This research investigates the interaction effects between customization mode and regulatory focus on consumers&apos; decision outcome and task enjoyment in customization service. Concerned with decision outcome, we posit that in subtractive customization preventionfocused consumers retain more options in the final customized offering than promotion-focused consumers, whereas such an effect is reduced in additive customization. Concerned with task enjoyment, we propose that promotion-focused consumers more enjoy additive customization than prevention-focused consumers, whereas prevention-focused consumers more enjoy subtractive customization than promotion-focused consumers. The current research both contributes to multi-option screening literature and extends regulatory fit theory into a customization service context. [to cite]

He Jia

Yonggui Wang

CiteSeerX

 
 
 
 
 
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH 
 
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 
 
 
Customization Mode, Decision Outcome, and Task Enjoyment: the Role of Regulatory Focus
He  Jia, Nanjing University, China 
Yonggui  Wang, University of International Business and Economics, China 
 
This research investigates the interaction effects between customization mode and regulatory focus on consumers' decision outcome
and task enjoyment in customization service. Concerned with decision outcome, we posit that in subtractive customization prevention-
focused consumers retain more options in the final customized offering than promotion-focused consumers, whereas such an effect is
reduced in additive customization. Concerned with task enjoyment, we propose that promotion-focused consumers more enjoy
additive customization than prevention-focused consumers, whereas prevention-focused consumers more enjoy subtractive
customization than promotion-focused consumers. The current research both contributes to multi-option screening literature and
extends regulatory fit theory into a customization service context.
 
 
[to cite]:
He Jia and Yonggui Wang (2010) ,"Customization Mode, Decision Outcome, and Task Enjoyment: the Role of Regulatory
Focus", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 37, eds. Margaret C. Campbell, Jeff Inman, and Rik Pieters, Duluth,
MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 825-826 .
 
