The impact of regulatory focus and word of mouth valence on search and experience attribute evaluation

Abstract

Purpose -This paper investigates the direct and interactive effects of regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention), attribute type (search versus experience) and word of mouth valence (positive versus negative) on consumption decision for a service and a product.Design/methodology/approach -Three empirical studies (two laboratories and a field experiment) using 'university' and 'mobile phone' as the research setting were used to test the key hypotheses.Findings -Promotion (prevention) focused subjects preferred experience (search) attributes over their counterparts while making consumption decision. This preference was further reinforced for both promotion and prevention focused people under positive word of mouth.Under negative word of mouth, in comparison to their counterparts, promotion focused people still retained their preference for experience attributes, while prevention focused subjects reversed their preference and maintained status quo. Research limitations/implications -Future research may validate and extend our findingsby looking into the underlying process or studying additional word of mouth variables that may moderate the current findings.Practical implications -Our findings will help managers devise a range of marketing strategies in the areas of advertising and product positioning, especially for products/services that are showcased in terms of experience and search attributes.Originality/value -The current research is novel as no prior research has proposed and tested the two-way interaction between regulatory focus and search/experience attributes, or it's further moderation by word of mouth valence. IntroductionIt has been well established in the marketing literature that regulatory orientation of consumers systematically influences their product evaluation and choices (Roy and Ng, 2012;Chatterjee et al., 2011;Lee and Aaker, 2004;Chernev, 2004;Pham and Avnet, 2004). In particular, these studies show that when the regulatory focus of a consumer is matched with a certain type of product attribute, it results in higher persuasion and purchase intention. The literature defines two kinds of regulatory orientation (e.g., Higgins, 1997): first, a state that involves self-regulation towards achievement/advancement in life and involves a 'promotion focus' versus 'prevention focus', which involves self-regulation towards safety/security needs in life. A range of product attributes like hedonic versus utilitarian, imagery versus concrete, performance versus safety etc. have been known to moderate the effect of regulatory focus on product decisions (Roy and Phau, 2014;Chernev, 2004;Lee and Aaker, 2004). In recent times, researchers have recommended greater inquiries into how search and experience product attributes influence consumption (Hyo-Jin et al., 2014;Brakus et al., 2014). Given the role of regulatory focus in influencing choice of attributes, the current work explores how this motivational state may influence choice of search and experience attributes in product decisions (Gap 1).On the other...

Consumer skepticism about online reviews and their decision-making process: the role of review self-efficacy and regulatory focus

“…Although promotion-focused people pursue an approach strategy and prevention-focused people pursue an avoidance strategy (Strauman and Wilson, 2010), the likelihood of promotion-focused versus prevention-focused people's relianceversus avoidanceof online reviews in the presence of skepticism remained unknown. Consistent with the findings of Strauman and Wilson's (2010) and Roy and Naidoo's (2017), this study shows that promotion-focused people follow an approach strategy and rely more on online review to make a review-based purchase decision, whereas prevention-focused consumers pursue an avoidance strategy, and hence withdraw from the review-based purchase decision. The findings of this study suggest that promotion-focused people are more likely to rely on online reviews than prevention-focused people despite similar levels of skepticism toward online reviews, thus contributing to the regulatory focus theory and online review literature.…”

“…Moreover, promotion-focused people tend to focus on positive cues in their environment, and hence consider the environment as largely non-threatening, while prevention-focused people focus on negative cues, and thus consider the environment as risky (Friedman and Förster, 2002). Nevertheless, promotionfocused consumers still search for information despite the negative word of mouth about a search item, whereas prevention-focused consumers stop searching when they receive negative word of mouth (Roy and Naidoo, 2017). Strauman and Wilson's (2010) and Roy and Naidoo's (2017) findings suggest that promotion-oriented consumers keep pursuing their purchase decision despite the negativity surrounding the information-seeking process.…”

“…Nevertheless, promotionfocused consumers still search for information despite the negative word of mouth about a search item, whereas prevention-focused consumers stop searching when they receive negative word of mouth (Roy and Naidoo, 2017). Strauman and Wilson's (2010) and Roy and Naidoo's (2017) findings suggest that promotion-oriented consumers keep pursuing their purchase decision despite the negativity surrounding the information-seeking process. Likewise, when prevention-focused people have doubts they quit the decisionmaking process, while promotion-focused people try to decide despite their doubts or fears (Crowe and Higgins, 1997).…”

The Effect of Network Relational Structure on Knowledge Diffusion Learning: An Empirical Study

“…To further verify the causality between independent variables and dependent variables in the model, we designed the second experimental, filed experiment. In this study, it is assumed that a variety of knowledge sharing will trigger different motivations of users in social media with different strong and weak relations: in weak relational social media, the sharing of explicit knowledge will induce users' defense focus motivation and strengthen their willingness to share; in strong-relational social media, the sharing of tacit knowledge will stimulate users to boost focus motivation and strengthen their willingness to share [32] .…”

Efeitos da metáfora da verticalidade e do foco regulatório motivacional do consumidor sobre as avaliações de preços

“…O foco em promoção, em que os indivíduos se esforçam por atingir seus ideais, reflete uma motivação para se aproximar de ganhos ou sucessos; visualmente, esta orientação de aproximação pode ser imaginada como um vetor que aponta do "eu" para o objetivo, na direção dos movimentos desejados (Roy & Phau, 2014). Em contraste, o foco em prevenção, em que os indivíduos se esforçam por atingir seus deveres, reflete uma motivação para evitar perdas; esta orientação de afastamento pode ser visualizada como um vetor que aponta do "eu" para longe de um objetivo indesejado ou de um fracasso (Miller & Markman, 2007;Roy & Naidoo, 2017). Foi elaborada uma figura para ilustrar a direção dos movimentos dos focos regulatórios em busca dos seus objetivos (Figura 1), as setas do foco em prevenção foram colocadas invertidamente para demonstrar direção oposta desse foco a um efeito indesejado.…”