“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!
Experiment 1 – Results
• 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
Experiment 1 – Discussion
• 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
Experiment 1 – Discussion
• 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
Experiment 1 – Discussion
• 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
Experiment 2 – Purposes
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
H2
Operational Definition — Ex. 2
• 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
Experiment 2 – Method
• 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
Experiment 2 – Results
• 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)
Experiment 2 – Results
• 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)
Experiment 2 – Discussion
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 – Discussion
• 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
Experiment 2 – Discussion
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
COM / INC information
IND PRO
INT PREUNDISERN
WELL DISERN
S W
S W
>
=
>
>
Experiment 3 – Purposes
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
Experiment 3 – Purposes
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
Operational Definition — Ex. 3
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
Experiment 3 – Method
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)
Experiment 3 – Results
• 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)
Experiment 3 – Results
• DISCERN 2(priming)×2(goal)×2(strength) ANOVA
– Three Way Interaction Effect
Experiment 3 – Discussion
• Confirm the Inference of Central / Peripheral Route
• Replicate & Extend the Result of Ex. 1
COM / INC information
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
Experiment 3 – Discussion
• 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*
Criticizing & Comments
3.
92 / 94
118 / 10195 / 96
Criticizing & Comments
4.
COM / INC information
IND PROMore Persuasible
Less Persuasible
Individual Difference
Personality System
IND PRO
PRE
Personality System
IND PRO
PRE
Personality System
IND PRO
PRE
PRE
Criticizing & Comments
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
COM / INC information
IND PRO
INT PRE
Temporally Accessible
IND
INT
PRO
PRE
Chronically Accessible
information
6.
Criticizing & Comments
CENTRAL ROUTE
PERIPHERAL ROUTE