Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)246–255
Marketing
Shopping
the
way
to
my
goals:
an
analysis
of
purchase
impact
on
perceived
goal
progress
Rumo
aos
meus
objetivos
via
compras:
uma
análise
do
impacto
de
compras
na
percep¸cão
de
progresso
em
objetivos
Hacia
mis
metas
por
medio
de
las
compras:
análisis
del
impacto
de
las
compras
en
la
percepción
de
progreso
hacia
objetivos
Manuela
Albornoz
Gonc¸alves
a,∗,
Walter
Nique
b,
Dilney
Albornoz
Gonc¸alves
caUniversidadeFeevale,NovoHamburgo,RS,Brazil bUniversidadeFederaldoRioGrandedoSul,PortoAlegre,RS,Brazil
cIEBusinessSchool,Madrid,Spain
Received25November2015;accepted3November2016 Availableonline13May2017
ScientificEditor:FilipeQuevedo-Silva
Abstract
Thisarticleexaminestheimpactofgoalrelatedpurchasesongoalprogressperception,andwhetherthis perceptiondependsonthe strength ofassociationbetweenproductandgoal.Totesthowconsumersperceivetheactofpurchasinggoal-relatedproducts,threeexperimentswere conductedinanonlinesetting.Participantsexposedtopurchasingsituationsperceivedgreatergoalprogressthanparticipantsexposedtousage situationoracontrolgroup.Inaddition,studiesshowthatthiseffectisaresultofstrengthofassociationbetweenproductandgoal,sinceparticipants exposedtomoreinstrumentalproductsperceivedgreatergoalprogressthanparticipantsexposedtolessinstrumentalproducts.Therefore,these studiesdemonstratehowconsumersinterpretgoalrelatedpurchases,andthemechanismthatinfluencesthisinterpretation.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Purchases;Goalprogress;Motivation;Consumerbehavior;Self-regulation
Resumo
Nestapesquisabusca-seavanc¸arnoconhecimentodeprogressoemobjetivosaoanalisarcomoascomprassãopercebidaspelosconsumidoresem relac¸ãoaseusobjetivos.Elabuscaverificarseacompradeumprodutorelacionadoaumobjetivofazcomqueoconsumidorpercebaprogressono mesmoeseessapercepc¸ãodeprogressodependedaforc¸adeassociac¸ãodoprodutocomoobjetivo.Paratestarosobjetivospropostos,realizaram-se trêsexperimentosonline.Essesexperimentosmostramqueosparticipantesexpostosasituac¸õesdecompradeprodutosrelacionadosaumobjetivo, percebemmaiorprogressonoobjetivodoqueosparticipantesexpostosaumasituac¸ãodeusoouaogrupodecontrole.Ainda,osestudosexplicam
∗Correspondingauthorat:ERS239,2755,CEP93525-075,NovoHamburgo,RS,Brazil.
E-mail:[email protected](M.A.Gonc¸alves).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSão Paulo–FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2017.05.002
queissoocorredevidoàforc¸adeassociac¸ãodosprodutoscomosobjetivos,umavezqueosparticipantesexpostosaosgruposcomprodutos maisinstrumentaisaoobjetivoperceberammaiorprogressodoqueosparticipantescomprodutosmenosinstrumentaisaoobjetivo.Portanto,essa pesquisamostrateóricaeempiricamentecomoconsumidoresinterpretamcomprasrelacionadasaseusobjetivoseomecanismoqueinfluencia essainterpretac¸ão.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave:Compras;Progressoemobjetivos;Motivac¸ão;Comportamentodoconsumidor;Autoregulac¸ão
Resumen
Enesteestudiose busca avanzarenelconocimiento acerca delprogreso enobjetivosalanalizarcómolascomprassonpercibidas porlos consumidoresenrelaciónconsusmetas.Severificasilacompradeunproductorelacionadoconunobjetivohacequeelconsumidortengala percepcióndeprogresoenesteobjetivoysitalpercepcióndependedelafuerzadeasociacióndelproductoconelobjetivo.Paraponerapruebalas hipótesispropuestas,sehanllevadoacabotresexperimentosonline.Losresultadosmuestranquelosparticipantespresentadosasituacionesde compradeproductosrelacionadosconunobjetivopercibenunmayorprogresohacialametaqueaquellosparticipantesexpuestosaunasituación deusooalgrupodecontrol.Además,losestudiosindicanqueestoocurredebidoalafuerzadeasociacióndelproductoconelobjetivo,dado quelosparticipantesexpuestosalosgruposquecontabanconproductosmásinstrumentalesalobjetivohanpercibidomayorprogresoquelos participantesconproductosmenosinstrumentalesalobjetivo.Portanto,esteestudiodemuestrateóricayempíricamentecómolosconsumidores interpretanlascomprasrelacionadasconsusobjetivosyelmecanismoqueinfluyeenestainterpretación.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Compras;Progresoenlasmetas;Motivación;Comportamientodelconsumidor;Autorregulación
Introduction
Peopleareconstantlyestablishingandpursuinggoals.These goalscanbespecificandattainedwithoneorafewactions– likebakingacake–ortheycanbeongoinggoalsthatrequire constantinvestmentofresources,suchastimeandeffort,like savingforretirement.
Sometimesthepursuitofongoinggoalsisnotaneasytask, especiallybecauseindividualstendtohavemultiplegoalsthat areoftencontradictoryatthesametime,forexample,aconsumer maywanttosavemoneyforretirementand,atthesametime, maywanttoenjoyavacationintheCaribbean.