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15067/volumes/v37/NA-37
 
[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/.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 37) / 825
Customization Mode, Decision Outcome, and Task Enjoyment: The Role of Regulatory Focus
He Jia, Nanjing University, China
Yonggui Wang, University of International Business and Economics, China
Mass-customization successfully balances between personalized products demanded by consumers and cost-efficiency pursued by
firms (Franke and Schreier 2008). In particular, two customization modes are available for marketers and identified by consumer
researchers from a perspective of option screening strategy (Levin et al. 2002; Park, Jun, and Macinnis 2000). Additive customization is
to present consumers with a basic product and then invite them to add options to the product, which reflects a screening-in strategy. On
the contrary, subtractive customization is to present a fully-loaded product and then invite consumers to delete options from the product,
which reflects a screening-out strategy. The purpose of the current research is to investigate how the interplay between customization mode
and regulatory focus (Higgins 1997) impacts decision outcome and task enjoyment when consumers participate in customization service.
Conceptual Framework
Customization Decision Outcome. This research examines how customization mode and regulatory focus interactively influence
customization decision outcome by drawing on the accessibility-diagnosticity model (Feldman and Lynch 1988), which implies
persuasiveness of information is determined by both accessibility and diagnosticity, and accessibility is a precondition for diagnosticity
to influence people (Zhao and Pechmann 2007).
Consumers in additive customization regard the basic product as a reference point and perceive the added options as gains in utility,
whereas those in subtractive customization take the fully-loaded product as a reference point and perceive the deleted options as losses
in utility (Park, Jun, and Macinnis 2000). The loss aversion principle (Tversky and Kahneman 1991) points that a loss is perceived as more
intense than a gain of the same objective magnitude (Park, Jun, and Macinnis 2000). This suggests that in subtractive customization the
losses of utility due to option deletion are accessible to consumers, whereas in additive customization the gains of utility due to option
addition may be not so much accessible to consumers.
Regulatory focus theory distinguishes two motivational orientations during goal pursuit: a promotion focus is oriented at
accomplishing aspiration, which makes people assign more value to gains and nongains; a prevention focus is oriented at fulfilling
responsibility, which makes people assign more value to losses and nonlosses (Higgins 1997). This implies that potential gains are more
diagnostic to consumers with a promotion focus than those with a prevention focus, whereas potential losses are more diagnostic to
consumers with a prevention focus than those with a promotion focus.
In subtractive customization, the loss of utility is accessible to both consumers with a prevention focus and those with a promotion
focus, but more diagnostic to prevention-focused consumers. In contrast, the gain of utility in additive customization is not so much
accessible as the loss in subtractive customization. Consequently, in additive customization the minimal level of accessibility of potential
gains inhibits diagnosticity from influencing consumers’ choice although potential gains are more diagnostic to promotion-focused
consumers. Therefore, we hypothesize that in subtractive customization a prevention focus should propel consumers to delete fewer
options and as a result retain more options in the final customized offering than a promotion focus, whereas in additive customization the
effect of regulatory focus should disappear.
Customization Task Enjoyment. Based on regulatory fit theory (Higgins 2000), this research also addresses consumers’ task
enjoyment, another important aspect of customization performance. Regulatory fit is a condition when the strategic means people use to
pursue goals fit their regulatory focus (Higgins 2000). An approach strategy (approaching positive outcomes) sustains a promotion focus,
whereas an avoidance strategy (avoiding negative outcomes) sustains a prevention focus. When the strategic means for goal pursuit fits
one’s regulatory focus, people just “feel right” and then unconsciously attribute their feeling to the stimulus they focus on, leading to an
even more favorable evaluation (Avent and Higgins 2006).
From a perspective of option screening strategy (Levin et al. 2002), additive customization makes consumers naturally screen in
options with desirable attributes, whereas subtractive customization makes consumers naturally screen out options with undesirable
attributes. Therefore, additive customization is consistent with an approach strategy, whereas subtractive customization is similar to an
avoidance strategy. In correspondence with regulatory fit theory, we hypothesize that promotion-focused consumers should more enjoy
additive customization than prevention-focused consumers, whereas prevention-focused consumers should more enjoy subtractive
customization than promotion-focused consumers.
Study 1
A group of Chinese students participated in a 2 X 2 between-subject experiment with both regulatory focus and customization mode
manipulated, generating 92 valid responses. Participants in the additive customization condition were told that they could add ingredients
to a basic pizza, whereas those in the subtractive customization condition were told that they could delete ingredients from a fully-loaded
pizza (Levin et al. 2002). The number of options retained in the final customized offering was calculated to measure customization decision
outcome. Participants also completed a scale of customization task enjoyment (Park, Jun, and Macinnis 2000).
The interaction effect between regulatory focus and customization mode on decision outcome was found significant (F (1, 88)=4.86,
p<0.05) and mainly driven by the effect of regulatory focus in subtractive customization. Moreover, there was a marginally significant
interaction effect between those two factors on task enjoyment (F (1, 88)=3.77, p=0.055). Further simple contrasts were also consistent
