Procedure

The survey (Appendix B) was presented online with on QuestionPro tool, an online software program, and it took approximately 6 minutes to complete. The instrument allowed the researcher to gather views from undergraduate and graduate students to biter understand their attitudes towards anchoring with a questionnaire including closed and open-ended questions. To prevent multiple response submissions from the same participant, the survey was constructed such that the link to the survey could not be opened more than once on the same Internet server following its completion. Informed consent to participate in the research was obtained online before the participants began the survey. Following data collection, questionnaires completed in QuestionPro were downloaded to an Excel database and results were analyzed with PROCESS Macro (version 3.3) developed by Hayes (2018) in SPSS Version 26.0.

The use of online surveys mitigates the researcher’s influence, limits variations in questionnaire application and allows one to quantify and determine how CSC and the hedonic value of products influence the power of anchoring. Quantitative research was used, as this approach allows for the use of statistical analysis to test the reliability and validity of results while generalizing findings to the larger population. Nonetheless, when adopting a quantitative approach, it can be challenging to understand respondents’

thoughts and to explore questions regarding the research topic. This empirical study thus

46 adopted a quantitative research approach applying two 2x2 experimental designs to the participants.

3.3 Measures

Three self-report measures were included in the questionnaire to evaluate levels of CSC, WTP and familiarity. Three assumed variables were manipulated to facilitate the analysis:

anchoring, hedonic value and products tested.

3.3.1 Dependent variable

The WTP, the dependent variable of this study, was measured by asking the participants to report the maximum price they would pay for a given product (a bathtub or pen) using a direct survey from direct methods of stated preferences (illustrated in Figure 3). This method allows for the investigation of hypothetical conditions generated through systematic and planned design processes (Louviere et al., 2000). For a direct method to produce the actual WTP, buyers must purchase at the cost of a product based on the expected price, which was facilitated through the use of a manipulated preanchored reference question posed before declaration of the WTP.

Most pricing studies apply direct WTP approaches (Steiner and Hendus, 2012).

Lipovetsky et al. (2011) classify direct WTP methods as appropriate for practical applications owing to their robustness. Essentially, direct and indirect techniques assess buyers’ hypothetical views rather than their actual opinions. As such, they produce biased results (Miller et al., 2011)

47 3.3.2 Independent variables

The products were labeled dummy variables using codes taken from the database. The pen was coded as 0 while the bathtub was coded as 1. To further distinguish between product categories, 0 was used to represent the low-end version and therefore utilitarian consumption, and 1 was used for the high-end version representing hedonic consumption. Additionally, to differentiate between anchor values, codes were used for the lower anchor (0) and higher anchor (1), creating eight scenarios for each participant.

A summary of the collected information is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Number of respondents

Low Anchor High Anchor TOTAL

Pen 87 100 187

Utilitarian 40 49 89

Hedonic 47 51 98

Bathtub 76 87 163

Utilitarian 39 39 78

Hedonic 37 48 85

TOTAL 163 187 350

Source: the author with data extracted from the survey.

48 Anchor

The anchor was manipulated as two potential values for each product version. Anchoring manipulation was utilized to demonstrate that individuals have inconsistent preferences.

First, a random number collected from potential values given in Table 4 was assigned to the respondent in a between-subjects study, i.e., different respondents tested the interface; therefore, each one was only exposed to a single user condition.

Table 4: Manipulated anchor values

Low Anchor High Anchor Original price*

Pen (utilitarian) $0.10 $100.00 $0.43

Pen (hedonic) $5.00 $5.000.00 $450.00

Bathtub (utilitarian) $2.00 $2,000.00 $72.66

Bathtub (hedonic) $40.00 $40,000.00 $14,000.00

(*) prices based on websites: https://www.amazon.com/BiC-Cristal-Original-Ball-Pack/dp/B004DBHR2Q; https://www.amazon.com/

Portable-Foldable-Inflatable-Standing-Electric;https://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/10-of-the-most-expensive-hot-tubs;

http://www.montblanc.com/en-us/collection/writing-instruments.filter.html?&filters=2019618787. Accessed on 19 mar 2018.

Source: the author with data extracted from the survey.

In order to better analyze the ‘anchor’ construct in the database, it was transformed into a dichotomic variable using codes for lower anchors (0) and higher anchors (1).

49 Consumer self-confidence

To assess consumer self-confidence, a pre-existing questionnaire using Bearden, Hardesty and Rose’s (2001) five-item scale was included in the survey. The questionnaire included 31 Likert-scale questions scored from 1 (“extremely uncharacteristic”) to 5 (“extremely characteristic”).

Once the BHR inventory (detailed in Appendix 1) was completed, the six subdimensions of the scale were measured, and the overall level of CSC was calculated from the weighted average of the six items where a higher score reflected a higher level of consumer self-confidence.

The BHR scale is widely recognized as the best available measure of consumer self-confidence and is commonly used in consumer behavior studies (Loibl, Chi, Dieckman and Batte, 2009).

Hedonic value

Products were selected considering their neutrality of age and gender, meaning that they are evaluated equally for men and woman and for younger and older consumers. A high-end or basic product, representing hedonic and utilitarian consumption, was randomly assigned to each respondent according to the potential product versions, as illustrated on Figure 12.

50 Figure 1: Hedonic-utilitarian versions of products tested

Utilitarian goods Hedonic goods

Sources: “A Blue Crystal Bic Pen on a White Background”, Alamy's library, 3 December 2017, https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-blue-crystal-bic-pen-on-a-white-background-48197298.html; photograph.

“Montblanc Starwalker Ballpoint Pen Meisterstück Montblanc Starwalker Fineliner Pen Montblanc Meisterstuck Classique Ballpoint pen”, PNGFLY, 3 December 2017, https://www.pngfly.com/png-h87wig/, photograph.

“Jacuzzi bath isolated on the white background”, Alamy's library, 3 December 2017, https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jacuzzi-bath-isolated-102871892.html, photograph.

“CO-Z Adult PVC Portable Folding Inflatable Bath Tub with Air Pump for Family Bathroom SPA”, Amazon, 3 December 2017, https://www.amazon.com/CO-Z-Portable-Folding-Inflatable-Bathroom/dp/B017GMD7YU?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_4/, photograph.

51 These products were analyzed as a dichotomic variable (0 or 1) where a value of 0 was assigned to the low-end version of the merchandise, while a value of 1 was assigned to the high-end version.

Each product was randomly shown to each respondent. After that, participants were asked whether or not they would pay a specific given price (anchor) for the product.

Subsequently, there was an open question demanding the maximum price they would pay for that product, representing the WTP.

3.3.3 Control variable

Familiarity was measured as of a pre-defined scale developed by Casaló, Flavián and Guinalíu. (2008). The scale included five question scored from 1 (“extremely uncharacteristic”) to 5 (“extremely characteristic”) referring to familiarity. They were: “I am quite familiarized with this product”; “I know to evaluate its attributes”; “comparing with other users, I think I am quite familiarized with this product”; “I am quite familiarized with other similar products” and “I have the habit of using this product”. The variable familiarity was settled as a control variable inasmuch as according to many authors previous knowledge or familiarity play an important role in influencing decision making and the anchoring phenomena (James, Vissers, Larsson, & Dahlström, 2015; Beck and Prügl, 2018).