Theapplicationofresourcessuchastimeandeffortinthe pur-suitofongoing goalsdependsonpersonality traits(Fishbach &Shah,2006) andcontext(Zhang, Fishbach,&Kruglanski, 2007).Moreover,individuals’financialresourcesarelimitedto budget constraints. It is known that, when these budget con-straintsallowpeopletoinvestmoneyinthepursuitofgoals,they willgenerallydoitand,furthermore,theywillseeminsensitive totheamountinvested(Simonson&Dhar,1999).Thus,many consumersinvesttheirmoneyinproductsthatservetoattaina certaingoal.However,anecdotalevidenceandcommonsense suggestthatconsumersoftenbuyproductsthattheydonotuse. Previousresearch on consumer choice (Fishbach &Dhar, 2005)showsthatindividualshavemultipleandevenconflicting goals.Actionstakeningoalpursuitcanbeinterpretedinterms of goalprogressand/or goalcommitment (Fishbach&Dhar, 2005).Whenconsumersinterpretanactionascommitment,they tendtomake subsequent choices that arecongruent withthe goalathand.However,whenconsumersperceivetheiractionas progresstowardthe goal,theytendtomakegoal-incongruent subsequent decisions. In this research, we propose that con-sumersinterpretgoalrelatedpurchasesasgoalprogress,even
thoughownershipoftheproductitselfdoesnotguaranteegoal progress.Moreover,wehypothesizethatthishappensevenwhen progressisonlyattainedbyusingaproduct.
Although Fishbach and Dhar (2005) have evaluated con-sumers’ subsequentchoicesaftergoal-orientedactions,tothe best of our knowledge, no studies evaluatedhow consumers makethesegoalprogressinferences.Thisarticleaimstoverify whetherpeoplearecapableofperceivingpurchasesassociated withanongoinggoalasgoalprogress.Inaddition,weseekto studywhethertheperceptionofprogressdependsonthestrength of association betweenproduct andgoal, basedon goal sys-temstheory (Fishbach&Dhar,2005;Huang&Zhang,2011; Kruglanskietal.,2002;Zhang&Huang,2010).
Goalsystemstheory(Kruglanskietal.,2002)statesthatgoals arementalrepresentationsinterconnectedwiththeirmeansof attainment.Thiscognitivemotivationtheorystatesthatgoalsare thedesiredend-statethatpeoplewanttoachieve.Thesegoalsare connectedtothemeansthat areassociatedwiththeir achieve-mentasinanetwork(Kruglanskietal.,2002).Themeansfor attainingagoalareanyperceivedactivities,eventsor circum-stancesseenaslikelytocontributetotheattainmentofagoal (Shah&Kruglanski,2003).Thesemeansmayvaryastohow muchtheycontributetotheattainmentofthegoal.For exam-ple,apersonwantingtolearnMandarincouldwatchaChinese movieorspendayearlivinginChina.Whilethe formermay contributethegoal,thelatterislikelytocontributeevenmore.As aresult,itisalsolikelytohaveastrongerassociationtothegoal. Thegreaterthestrengthofassociationbetweengoalandmeans, thegreatertheperceivedinstrumentalityofthemeans(Shah& Kruglanski,2003;Zhang,Fishbach,&Kruglanski,2007).
strengthofassociationingoalprogressperception.Itisworth mentioningthattheproposedeffectcanonlyoccurwhenthere isan ongoing goal, that is,when it needscontinuousactions asameanstoachievethedesiredend-state.Itdoesnotapplyto goalswhichcanbeattainedwithoneortwoactions(e.g.quench thirst–buybottledwateranddrink).Webuildongoalsystems andgoalprogresstheories, whichserve as basefor the three experimentalstudiesreportedhere.
Goalsystemstheory
Goals have an important role inregulating people’s daily behavior. They havea significant impacton emotional expe-riences and welfare (Higgins, 1997; Zhang, Fishbach, & Kruglanski,2007).Everydaylifeisfullofeventsthatserveas remindersofdesirablegoals.Forexample,someonepassinga tenniscourtmaybringtheirattentiontohealthandwell-being. Thesethoughtsplayakeyroleinsuccessfullyattaininggoals bykeepingpeople“withtheeyesontheprize”,especiallyinthe lightofotherconcernsthatrequireattentionandeffort(Shah& Kruglanski,2003).
Goalsystemstheorydefinesgoalsasmentalrepresentations cognitively interconnected with their means of attainment and alternative goals. According to Zhang, Fishbach, and Dhar (2007), people’s daily choices are driven by mental representationsofgoalsthatarechronicallymaintainedorthat areactivatedbycluesinthecontextofagivensituation(Aarts &Dijksterhuis,2003;Bargh,Gollwitzer,Lee-Chai,Barndollar, &Trötschel,2001).
Themeansof attainingagoalareunderstood,inageneral sense,asanyperceivedactivities,eventsorcircumstanceslikely tocontributetotheattainmentofagoal(Shah&Kruglanski, 2003).Forexample,thegoalofhavingafitbodycanbe con-nectedtomeans suchaseatinghealthyfoods,exercising,and avoidingsweetsandfattyfoods.
Thepursuitofagoalthroughaspecificmeanscreatesan asso-ciationbetweengoalandmeansbasedonafunctionalrelation, whichdiffersfromasemantic,relatedwiththemeaningofthe word,orconditionedassociations.Forexample,thewords “doc-tor”and“nurse”arerelatedto“health”andthereforeinterrelated throughacognitiveaspectandcapableofactivatingoneanother. Asemanticmeaningisgenerallysharedbetweenmembersofthe samelanguagecommunity(Shah&Kruglanski,2003).
Theestablishmentofcognitiveassociationsthrough condi-tioningoftenrequiresthejointactivationofdifferentstimulifor itsdevelopmentandmaintenanceonrepeatedoccasions(e.g., bell and food in Pavlov’s classic studies). In contrast, for a functionalrelationtohappen,itisenoughtosimplyinforman individualthatacertainbehaviororcircumstancewillprobably facilitategoalachievement,whichmaybeenoughforthemto build functionalassociationsbetweengoalsandmeans (Shah & Kruglanski, 2003). Indeed, Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000)
showed that cognitive associations between goalsandmeans canbeestablishedmerelythroughconsciousplanning,andthat theseassociationsaresimilartothosedevelopedbyhabit(e.g. bytherepeateduseofmeans inpursuitofagoal). Asa con-sequenceofthefunctionalassociationforgedbetweengoaland
means,thegoalshouldacquirethecapacitytoactivateitsmeans ofattainmentandviceversa(Shah&Kruglanski,2003).
