Download Report

1
Paper for Discussion
I Need My Own Part! Effects of Anthropomorphic Product Presentations on Brand Choice
of Complementary Goods
He (Michael) Jia
Ph.D. Candidate in Marketing
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California,
Email: [email protected]
B. Kyu Kim
Assistant Professor of Marketing
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California
Email: [email protected]
Echo Wen Wan
Associate Professor of Marketing
School of Business
The University of Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
C. Whan Park
Joseph A. DeBell Professor of Marketing
Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California
Email: [email protected]
2
Abstract
In two studies, we show that the anthropomorphic presentation of a base product decreases
consumers’ choice share of the complementary accessories from a competing brand over those
from the same parent that provides the base product. Supporting a body-part consideration
account, we further demonstrate that the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on
brand choice is driven by the perceived incompatibility between the focal base product and
complementary accessories from a competing brand, and this effect is stronger for consumers
who are more averse to foreign body-related substances. These findings provide novel insights
into how anthropomorphic product presentations can contribute to brand equity through
stimulating consumer’ purchase of the same-brand complementary goods.
3
Many companies across different industries, such as the shaving industry and the printing
industry, adopt a “razor-and-blade” business model, in which these companies attract consumers
by offering a base product (e.g., razor) at a low price and then earn huge profits from consumers’
repeated purchase of its complementary accessories (e.g., blade; Teece 2010). Oftentimes, this
business model may face threats from competing generic brands that offer low-cost alternative
complementary accessories for the focal branded base product. Indeed, in the printer accessory
(e.g., ink or toner cartridge) industry alone, the market share of generic brands are estimated to
exceed 25% in 2015 (United Laser 2015). As advances in internet and mobile technologies make
it increasingly convenient for consumers to search for low-cost alternatives (Dukes and Liu
2015), it becomes highly imperative for companies that rely on the “razor-and-blade” model to
develop effective strategies to protect their market shares, with the presence of less expensive
complementary accessories provided by generic brands.
Despite the widespread application of the “razor-and-blade” model in marketing practice
over more than one hundred years since its first introduction by Gillet (Picker 2011), research on
consumers’ brand choice of complementary goods is still scant (for an exception, see Rahinel and
Redden 2013). In the present research, we examine whether and how anthropomorphic product
presentations, that is, making a base product look, move, or talk as a human-like entity in print or
video ads or at the level of product appearance, can influence consumers’ brand choice when
they make a decision on what complementary accessory to buy for the focal base product.
Specifically, we propose that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product will decrease
consumers’ choice share of complementary accessories provided by a competing brand over
4
those from the same brand that offers the focal base product because product anthropomorphism
triggers a body-part consideration—consumers view a base product and its complementary
accessory as a human body and its body part. Supporting this body-part consideration account,
we further show that the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice is
mediated by perceived incompatibility between the base product and the complementary
accessories from a competing brand and stronger for consumers who are highly aversive to
foreign body-related substances.
Product Anthropomorphism
Product anthropomorphism refers to a phenomenon that people perceive inanimate
products as having human-like intentions, feelings, and motivations (Aggarwal and McGill
2007). People may anthropomorphize a non-human entity due to their intrinsic motives, such as a
desire to understand and control the focal entity (Waytz et al. 2010) or to fulfill an unsatisfied
need for social connection that lacks in their interaction with other humans (Eply et al. 2008).
Anthropomorphism can also be induced by the way that a non-human entity is presented to
viewers. When a product possesses human-like facial features in its appearance or seems to
introduce itself from a first-person perspective in an ad, consumers tend to perceive the product
as a human-like entity and, consequently, apply a human schema to the focal anthropomorphized
product (e.g., Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Kim and McGill 2011; Landwehr, McGill, and
Herrmann 2011; Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto 2013). For instance, when a slot machine looks
like a human being in its appearance, consumers are inclined to apply principles that govern
5
interpersonal relationships to their relationship with the focal slot machine, such that high-power
consumers who believe that they have control over other people also perceive the slot machine to
be similarly controllable and thus less risky (Kim and McGill 2011). As another example, in the
case of brand wrongdoings, consumers would think less of the focal brand when they
anthropomorphize this brand because they tend to believe that such wrongdoings are intentional
rather than incidental (Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto 2013).
