ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Does a Product Category Have a Motivational Orientation?: Effects on Health Message Efficacy
Adilson Borges, Reims Management School, France
Pierrick Gomez, Reims Management School, France
This paper suggests that the product category can trigger regulatory focus (i.e, product category motivational orientation), and that
product category interacts with the message orientation to affect consumers’ thoughts and intentions. Through two studies this paper
tests the persuasive effects of the fit between product category motivational orientation and the health outcome frame. The results
show that promotion (prevention) categories increase the attitude toward the product and the purchase intention when the health
message frame is gain (avoiding loss). The study 2 finds similar results and identifies that ad credibility fully mediated the fit effects
on intentions.
[to cite]:
Adilson Borges and Pierrick Gomez (2011) ,"Does a Product Category Have a Motivational Orientation?: Effects on Health
Message Efficacy", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia, Tanya L. Chartrand, and
Rebecca K. Ratner, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 842-843.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1010052/volumes/v39/NA-39
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
842 / Working Papers
Follow-up analyses showed that in the Mistake condition, consumers perceived the situation as significantly more unfair and felt less
valued when the seller was recommended by their friend rather than self-selected (Ms=3.69 vs. 4.69 and Ms=3.36 vs. 3.97, Fs(1,67)=4.88 and
4.93 and ps <.01 and <.05). A Sobel test of the indirect path from Seller Selection to fairness supported the predicted mediation of perceived
relational value (z = 2.04, p < .05). The results suggest that, in certain cases, external threats to relational value (i.e., those based on relationships other than the consumer’s relationship with the firm) may also exacerbate perceived unfairness.
Discussion
Given the negative consequences of perceived unfairness, it is important to understand why price discrepancies across consumers vary
in the extent to which they are deemed unfair. This research suggests price inequities are perceived as unfair to the extent that they threaten
important aspects of the self. Importantly, we identify two different self-threats, threats to personal competence and threats to relational value,
that exacerbate perceived unfairness.
References
Campbell, Margaret C. (1999), “Perceptions of Price Unfairness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 187-199.
Cox, J. (2001), “Can Differential Prices be Fair?,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(5), 264-275.
Darke, P. R. and D. Dahl (2003), “Fairness and Discounts: The Subjective Value of a Bargain,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 328-338.
Elmaghraby, W. and P. Keskinocak (2003), “Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Inventory Considerations: Research Overview, Current
Practices and Future Directions,” Management Science, 49 (10), 1287-1309.
Heatherton, T. F., and J. Polivy (1991), “Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 895-910.
Leary, M. R., E. S. Tambor, S. K. Terdal, and D. L. Downs (1995), “Self-esteem as an Interpersonal Monitor: The Sociometer Hypothesis,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 518-530.
Vaidyanathan, R. and P. Aggarwal (2003), “Who is the Fairest of Them All? An Attributional Approach to Price Fairness Perceptions,” Journal
of Business Research 56, 453-463.
Does a Product Category Have a Motivational Orientation? Effects
on Health Message Efficacy
Adilson Borges, Reims Management School, France
Pierrick Gomez, Reims Management School, France
Designing effective health message is important for health policy makers (Keller and Lehmann, 2008). Extant research shows that
regulatory focus is a strong determinant of health message efficacy. Regulatory focus theory postulates that goal-pursuit strategies will result
in fit when these strategies match the individual or situational regulatory orientation (Higgins 1998). For instance, pursuing a goal through
carefully avoiding losses, highlighting safety and security will “feels right” for prevention oriented individuals, while pursuing a goal through
searching for gains and avoid missing gains will match promotion oriented individuals
The persuasive power of regulatory fit results from the sense of having done the right thing – it “feels right” and a heightened motivation
(Camacho, Higgins, and Luger 2003; Higgins 2002, Aaker and Lee, 2006). Thus, under prevention orientation consumers are more sensitive
to health problems than under promotion orientation. Loss framed-messages are also more convincing when prevention focus is activated
whereas gain-framed messages are more convincing under promotion focus (Aaker and Lee, 2004). Keller (2006) has shown that health messages are more efficient when the perceived easiness of the advocated health behavior is paired with promotion focus and when the response
effectiveness is paired with prevention focus.
Regulatory fit has mainly been sustained throughout two paths (Lee and Higgins 2009). The first is when the goal pursuit strategy fits
with the individual regulatory orientation. For example, subjects took an experiment where they have to choose between a pen and a coffee
mug. Prevention oriented subjects using a safety strategy declared higher willingness to pay for the mug than subjects that used an eager
strategy. The results were reversed for promotion subjects (Higgins et al. 2003). The second is when the message regulatory focus fits with
the characteristics of the persuasion appeal. For instance, promotion oriented adolescents declare lower smoking intentions to gain (vs. nongains) messages whereas prevention oriented subjects were more persuaded by messages stressing potential losses (instead of no-losses)
(Zhao and Pechmann 2007).
We proposed that regulatory fit may be sustained trough a third path. Indeed, we suggest that product category can trigger regulatory
focus (i.e, product category motivational orientation), which could create a fit with the message orientation. Past research seems to imply
that a product category could prime regulatory focus. For instance, people carrying out a decision-making task related to stock market shares
(a product associated with the idea of maximizing gains) tend to use a promotion strategy in a subsequent unrelated task, whereas those carrying out a decision-making task related to saving plans (a product associated with the idea of avoiding losses) have a greater tendency to
use prevention strategies (Zhou and Pham, 2004). Extant research has shown that products are highly connected to the goals they serve and
product categories have a motivational component (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Product category is also preferably associated to delayed
or immediate gratification (Wertenbroch, 1998). In three studies, we show that product category motivational orientation and message regulatory focus interact to determine health message efficacy.