The strength of association of these functional relations betweengoalsandmeansisknownasperceived instrumental-ity of the means, andis determined byseveral factors(Shah &Kruglanski,2003).First,itmaydependonthenumberand frequencywithwhichgoalsandmeanshaveappearedtogether onthepast(Zhang,Fishbach,&Dhar,2007).Second,the asso-ciativestrengthbetweengoalsandmeansalsodependsonthe uniquenessoftheirassociation,whichisinverselyproportional to thenumber ofadditional goalsassociated withonemeans of attainment or the number of additional means associated withonegoal(Shah&Kruglanski,2003;Zhang,Fishbach,& Dhar, 2007).Third, thestrengthof association betweengoals andmeansdependsonthedegreetowhichthegoalslinkedto thesemeansdiffersubjectivelyfromoneanother.Thetendency toreducegoalassociationwithsharedmeansisstrongerifthe goalismoredistinct(Zhang,Fishbach,&Dhar,2007). Multiplegoalsandperceivedgoalprogress
Thepursuitofimportantlong-termgoalsoftenrequires indi-vidualstoshiftawayfromotherlowerprioritygoals(Fishbach &Shah,2006).WoolleyandFishbach(2016)foundevidence thatpeoplearemoremotivatedtopursuelong-termgoalswhen theyfocusontheimmediategratificationoftheiractionsrather thanontheactualdesiredgoal.Etkin,Evangelidis,andAaker (2014)demonstratethatpeoplewhoperceivegoal-conflictfeel timerestricted,morestressedandanxious.
Whileinthepursuitofmultiplegoals,consumerchoicesmay seemcontradictoryifevaluatedseparately(Dhar&Simonson, 1999;Fishbach&Dhar,2005).Individualsoftenbelieve simul-taneously insaving money forretirement as well as takinga luxuriousvacation;theyalsobelieveinhavingagoodacademic performanceandactivelysocializingwithcolleagues(Fishbach &Dhar,2005).FishbachandDhar(2005)explainedthis con-tradictory behavior byexamining the consumer’s subsequent choicesfollowingtheinitialactiontogoalpursuit.Theauthors proposedthatwhenindividualshavemultiplegoals,thepursuit, ortheintentiontopursuetheinitialgoalfreestheindividualto pursueother,unrelatedorconflicting,goals(i.e.,succumbingto temptation).Forexample,openinganewsavingsaccountmay suggest tothe individual that their goal of savingmoney for the futureisbeingactivelypursuedand, asaresult,new left-overmoneymaybecomesusceptibletoindulgence(Fishbach& Dhar,2005).
Giventheseapparentinconsistenciesingoalmanagement,it isimportanttounderstandwhetherandunderwhatconditions consumers perceivepurchasesas goalprogress. Ifconsumers tendtoperceivepurchasesasgoalprogress,thenthelikelihood ofsubsequentcontradictorychoicesincreases(Fishbach&Dhar, 2005).
Purchase of goal related product
Product instrumentality
Perceived goal progress
Fig.1.Graphicrepresentationoftheproposedeffect.
Source:Theauthor(s).
(Zhang,Fishbach,&Dhar,2007),thepurchaseandconsumption ofgoal-associatedproductsmayoccuratdifferenttimes.
Infact,thepurchaseofaproductassociatedwithanongoing goalalonedoes notimply progress.The consumeroftenwill onlymakeprogresstowardthegoalifhe/sheusestheproduct inadeliberateway.Forexample,consideraconsumerthathas thegoaltobefit.Buyingrunningshoesmayhelpachievethis goal,butonlyiftheconsumerusestheshoestoexercise.The purchaseitselfisnotnecessarilymovingtheconsumercloserto thegoal.
Consideringthatconsumershavebudgetconstraintsandare lesssensitivetospendingtheirfinancialresourceswhen these expendituresaremadeingoalpursuit(Dhar&Simonson,1999), weproposethatonceconsumerspurchaseaproduct,theymaybe lessmotivatedtouseitbecausetheyinterprettheactofpurchase goalrelatedproductsasprogresstowardthegoal.Therefore,we hypothesizethat:
H1. Consumersperceivethepurchasingactionofgoal-related productsasgoalprogress.
Whywouldtheconsumerinterpretthepurchaseofaproduct associatedwithanongoinggoalasgoalprogressinit?Brendl, Markman,andMessner(2003)showed thatproducts that are instrumentalinanactivegoalmayhavetheirvalueincreased, whichiscalledthevaluationeffect,increasingtheimportance ofamakingthepurchasegrowmoreimportantforgoalpursuit. Means instrumentality is the strength of the association between goals and means, it is the functional associations betweenthem(Zhang,Fishbach,&Dhar,2007).Itdependson thefrequencyinwhichmeansandgoalshaveappearedtogether (Shah&Kruglanski,2003)andhowdistinctisthegoals-means association (Shah & Kruglanski, 2003; Zhang, Fishbach, & Dhar, 2007).We propose that, because goal-related products haveafunctionalassociationwithagoal,consumersinterpret thepurchasingactofthoseproductsasprogresstowardthegoal. Therefore,wehypothesizethat:
H2. The perceived progresstowardthe goaldueto product purchasewillbegreater(lesser)themore(less)instrumentalthe productisperceivedtobeforgoalachievement.
Fig.1summarizestheproposedhypotheses. Study1
Instudy1weintendtotestthefirsthypothesisthatstatesthat consumersperceiveprogresstowardthegoalbypurchasinga goalrelatedproduct.
Participants
In thisstudy,115 (50.4%maleand49.6%female) partici-pantswererandomlyassignedtooneoftwobetween-subjects treatments. The average age of participants was 34.10 years (SD=11.27 years). As for nationality, 92.2% of the sample was NorthAmerican,though Englishwasthe mother tongue selectedby96.5%.Amongtheexperimentalgroups,nogender (χ2(1)=1.955;p=0.162)andage(F(1,113)=1.106;p=0.953) differenceswerefoundaswellas nodemographicdifferences betweengroups.Therefore,wewillnotdiscussthesevariables further.