with our predictions (detailed statistics provided upon request).
Study 2
 The characteristics of options retained in the final customized offering might influence consumers’ task enjoyment. Study 2 will
control the quantity and price of options retained in the final product to exclude this possibility and further test the robustness of the findings
826 / WORKING PAPERS
of Study 1 in another scenario. Besides, the boundary condition for the interaction effect on consumers’ customization evaluation will be
addressed.
Discussion
Theoretically, this research finds that the effect of regulatory focus on the number of options retained in the final customized offering
is contingent on customization mode, which adds knowledge to the multi-option screening literature. Another contribution of the current
research is to extend regulatory fit theory into a customization service context. Managerially, this research answers how to match
customization mode with regulatory focus in order to accomplish superior customer value in customization service.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 70672018),
the third phase of 211 Project of University of International Business and Economics (Grant No. 73200029), and the Research Center for
Economic Transition and Development, Nanjing University, one of the National Key Innovation Centers for Philosophy and Social
Science Disciplines of Ministry of Education of China.
References
Avent, Tamar and E. Tory Higgins (2006), “How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Options,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 43 (February), 1-10.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch Jr. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude,
Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (August), 421–35.
Franke, Nikolaus and Martin Schreier (2008), “Product Uniqueness as A Driver of Customer Utility in Mass Customization,”
Marketing Letters, 19, 93-107.
Higgins, E. Tory (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. Tory (2000), “Making a Good Decision: Value From Fit,” American Psychologist, 55 (11), 1217-1230.
Levin, Irwin P., Judy Schreiber, Marco Lauriola, and Gary J. Gaeth (2002), “A Tale of Two Pizzas: Building Up from a Basic
Product Versus Scaling Down from a Fully-Loaded Product,” Marketing Letters, 13 (4), 335-344.
Park, C. Whan, Sung Y. Jun, and Deborah J. Macinnis (2000), “Choosing What I Want Versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An
Application of Decision Framing to Product Option,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May), 187-202.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 106 (November), 1039-1061.
Zhao, Guangzhi and Cornelia Pechmann (2007), “The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Adolescents’ Response to Antismoking
Advertising Campaigns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (November), 671-687.
Becoming a Responsible Consumer: Using Narratives to Study the Development Paths and
Goals
Suvi Joronen, University of Vaasa, Finland
The concept of a new consumer type, an alternative consumer, appeared as far back as the 1970´s so the phenomenon itself is not
very new. Characteristics like ethicality, green, fair trade and the concern toward developing countries became to define this new consumer
type (Gabriel & Lang, 1995). This paper explores how the responsibility is constructed as a part of a consumer’s life.
The theory is drawn here not only trough the attitudinal dimensions, but especially through the personality indicators and the influence
of the overall social structure. As Degevos (2005) states, the importance of socio-cultural and socio-psychological determinants should
not be underestimated in the consumer studies.
The responsibility can be seen as a consequence led by the particular personality variables and the specific events in the socio-cultural
environment. These personality variables include such inner entities as values, motives, moral conceptions and subjective norms.
Especially the existence of certain nature related values have been found to have an influence to the responsible consumption behavior
(e.g., Grunert & Juhl, 1995). Also, the change in a value system (e.g, anthropocentric values ? ecocentric values) is assumed to precede
the behavioral change (see Rokeach, 1973). Besides the normative nature of subjective norms, the social norms often advise consumers
to behave in a certain way. It depends on the nature of cultural and political environment how the sustainable consumption is adopted in
a certain country. Both the person’s subjective development processes as well as the influences outside are here assumed to be the principal
factors explaining the process of growing as a responsible consumer.
Qualitative research was conducted to study respondents’ subjective experiences about responsible consumption. Written biogra-
phies were chosen as a narrative research method (see Riessman, 1993). The written biographies are found to be appropriate in the identity
development studies (e.g., Hole, 2007). Therefore, in this study, I used written truth based stories for finding out how responsibility has
become an integral part of respondent’s self-identity. The study was based on a sample of Finnish and French consumers at the age range
from 24 to 63, whit a bias toward the lower ages. There were a total of seventeen informants; four males and fourteen females. Four of
the informants were French including two of them living in an autonomic eco-village. The sample choice was a convenience sample
followed a snow-ball sampling. It was considered as crucial that the sample members were responsible consumers. In order to assure this,
the respondents needed to meet at least one of the following criterions: 1) Buying fair trade and/or organic products regularly 2) Boycotting
products found being unethical 3) Collective activity, as a membership in associations.


Customization Mode, Decision Outcome, and Task Enjoyment: the Role of Regulatory Focus

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E89BBD9CC711D80A95937171D9049823?doi=10.1.1.1070.1555&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Customization Mode, Decision Outcome, and Task Enjoyment: the Role of Regulatory Focus

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX