexist)

Gardner et al, 1999

IND Achievement / Success USAPRIMING!

INT Obligation / Responsibility CHINA (HK)

Personality System

IND

INT

IND

INT

IND

INT

ValueSituational Priming

Self-Regulatory Goal & Self-View

End State Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000

PRO Positive / Desired ←→ IND Achievement / Success

PRE Negative /

Undesired ←→

INT Obligation / Responsibility

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

COMpatible

INCompatible

COM information

INC information

Personality System

In/Compatible Goal Information

IND PRO

INT PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

More Persuasible

Less Persuasible

H1

Operational Definition — Ex. 1

• E-Commerce Study (Welch’s Grape Juice)

• IND / INT (priming)

Give yourself (your family) a chance at great taste! Welch’s Grape J

uice has been a (family) favorite … to please your (every) taste. …

• Pilot Study: Stimulus Development Success

• PRO / PRE

– Vitamin C, Iron Enhancing energy level

– Antioxidants Reducing risk of heart disease

• Manipulation Check (MC): Benefit Type

Persuasion Effect – Ex. 1

• ATTITUDE

– Web Site Evaluation Index (WSE)

• Not at all / Very Effective

• Not at all / Very Impactful

– Brand Affinity Index (BA)

• 3 Links: Not at all / Very Willing to view the product’s information

– Delayed Brand Affinity Index (DBA)

• Not at all / Very Interested to view the new Web Site

• Not at all / Very Willing to view the new Web Site

Experiment 1 – Method

• Participants

– 94 Caucasian college students ( M = 23.67, 43.3% Female)

– $100 prizes to 2 participants Incentivizing

• Procedure

– E-mail Invitation: E-Commerce Study (Consumers’ Perception)

– Link on the E-mail (Random Assign)

– Viewing Web-Site (IV) Questionnaire (DV: WSE, BA; MC)

‘Thank You’ Screen (2wks) E-mail Questionnaire (DV: DBA)

Experiment 1 – Results

• MC

– PRO described more PRO-focused benefit thoughts

– PRE described more PRE-focused benefit thoughts

• WSE 2×2 ANOVA

– Only Reaction Effect!


• BA 2×2 ANOVA

– Main Effect of Priming ( IND > INT )

– Interaction Effect ( PRO > PRE at IND; PRE > PRO at INT)

• DBA 2×2 ANOVA

– Main Effect of Priming ( IND > INT )

– Interaction Effect ( PRO > PRE at IND; PRE > PRO at INT)

Experiment 1 – Discussion

• Very little researches:

– How goal COM / INC information is PROCESSED (Ex. 2)

– How this processing affects the DISCERNMENT (Ex. 3, 4)

(Higgins et al, 1997)

IND

INT

PRO

PRELess Persuasive

COM / INC informationMore Persuasive


• Persuasion Effect of DBA Carefully, Thoroughly

• Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Experiment 1 ELM

DBA Inference Mode RECALL

COM Higher More Carefully Central Route Better

INC Lower Less Carefully Peripheral Route Worse


• Dual Self-View Situational Priming: Dynamic View

– Participants: Individualism American

Collectivism Chinese (?)

Worse Recall

Better Recall

COM information

IND PRO

PREPersonality System

IND PRO

INT PRE COM information

INT

PRO

PRE


• Interaction Effect

– Self-View Accessibility (Temporal) ×Self-Regulatory Goal

Self-View Accessibility (Chronic) ×Self-Regulatory Goal (?)

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

COM / INC information

IND PRO

INT PRE

Temporally Accessible

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

Chronically Accessible

information

Worse Recall

Better Recall

Worse Recall

Better Recall

Experiment 2 – Purposes

Paradigm: Different Design ( Tennis Racquet Lee et al, 2000 )

DV: RECALL

– Replicate & Examine

Participants: include American & CHINESE

– Replicate the Interaction Effect in Different Culture

– Examine the Interaction Effect by Chronic Self-View

IND

INT

PRO

PREWorse Recall

Personality SystemBetter Recall


Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE


IND PRO

INT PRE


IND

INT

PRO

PRE


information

Worse Recall

Better Recall

Worse Recall

Better Recall

H2


• IND / INT (temporal accessibility) & PRO / PRE Lee et al, 2000

You are (Your Team is) playing in a tennis tournament and have m

ade it to the finals. (You are representing your team in the finals.)

... and the sun is beating down on you. … If you win [lose] this last

match, you (your team) will win [lose] the championship title and [n

ot] bring home the huge trophy.

• Pilot Study: Stimulus Development Success

• Manipulation Check (MC):

Self-Construal Scale (IND / INT) (Singelis, 1994)

Information Processing – Ex. 2

• RECALL

– What was the weather like?

– What was the reward for winning the tennis match?