Designandprocedures
The study was a one-factor between-subjects experiment – treatment versusa control group(purchase×no-purchase).
It was carried out using an online panel. Similar to many experiments in marketing and consumer behavior, the study used hypotheticalscenarios.Themethodconsists in elaborat-ingwrittenscenarios,withstoriesthatcontemplatethedifferent combinations of the manipulated variable. On one hand, the methodlimitstherichnessof interactions,butonthe other,it providescontrolandallowsthecleartreatmentofconditions.
Participants were recruited through Amazon’s website MechanicalTurk(MTurk)andansweredthequestionnaireby usingQualtricssoftware.Forthisresearch,anincentiveof0.75 USdollarswasofferedtoeachparticipant.
First,participantsreadanintroductionparagraphexplaining thatitwasanacademicresearchwithnorightorwronganswers. Afterthat,theexperimentstartedbytellingthestoryofaperson whowantedtoattainacertaingoal.Two goalswereused:to learnhow tospeak Spanishandhowtoplaytheguitar.After presenting the scenariowithoneof the goals, the participant wasexposedtotheactionstakenbythecharactertopursuetheir goalinthreesubsequent days.Duringtheactiontaken onthe second day,themanipulationoftheindependentvariablewas inserted.
Forthepurchasinggroup,thescenariostatedthatthe char-acterhadboughtaproduct(aSpanish dictionaryor aguitar), whereasinthecontrol groupthecharacterperformedanother activity(writinganacademicpaper).Anexampleoftheapplied manipulationfollowsbelow.
“TheactivitiesJohnperformsthefollowingthreedaysafter settinghisnewgoalwere:
Firstday:HewatchedamovieinSpanish.
Second day:He purchased a Spanish grammar book and a CDwithSpanish songs.(Purchasegroup)×He wrotea papertohisstrategicmanagementcourse.(Controlgroup)
Thirdday:Hewentoutwithhisfriends.”
Table1
Descriptivestatisticsofrank.
Group n Rankmeans Ranksum
DV1progressSpanish
Purchase 58 66.28 3844.00
Control 57 49.58 2826.00
Total 115
DV2progressSpanish
Purchase 58 66.49 3856.50
Control 57 49.36 2813.50
Total 115
DV1progressguitar
Purchase 58 67.90 3938.00
Control 57 47.93 2732.00
Total 115
DV2progressguitar
Purchase 58 68.03 3945.50
Control 57 47.80 2724.50
Total 115
Source:Researchdata.
werekeptconstantinbothgroups.Afterthemanipulation,the dependentvariablesweremeasured.
Measures
Twoquestionsmeasuredthedependentvariable–perceived progresstowardthegoal(“Howmuchprogresstowardhisgoal ofspeakingSpanishhasJohnmadeafterthreedays?”;“What isJohn’ssituationafterthreedays?”)Subjectsratedresponses onan11-pointLikertscale(from0-Noprogressatallto10-Alot ofprogress;from0-Samesituationto10-Goalaccomplished). Thedependentvariableswereadaptedfrompreviousstudieson goalstheory(Fishbach&Dhar,2005;Zhang&Huang,2010).
Controlvariables
Bargh,Gollwitzer,andOettingen(2010)statethatgoalshave tobedesirableandfeasible,therefore,participantswereasked howdesirableandhowfeasibleeachofthepresentedgoalswas. Inaddition,aseriesofcovariatesmeasuredparticipants’ charac-teristicsincludinghowhardworkingtheywere,howdiligentthey were,iftheycouldplaytheguitar,andiftheycouldspeak Span-ish.Thereasoningbehindthesequestions isthathardworking peopletendtoattaintheirgoalsmoreoftenthannegligent peo-ple(Barghetal.,2010).Fornon-categoricalvariables,a7-point agreementLikertscalewasused.Asthecontrolvariablesdid notpresentsignificantresults,theywillnolongerbediscussed. Finally,wealsomeasureddemographicvariables.
Results
Given that the data violated the normality assumption distribution (p<0.01) according to the Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests,the Mann–Whitneytestwasused, which,althoughitalsocomparesifthesampleshadthesame distributionas ANOVA,it isused for non-parametricdata.It shouldbenotedthattheresultsfoundwiththeMann–Whitney testwerethesameasthosefoundwithMANOVA.
Table2
Mann–WhitneytestforthegoaloflearningSpanish.
DV1 progressSpanish DV2 progressSpanish Mann–WhitneyU 1173.000 1160.500
WilcoxonW 2826.000 2813.500
Z −2.753 −2.844
Asymp.Sig.(2-tailed) 0.006 0.004
Source:Researchdata.
Table3
Mann–Whitneytestforthegoalofplayingguitar.
DV1progressguitar DV2progressguitar Mann–WhitneyU 1079.000 1071.500
WilcoxonW 2732.000 2724.500
Z −3.300 −3.341
Asymp.Sig.(2-tailed) 0.001 0.001
Source:Researchdata.
As shown in Table 1, the group that received the pur-chasemanipulationhassignificantlyhigherrankaverageinall dependent variables.Thatis,allparticipantswhoreceivedthe manipulation inwhichthe charactermade apurchaseamong otheractivitiesinthe pursuitoftheir goalperceivedagreater progressthantheparticipantswhowereinthecontrolgroup.
In the first measureof progressinthe goalof playing the guitar,participantsinthe purchaseconditionpresentedarank averageof66.28,whileforthecontrolshowed49.58(u=1173; p<0.01).Inthesecondmeasureofprogressinthegoalof play-ingtheguitar,participantsinthepurchaseconditionpresented arankmean of66.49versusthecontrol thatpresentedarank averageof49.36(u=1160.5,p<0.01).
None of the control variables had statistically significant effects(p>0.05).
Discussion
Thisfirst study was designed toprovide an initial test of the firsthypothesis,which proposesthat agoal related prod-uctpurchaseisperceived asgoalprogress.Participantsinthe purchasinggroupshowedagreaterlevelofperceivedprogress thantheparticipantsinthecontrolgroup.Therefore,consumers perceivetheyareindeedadvancingintheirgoalpursuitthrough purchases.