A first pre-test shows the priming effect of product category. 41 participants were randomly assigned to a category goal orientation
(prevention vs. promotion). Following Aaker and Lee (2004) we use orange juice and a sunscreen cream as respectively a promotion and a
prevention category. To prime regulatory focus, respondents imagined that they have to buy this product. Subjects are then asked to indicate
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 39) / 843
three best strategies to face an exam (Zhou and Pham, 2004). Six strategies were presented (3 prevention and 3 promotion strategies). The
results show that subjects declare more promotion (prevention) strategies after seeing the promotion (prevention) category.
The study 1 tests the persuasive effects of the fit between product category motivational orientation and the health outcome frame. Thus,
we expect that an individual exposed to a prevention category should be more convinced by a prevention message whereas an individual
exposed to a promotion category should be more convinced by a promotion message.
Using the same categories from the pre-test, we develop an advertising that frame the product benefits either as a health gain (promotion
frame) or health loss (prevention frame). 136 participants took part in a 2 (product category: prevention vs. promotion) by 2 (message frame:
gain vs. avoiding loss) between subjects design. The results show that promotion (prevention) categories increase the attitude toward the
product and the purchase intention when the message frame is gain (avoiding loss).
The study 2 tests different product categories and identifies ad credibility as a mediator. We randomly selected 3 categories identified on
a previous qualitative study as promotion oriented (orange juice, chocolate and yogurt) and 3 prevention oriented (sunscreen, insurance and
elliptical trainer). 260 subjects told they would buy promotion categories more due to the pleasure the product provides than for the problems
the product avoid. The results are reversed for prevention categories. Subjects then look at an advertising following the same structure of
the study 1. The results show the same pattern as study 1. Promotion (prevention) categories increase the attitude toward the product and
the purchase intention when the message frame is gain (avoiding loss). These results stand even when the subject’s regulatory orientation is
controlled for. Moreover, ad credibility fully mediated the fit effects on intentions.
This research shows that the product category creates fit with the message frame independently of the perceiver regulatory orientation.
Product categories are used to achieve goals, and these goals become strongly associated with the category itself. The product category itself
is enough to elicit the goal orientation (prevention or promotion), and the use of the right category creates fit with the message frame, increasing product evaluation trough ad credibility.
References:
Camacho, Christopher J., E. Tory Higgins, and Lindsay Luger (2003), “Moral Value Transfer from Regulatory Fit: What Feels Right Is Right
and What Feels Wrong Is Wrong,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (3), 498-510.
Cesario, Joseph, Heidi Grant, and E. Tory Higgins (2004), “Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right”,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (3), 388-404.
Higgins, E. Tory (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle,” in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 30, ed. Mark P. Zanna, New York NY: Academic Press, 1-46.
--- (2002), “How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12 (3), 177-91.
Higgins, E. Tory, Lorraine Chen Idson, Antonio L. Freitas, Scott Spiegel, and Daniel C. Molden (2003), “Transfer of Value from Fit,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (6), 1140-53.
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and
Persuasion.,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205-18.
Lee, Angela Y. and E. Tory Higgins (2009), “The Persuasion Power of Regulatory Fit,” in Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, ed.
Michaela Wänke, New York: Psychology Press, 319–33.
Zhao, Guangzhi and Cornelia Pechmann (2007), “The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Adolescents’ Response to Antismoking Advertising
Campaigns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (4), 671-87.
Fair for You and Indulgent For Me:
Product Positioning and Consumer Intentions Toward Ethical Products
Katherine White, University of Calgary, Canada
Rhiannon MacDonnell, University of Calgary, Canada
John Ellard, University of Calgary, Canada
Although the marketing literature has begun to examine the implications of justice perceptions related to one’s own consumption experiences, less attention has been given to consumer attitudes and behaviors related to justice received by others. Notably, recent research has
suggested that while consumers are increasingly interested in ethical, socially conscious product options (Trudel and Cotte 2009), product
ethicality does not invariably lead to a positive consumer response (Luchs et al. 2010). This work suggests that the way in which the product is
positioned—as an indulgence or a necessity—can influence consumer concerns for justice for others. This, in turn, can influence willingness
to purchase products with ethical attributes (e.g., fair trade products).
Fair trade is a social movement that aims to set fair prices for products, alleviate poverty, and assist producers marginalized by the traditional economic model (Pelsmacker and Janssens 2007). Of particular interest from a marketing perspective is research showing that consumers are increasingly interested in ethical options such as fair trade products (Nicholls and Opal 2005). However, consumers often do not
actually support fair trade options when given the opportunity to do so (Auger and Devinny 2007). Recent research finds that one reason for
this is because it is not clear whether such options will resolve the observed injustice (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2011). Such uncertainty
about the ability to resolve injustice via purchases can ironically lead to decreased support for fair trade options when communicated need on
the part of producers is very high (as opposed to low). We build on this past work to examine two key variables that will influence consumer
fair trade intentions, even when marketers communicate high need circumstances (i.e., very dire and unjust circumstances for producers).