• Binary Coding:

1: Right Answer

0: Otherwise Answer


• Participants

– 101 Caucasian college students ( M = 24.97, 45.1% Female )

– 96 Hong Kong college students ( M = 19.59, 45.3% Female )

– IND / INT (chronic accessibility) : TST

– $5 prizes to every participant Incentivizing

• Procedure

– Random Assign Present Description (IV) SCS (MC)

Recall Questions


• MC (SCS) 2(culture)×2(priming)×2(goal)×2(self-view) ANOVA

– Only Cultural× Self-View Effect

(IND > INT at US; IND = INT at HK)


• RECALL 2(cultural)×2(priming)×2(goal) ANOVA

– Main Effect of Culture (US > HK)

– Priming× Goal Effect

– Culture× Goal Effect

– Priming × Culture Effect (IND > IND at US; INT > IND at HK)



IND PRO

INT PRE


IND

INT

PRO

PRE


information

Worse Recall

Better Recall

Worse Recall

Better Recall


• Very little researches (Higgins et al, 1997) :

– How goal COM / INC information is PROCESSED (Ex. 2)

– How this processing affects the DISCERNMENT (Ex. 3, 4)

• Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Experiment 1 & 2 ELM

DBA RECALL Inference Mode DISCENT

COM Higher Better More Carefully Central Route Better

INC Lower Worse Less Carefully Peripheral Route Worse


ELM Mode

DISCERNPetty et al, 1986; Haugtvedt et al, 1992

Strong Argument Weak Argument

COM Central Route More Favorable Less Favorable

INC Peripheral Route No Effect on Favorability


IND PRO

INT PREUNDISERN

WELL DISERN

S W

S W

>

=

>

>


H3

COM information

INC information

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

Well Discern

No Effect

S W

S W

>

=

Central Route

Peripheral Route


H4

COM information

INC information

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

S W

S W

>

>

Central Route

Peripheral Route


IV• IND / INT (temporal accessibility) & PRO / PRE Lee et al, 2000

• Same Design as Ex. 2

• Target Product: ‘STAR’ Tennis Racquet

– Argument Strength: S / W

• the importance of the benefits associated with the product

• providing support that the product does provide these benefits

– Pilot Study: Stimulus Development Success

– Manipulation Check: MC

» Not at all / Very Effective

» Not at all / Very Impactful


DV– Unfavorable / Favorable

– Low / High Quality

• Participants– 177 Caucasian college students ( M = 23.00, 43.5% Female )

• Procedure– Random Assign Present Description (IV)

Questions (DV, MC)


• MC 2(priming)×2(goal)×2(strength) ANOVA

– Main Effect of Argument Strength (S > W)

– Argument ×Priming Effect (S > W at IND; S = W at INT)

– Three Way Interaction Effect (S > W at COM; S = W at INC)


• DISCERN 2(priming)×2(goal)×2(strength) ANOVA

– Three Way Interaction Effect


• Confirm the Inference of Central / Peripheral Route

• Replicate & Extend the Result of Ex. 1


IND PRO

INT PREUNDISERN

WELL DISERN

S W

S W

>

=> >

Ex. 1 Ex. 3

PRO Enhancing energy level Win the championship

PRE Reducing risk of heart disease Lose the championship


• Ex. 1 & 3 Caucasian Participants

• Chinese Participants (?) Ex. 4

– Same Design as Ex. 3 without W (Weak Argument)

( IND / INT × PRO / PRE ) S

DV ( Unfavorable / Favorable & Low / High Quality )

– Participant: 83 Hong Kong college students ( M = 20.41, 59.5% Female )

IND

INT

PRO

PRELess Persuasive

COM / INC informationMore Persuasive

Experiment 4 – Results & Discussion

• ATTITUDE 2(priming)×2(goal) ANOVA

– Interaction Effect (PRO > PRE at IND; PRE > PRO at INT )

Less Persuasible

More Persuasible

COM information

IND PRO

PREPersonality System

IND PRO

INT PRE COM information

INT

PRO

PRE

Ex. 1, 3(S), & 4

General Discussion

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

IND

INT

PRO

PRE

COM

INC

Attitude

Recall

Discern

Ex 1

Ex 2

Ex 3, 4

CENTRAL ROUTE

PERIPHERAL ROUTE

Construct Validity Multi-Method

TEMPORAL / CHRONIC ACCESSIBILITY

DIFFERENTPARADIGM

DIFFERENTCRITERION

Furthermore …

IND + VERticalUS

HK INT + VERtical

IND + HORizontal

INT + HORizontal

?

1.

2.IND

INT

IND Priming

INT Priming

× ?

Furthermore …

3.

4.

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

A

B?

IND / INTPRO

PRE

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

?

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

?

Furthermore …

5.Maximizing Minimizing

PRO The Presence of Positive Outcome The Absence of Positive Outcome

PRE The Absence of Negative Outcome The Presence of Negative Outcome

Ex. 1, 2, 3, & 4

?

6.

DIFFERENT THEMES ?

EMOTION

PRO Cheerfulness & Happiness

PRE Security & Trust

?

Criticizing & Comments

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

CENTRAL ROUTE

PERIPHERAL ROUTE

?

IND PRO

1.

PRO

INT PRO

2.＊

ns＊


3.

92 / 94

118 / 10195 / 96


4.


IND PROMore Persuasible

Less Persuasible

Individual Difference

Personality System

IND PRO

PRE

Personality System

IND PRO

PRE

Personality System

IND PRO

PRE

PRE


Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE

CENTRAL ROUTE

PERIPHERAL ROUTE

5.

• Correlation

• IAT

• …

Personality System

IND

PRO

INT

ATTITUDE

• IND PRO

• IND PRE

• INT PRE

• INT PRO

PRE

Personality System

IND PRO

INT PRE


IND PRO

INT PRE


IND

INT

PRO

PRE


information

6.


CENTRAL ROUTE

PERIPHERAL ROUTE

“i” seek pleasures & “we” avoid pains : the role of self-regulatory goals in information...

Documents