Thenumberoftheactionstakenbytheconsumerinthe hypo-theticalscenarioswasamajorlimitationofthisstudybecause theywereimbalancedbetweengroups. Whileinonegroupit wasoneeffective actiontowardthe goalintheothergroupit wastwoactions(action ofpurchase+effectiveaction)toward thegoal.
Duetothislimitation,it canbeargued thatthe resultsare notdependentontheperceivedgoalprogressgeneratedbythe purchase,butonthenumberofactionsassociatedtothegoal.The nextexperimentisdesignedtoaddressthispossibleexplanation. Furthermore,wedidnotcontroltheparticipants’perception oftheproducts’futureusageinthisstudy.Theusageinformation wasopen to participants’interpretation, since, at the timeof purchase,consumersdidnotknowaprioriwhetherornotthey wouldusetheproduct.
Study2
Thisstudyaimstotestboththefirstandsecondhypotheses andtoaddressthepossiblealternativeexplanationsofthefirst study.
Participants
Inthisstudy,78participantsrespondedtothesurvey.Among theserespondents,66.7%weremalesand33.3%werefemale. The averageage of participantswas 32.99years(SD=12.28 years).
Designandprocedures
Asinstudy1,study2wascarriedoutwithanonlinepanel withthemanipulationofafactorinfivelevels,withtwodistinct scenarios.Themanipulationwasperformedthroughwritten sce-nariosandrepresentedactiontowardagoal,suchas:purchasea goalrelatedproduct;executionofaneffortactivityrelatedtothe goalandanon-relatedactivity(control).Theadoptedprocedure waswithin-subjects,whichwaschosentoavoidnon-systematic variations,aswellastoverifywhetherasinglepersonisableto perceivepurchasesinpursuitofagoal,useandcontrol differ-ently,andnolongerrelyontherandomizationamonggroupsto reducethisvariation.Thedatawasrandomlypresented.
TheparticipantswererecruitedthroughAmazon’s Mechan-icalTurk website (MTurk). The questionnairewas run using
Qualtricssoftware.Anincentiveof0.75USdollarswasoffered toeachparticipant.
Themanipulationwasperformeddirectlyintheinstructionof thequestionsthatmeasuredthedependentvariables.Afterbeing introducedtotheresearch,eachparticipantwasdirectlyexposed tooneofthequestionsthatrepresentedthedifferenttreatments of the experiment.Subsequently, participants responded ona progressscaleadaptedfromFishbachandDhar(2005).Assoon as thecontrol anddemographicvariablesweremeasured, the participantreceivedthefinalacknowledgmentandthecodefor receivingtheparticipationincentivewasgenerated.
Manipulations
Manipulations were presented directly to the questions instructions that measured the dependent variables. After an introductiontotheresearch,theparticipantwasexposedtofour or five questions thatwere randomly orderedandwhich rep-resenteddifferenttreatmentsoftheexperiment.Thequestions usedinthemanipulationareshowninChart1.
Dependentandcontrolvariables
Subsequently,participantsansweredto6itemsona7-point Likert scale (1-Completely disagree to 7-Completely agree) basedontheFishbachandDhar(2005)goalprogressscale.In addition,3distractingitemswereincludedandpresentedin ran-domlyorder.Theitemsthatmeasuredprogresswere:Thatshe isclosertoherlearningobjective;Thatsheismakingprogress towardhergoal;Thatsheismovingtowardherobjective.The distractingitems were:Thatsheloves French;That sheloves toread; That shereally caresabout learningFrench. Control variableswerethesameasthoseusedinstudy1.
Results
RepeatedANOVAmeasurementswereusedfortheanalysis ofthesestudies.Thistestassumestheexistenceofsphericity, that is, the variances of the differences between the condi-tionsareequal.InrelationtotheobjectiveoflearningFrench, Mauchly’ssphericitytestwasperformedanditwassignificant (p<0.05).Therefore,thereweresignificantdivergenceamong variancesofdifferencesandconsequentlythesphericity condi-tionwasviolated.
5.00
4.30
2.70
3.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
High instrumentality Low instrumentality
Purchase Use
Chart1.Interactionbetweeninstrumentalityandactioninperceivedprogress.
Productpurchase BarbaradecidedtolearnFrench.Thesamenight,sheboughtaFrenchmethodbook.Inyouropinion,buyingthebookshows: Productpurchase DanieldecidedtolearnFrench.Thesamenight,heboughtsomeFrenchsongs.Inyouropinion,buyingthesongsshows:
Effectiveaction PatriciadecidedtolearnFrench.Thesamenight,shespenttwohourswritinganessayinFrench.Inyouropinion,writingtheessayshows: Controlaction JoedecidedtolearnFrench.Thesamenight,hewentouttodrinkwithafriend.Inyouropinion,goingoutshows:
Productpurchase LindadecidedtolearnFrench.Thesamenight,sheboughtaFrenchdictionary.Inyouropinion,buyingthedictionaryshows: Productpurchase Janedecidedtolearntoplayguitar.Thesamenight,sheboughtaguitar.Inyouropinion,buyingtheguitarshows:
Effectiveaction Barbaradecidedtolearntoplayguitar.Thesamenight,shespenttwohoursinaguitarweblesson.Inyouropinion,watchingthelessonshows: Productpurchase Joedecidedtolearntoplayguitar.Thesamenight,heboughtsomemusicmagazines.Inyouropinion,buyingthemagazinesshows:
Controlaction Danieldecidedtolearntoplayguitar.Thesamenight,hewentouttodrinkwithafriend.Inyouropinion,goingoutshows: Productpurchase Lindadecidedtolearntoplayguitar.Thesamenight,sheboughtaguitarhanger.Inyouropinion,buyingthehangershows:
Source:Researchdata.
Whenthepurchasesofproductshighlyassociatedwithagoal werecomparedinpairs(methodbookanddictionary)withthe purchaseofalessassociatedproduct–Frenchsongs(M=4.59)– asignificantdifferenceofmeansappears,forinstance,between the dictionary and the songs (p<0.01), highlighting that the perceivedinstrumentalityoftheproductor,thestrengthof asso-ciationoftheproductwiththegoalcaninfluencethelevelof perceivedprogress.Althoughsongs(M=4.59)contributedless totheperceptionofprogress,itwasstillhigher(p<0.01)than that observed in the control situation (M=1.65). This result confirmsthatpurchasinggoalrelatedproductsdiminishes con-sumersperceivedgapbetweenthedesiredstateandtheactual state.
In the results regarding the goal of learning to play the guitar, also elaborated through repeated ANOVA measures, the assumption of sphericity obtained in the Mauchly test wasalsosignificant(p<0.05).Therefore,wecontinuedtouse theGreenhouse–Geissercorrection,whichshoweddifferences amongtheconditionsF(3.22,115.77)=95.51,p<0.01.The pat-ternofresultsintheposthoctestswassimilartothosefoundfor thegoaloflearningFrench,thepurchaseofamoreinstrumental product(guitar)presentedgreaterprogressthanthepurchaseof alessinstrumentalproduct(p<0.01),which,inturn,presenteda greaterprogressthanthecontrolgroup(p<0.01).Nevertheless, this goal showed a significant difference between the effec-tiveactioninpursuitofthegoalandthe purchaseofahighly
instrumental product(p<0.01), aresult that was expectedin thesestudies.
Discussion
The resultsof thisstudy provided new evidencethat pur-chases canbe perceived as goal progress. The designof this studyallowedacontrolofnon-systematicvariations.Aninitial testwasalsopresentedonhowtheimpactofproductstrength of association withan ongoing goalinfluences the perceived progress.Indeed,productswithastrongergoal-association pre-sentedgreaterratesofperceivedprogress,whilepurchaseswitha lowerstrengthofassociationpresentedalowerlevelofperceived progress, albeit higher than the control group. However, the level ofproduct-goal associationwasnotcontrolled, whichis alimitationthathastobeaddressedinthedesignoffollowing studies.
Study3
Thethird studytestswhether thegoalprogressperception effectisdependentontheperceivedproductinstrumentality.
Participants
Atotalof297participantswererandomlyassigned among thefourtreatments.Oftheseparticipants,41statedthattheydid nothavethegoalofkeepinginshapeand,therefore,theywere excludedfromfurtheranalysis.Astothegendervariable,58.6% ofrespondentsweremaleand41.4%female.Theaverageage oftheparticipantswas31.13years(SD=10.13years),95.3% ofthesamplewasofUSnationalityand99.6%saidEnglishwas thelanguagespokenathome.
Design
Asinthe previousstudies, anonline experimentwas con-ductedbymanipulatingtwofactorsandtwolevelsoftreatment withineachfactorinabetween-subjectsdesign.The manipula-tionsperformedwerethegoal-pursuitaction(purchase×use)
andtheinstrumentalityofthe product(productmoreandless instrumentaltothegoal).
Thestorypresentedforthescenarioswassimilartothe pre-viousstudiesinthisresearch,withsomeadaptations.Thus,as instudies1 and2,we opted touseaprojective technique in thestories.Inaddition,wepreferredthatthescenariowithuse treatmenthadexplicitactiondirectedtowardthegoal.
Participantsreadabriefintroduction,abouthowmany Amer-icansintendedtostayfitandamongthemwasatargetperson namedLucy.Afterthat,theyreadabout whatLucy haddone theweekbefore(thetreatmentwasthenpresented:thevarious possibleactionsinpursuitofhergoal).Forthetreatmentofthe purchaseofahighlyinstrumentalproduct, thescenariostated thatLucyhadboughtatreadmill.Forthetreatmentoftheuse, itstatedthatLucyhadbeengoingforwalkstwiceaweeksince lastweek.Thelowinstrumentalitypurchasescenariostatedthat Lucyhadbought3cerealbars.Finally,inthelow instrumental-ityusecondition,thescenariostatedthatLucyatethe3cereal bars.Thechoiceoftheseproductsasbeingofhighorlow instru-mentalitywasbasedonanonlinepre-testwith102participants (thesameselectioncriteriawasused–advancedqualifications inMTurk, anattention task,andaquestionwhethertheyhad thegoalofkeepingfit),whoreceivedanincentiveof0.30US dollarstoparticipateinthestudy.Theparticipantsassessed,ona 9-pointLikertscale,towhatextentthemeans(treadmill, walk-ing,cerealbars)wererelatedtothegoalofkeepinginshape(to whatextentwouldyousaythatthecerealbarsarerelatedtothe goalofbeingphysicallyfit?1-notatallto9-extremely),andto whatextenttheyfelteachmeanswaseffectiveforthispurpose basedonShah andKruglanski(2003) (Howeffectiveare the cerealbarstoattainthegoalofbeingphysicallyfit?1-notatall to9-extremely).Thetreadmillwasperceivedasamore effec-tivemeans(M=7.17,SD=1.93)thanthecerealbars(M=3.55,
SD=2.21)t(1,101)=13.88;p<0.001, andalso morerelated t(1,101)=13.08;p<0.001,tothegoalofstayingfit.
Procedures
Participantsoftheexperimentwererecruitedthrough Ama-zon’s Mechanical Turk website (MTurk). The incentive was reducedto0.40USdollarstoeachparticipant.Thequestionnaire wasrunusingtheQualtricssoftware.
Themanipulationwasinthestoryofathirdperson,therefore, weoptedtoaskattheendoftheexperimentiftheparticipants hadthegoalofkeepingfit.Aftertheintroduction,participants readthescenarioswithoneoffourpossibletreatments. After-wards,thedependentvariablesonperceivedgoalprogresswere measured.Subsequently, theywere questionedhowmuch the treadmill,walkingandcerealbarswererelatedtothegoalof keeping fit and, also,how effective each of thesemeans was perceivedtopursuitthegoalofmaintainingidealweight.Then, theattentiontaskwaspresentedandthedemographicvariables weremeasured.Theparticipantsawathankyounotefortheir participationandMturkgeneratedtheirreceipt/payment final-izationnumber.
Measures
Participants answered the perceived goal progress on one question(HowmuchprogresshasLucymadetowardhergoal of being physically fit? 1-not a lot of progress to 9-a lot of progress) (Etkin & Ratner, 2012; Fishbach, Dhar, & Zhang, 2006).However,unlike the previousstudies, a9-pointLikert scalewaspreferredsoastobemoresensitive.
Results
Theresultsshow,aspredicted,amaineffectofproduct instru-mentality on the perceived goal progress F(1, 255)=53.40, p<0.01. Thepurchase of the treadmill (M=5.00; DP=2.16) showedahigherperceivedprogressthanthepurchaseofcereal bars(M=2.75,SD=1.96).Theactionhadnomajoreffect,that is,the purchase andtheeffectiveness of theactioninpursuit ofthegoalreturnedthesameperceivedprogressinanongoing goal.Table4presentsdescriptivestatistics,andTable5shows theANOVAtest.
Therewasaninteractionoftheactionandtheproduct instru-mentalityontheperceivedprogressF(1,255)=4.00,p<0.05. Participants of thehighly instrumentalproductpurchase con-dition(M=5.00,SD=2.16)perceivedgreaterprogressthanthe participantsofthehighinstrumentalityeffectiveactioncondition (M=4.29,SD=1.77).Chart1illustratesthisresult.No differ-ence wasreportedbetweendifferent treatmentactions of low instrumentality,ascanbeverifiedinTable5.
Discussion
Table4
Descriptivestatisticsfortheperceivedprogressvariable. Dependentvariable:perceivedprogress
Action Instrumentality Means Standarddeviation n
Purchase
High 5.0000 2.15794 68 Low 2.7460 1.95900 63 Total 3.9160 2.34697 131
Use
High 4.2857 1.77281 63 Low 3.0000 1.81071 62 Total 3.6480 1.89760 125
Total
High 4.6565 2.00680 131 Low 2.8720 1.88361 125 Total 3.7852 2.13944 256
Source:Researchdata.
consumer.Toputitdifferently,thepurchaseisperceivedasastep forwardtowardthedesiredend-state.Theseresultsalsoallow ustoconfirmthesecondhypothesis,whichdealswiththesize ofthatstep.Inotherwords,consumersperceivethepurchaseas goal-pursuitprogress,which,inturn,dependsontheassociation oftheproductwiththe goal:thehigher(low)theassociation, thegreater(smaller)theperceivedprogress.
Theseresultswerereplicatedinanexperimentwith between-subjectsdesign,improvingtheoutcomesofstudy2,whichwas carriedoutwithawithin-subjectsdesign.Differentlyfromthe second study of thisresearch, the goalused in the scenarios wascreatedbasedonpreviouslydemonstratedgoalsthatmost peoplepossess(Etkin&Ratner,2012).Inaddition,theproducts usedinthemanipulationsofthescenarioswerepre-testedina surveysampledwiththesamepopulation.
Furthermore, we advancedthe theory by showingthat the purchase of a product associated with an ongoing goal can be perceivedas agreater progressthan aneffective actionin the pursuitof the goal. One could argue that by purchasing thetreadmilltheconsumercoulduseitasmanytimesasthey wanted,however,performingtheeffectiveactionofwalkingis alsosomethingthatcanbedoneasmuchasonehastheinterest andthewill.Forthisreason,thislogicisnotsufficienttoexplain theoutcomeswefound.
Generaldiscussion
FishbachandDhar(2005)showthatwhenonehasmultiple goals,andactionsaretakeninpursuitofthesegoals,theycan beinterpretedintermsofbothprogressandcommitment.When consumersinterpretactionsascommitment,theytendtomake subsequent choicesthat are congruentwith thegoal athand. When,however,consumersperceivetheactionasprogress,they tend tomake inconsequential,evencontradictory, subsequent choicestowardtheirgoals.
AlthoughFishbachandDhar(2005)assessedtheconsumers’ subsequentchoicesafteractiontowardthegoals,theauthorsdid notstudywhatactionsareinterpretedintermsofprogressand the reasonwhyconsumersmaketheseinferencesof progress. Theresearchdescribedinthisarticletestedandshowedthat con-sumersperceivedthepurchasealoneasprogresstowardthegoal andalsothatthesizeoftheperceivedprogressinthepursuitof ongoinggoalsdependsonthestrengthofassociationofproducts purchasedforthispurpose.Wethinkthiseffecthappensbecause whenapersonfaceconstrainedresourcesitcouldseemeasier toapplymoneyingoalpursuitthaneffort.
Thiseffectwastestedinthreedifferentcontexts:inthegoal of learning asecond language, inlearning to playa musical instrument,andinstayingphysicallyfit.Inthefirsttwocases, eveniftheparticipantdidnothavethegoal,theyperceivedthe purchaseasbeingabletoreducethedistancebetweentheactual state andthedesired state.Subsequently,instudy 3,onlythe participantswhoactuallyhadthespecifictestgoalwerescreened andtheoutcomesweremaintained,thusincreasingtheexternal validityofthedata.
Thefirststudyaimedatdemonstratingtheperceivedprogress oftheactionofbuyingcomparedtoacontrolgroup.Theresults of thisstudyprovidedinitialindicationsthat thephenomenon does indeedexist.In thesecond study,wetested whetherthe sameconsumerperceivedanactionrelatedtothepursuitofa goalandthepurchaseofaproductitselfrelatedtoanongoing goal differentlyin termsof goal progress(Fishbach &Dhar, 2005).Astherewasnodifferenceinperceptionbetweenthese actions,theconfirmationthat theactofpurchasinghasa psy-chologicaleffectontheperceivedgoalprogresswasreinforced. In the third andfinal study, we showed that the proposed effect of perceived progress generated by the purchase of a
Table5
Between-subjectseffectstestfortheperceivedprogressvariable.
Dependentvariable:perceivedprogress
Source SumofsquarestypeIII gl Meanssquare F Sig. Correctedmodel 222.390a 3 74.130 19.772 0.000
Intercept 3610.578 1 3610.578 963.031 0.000
Action 3.386 1 3.386 0.903 0.343
Instrumentality 200.210 1 200.210 53.401 0.000 Action×instrumentality 14.981 1 14.981 3.996 0.047
Error 944.794 252 3.749
Total 4835.000 256
Correctedtotal 1167.184 255
Source:Researchdata.
productrelatedtoanongoinggoaldependedontheperceived instrumentalityoftheproduct,asinthestrengthofassociation. Thismechanism showshow much aproductcan bestrongly associated withgoalsand towhat extent investmentin these goodsbecomesimportant totheconsumer,regardless oftheir consequentusage.
Itisimportanttonotethattheproposedeffectislimitedto ongoingor proceduralgoals – the ones that require multiple actionsandeffortthroughtimetobefulfilled.And,itdoesnot necessarilyapplytosituationsinwhichthepurchaseisanatural meansofgoalachievementasinthecaseofbeenthirstyandone purchasinganddrinkingabottleofwater.
Theuseofwrittenscenariosasmethodofexperimental treat-mentsisalimitationofthisresearchasitreducestheecological validityandtheexternalvalidityofthedata.Consumersmight perceiveprogressdifferentlyiftheyare actuallypursuing the goalinthemomentofgoalprogressassessment.
Therefore,wesuggestthatfuturestudiesaddressthis limi-tation.Also,thisresearchdidnotexplorehowtheassociation betweenproductsandgoalsoccurandwebelievethatastudyin thatdirectioncouldariseinterestingresults.
Theproposed motivationalmodel has implicationsfor the welfareof consumers.By being aware of the motivations of theiractionswhen purchasingproducts associatedwith ongo-inggoals,consumerscanadjusttheirbehaviorandallocatetheir resourcesmoreefficiently,seekingtoreduceexpensesincurred onproductsthatmaynotbeconsumedinthefutureandapply theseresources,forexample,inservicesthatincreasetheir over-allwell-being.
The results of this research, besides contributing to goal theory,allowmarketingmanagers tousecuestofeature their productsandhowtheycanservespecificgoals,thusincreasing consumers’purchasingmotivation.
Furthermore, the proposed effect also has implications in productlinestrategies.Ifthemeans(products)areboughtbythe perceivedprogresstheyoffertoanongoinggoal,thenthe com-paniescan,wheneverpossibleandwheneverrelevant(giventhe goal),providealineofproductsassociatedandcomplementary toaspecificgoal.Therefore,consumerscancontinuetopurchase productsfromthesamecompanywiththesamemotivations.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
References
Aarts,H.,&Dijksterhuis,A.(2000).Habitsasknowledgestructures: Automatic-ityingoal-directedbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
78,53–63.
Aarts,H.,&Dijksterhuis,A.(2003).Thesilenceofthelibrary:environment, situationalnorm,andsocialbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,84(1),18.
Bargh,J.A.,Gollwitzer,P.M.,Lee-Chai,A.,Barndollar,K.,&Trötschel, R. (2001).Theautomated will:nonconscious activationand pursuit of behavioral goals. Journalof Personality and SocialPsychology, 81(6), 1014.
Bargh,J.A.,Gollwitzer,P.M.,&Oettingen,G.(2010).Motivation.InS.Fiske, D.Gilbert,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbookofsocialpsychology.NewYork: Wiley.
Brendl,C.M.,Markman,A.B.,&Messner,C.(2003).Thedevaluationeffect: Activatinganeeddevaluesunrelatedobjects.JournalofConsumerResearch,
29(4),463–473.
Dhar, R., & Simonson,I. (1999).Making complementary choices in con-sumptionepisodes:Highlightingversusbalancing. JournalofMarketing Research,36.
Etkin,J.,&Ratner,R.(2012).Thedynamicimpactofvarietyamongmeanson motivation.JournalofConsumerResearch,38.
Etkin,J.,Evangelidis,I.,&Aaker,J.(2014).Pressedfortime?Goalconflict shapeshow timeisperceived, spent,and valued.Journal ofMarketing Research,52(3),394–406.
Fishbach,A.,&Dhar,R.(2005).Goalsasexcusesorguides:Theliberating effectofperceivedgoalprogressonchoice.JournalofConsumerResearch,
32.
Fishbach,A.,Dhar,R.,&Zhang,Y.(2006).Subgoalsassubstitutesor com-plements:Theroleofgoalaccessibility.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,91.
Fishbach,A.,&Shah,J.Y.(2006).Self-controlinaction:Implicitdispositions towardgoalsandawayfromtemptations.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,90(5).
Higgins,E.T.(1997).Beyondpleasureandpain.AmericanPsychologist,52, 1280–1300.
Huang,S.C.,&Zhang,Y.(2011).Motivationalconsequencesofperceived velocityinconsumergoalpursuit.JournalofMarketingResearch,48(6), 1045–1056.
Kruglanski,A.W.,Shah,J.Y.,Fishbach,A.,Friedman,R.,Chun,W.Y.,& Sleeth-Keppler,D.(2002).M.P.Zanna(Ed.),Atheoryofgoalsystems. Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(vol.34)(5thed.,vol.34,pp. 331–378).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Shah,J.Y.,&Kruglanski,A.W.(2003).Whenopportunityknocks: Bottom-upprimingofgoalsbymeansanditseffectsonself-regulation.Journalof PersonalityandSocialPsychology,84.
Woolley,K.,&Fishbach,A.(2016).Forthefunofit:Harnessingimmediate rewardstoincreasepersistenceinlong-termgoals.JournalofConsumer Research,42(6),952–966.
Zhang,Y.,Fishbach,A.,&Kruglanski,A.W.(2007).Thedilutionmodel:How additionalgoalsunderminetheperceivedinstrumentalityofasharedpath.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,92(3).
Zhang,Y.,Fishbach,A.,&Dhar,R.(2007).Whenthinkingbeatsdoing:The roleofoptimisticexpectationsingoal-basedchoice.JournalofConsumer Research,34.
Zhang,Y.,&Huang,S.-C.(2010).Howendowedversusearnedprogressaffects consumergoalcommitmentandmotivation.JournalofConsumerResearch,