Body-Part Consideration and Brand Choice
Extending prior works on product anthropomorphism, we examine a different aspect of
the human schema that consumers would apply to an anthropomorphized product in the context
of product complementarity. Specifically, we propose that consumers will perceive a human-like
base product (e.g., a printer) as a human body and complementary accessories (e.g., a toner
cartridge) for the focal base product as its body parts. With such a body-part consideration
induced by product anthropomorphism in mind, consumers may further consider complementary
accessories from the same brand that offers the base product as the product’s “own” body parts,
and regard those accessories from a competing brand as “foreign” body parts to the focal base
product.
As a self-protective mechanism developed from the long evolutionary process, people are
biologically averse to the receipt of foreign body parts from other humans in order to reduce the
risk of being infected by harmful substances (Burris and Rempel 2004; Tybur, Lieberman, and
Griskevicius 2009). we propose that consumers will further project their own aversion to foreign
6
body-related substances to an anthropomorphized product and, thus, believe that the human-like
product would also be averse to complementary accessories from a competing brand as “foreign”
body parts, just as the human immune system tends to reject foreign organs. Following this logic,
we predict that the anthropomorphic presentation of a base product would decrease consumers’
choice share of complementary accessories from a competing brand.
H1. Anthropomorphic product presentation will decrease choice share of complementary
accessories offered by a competing brand.
Compatibility is an important consideration when consumers make decisions on what
complementary goods to buy for a focal product, and consumers in general believe that
complementary goods from a competing brand are less compatible with the focal product than
same-brand complementary goods (Rahinel and Redden 2013). We further propose that
consumers’ belief that an anthropomorphized product would reject a complementary accessory
from a competing brand as a “foreign” body part would be reflected in the perceived
incompatibility between the based product and the accessory. That is, the anthropomorphic
presentation of a base product would decrease the perceived compatibility between the base
product and complementary accessories from a competing brand and consequently decrease the
choice share of these accessories.
H2. Perceived incompatibility between the base product and complementary accessories
from a competing brand will mediate the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation
7
on brand choice.
According to the body-part consideration account, the reason why anthropomorphic
product presentation decreases choice share of complementary accessories from a competing
brand is because consumers are averse to foreign body-related substances and, further, project
such aversion to a human-like product. Such a body-part consideration account suggests that the
effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of complementary accessories
should increase with consumers’ own aversion to foreign body-related substances, whereas this
effect should be eliminated for consumers who are less averse to foreign body-related substances.
Thus, we propose:
H3. Aversion to foreign body-related substances will strengthen the effect of
anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice.
Study 1
In Study 1, we aimed to provide preliminary evidence for the prediction that
anthropomorphic product presentation decreases choice share of complementary accessories
from a competing brand (hypothesis 1).
Procedure. We randomly assigned 156 undergraduate students from a larger West Coast
university in the United States (90 females) to either an anthropomorphic condition or a neutral
condition. In the anthropomorphic condition, participants watched a video in which a Canon
portable photo printer (Selphy) appeared to introduce itself from a first-person perspective (e.g.,
8
“I’m…”) with its “lips” moving when talking. In the neutral condition, the same Canon printer
was introduced from a third-person perspective (e.g., “It’s…;” see Aggarwal and McGill 2007,
Kim and McGill 2011, and Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto 2013 for similar manipulations).
Screenshots of the video stimuli are provided in Figure A, Panel A. After watching the video,
participants further imagined that they had already bought the Canon printer and thus needed to
choose ink cartridges for their printer. Then, they made a binary choice between a Canon ink
cartridge pack and a low-cost alternative ink cartridge pack provided by Staples (see Figure A,
Panel B for the choice stimuli).
Measures. After making product choice, participants rated the anthropomorphism of the
base product as a manipulation check (e.g., “It seems as if this Canon printer has intentions;”
Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley 2010) on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;” α = .90).
To exclude the possibility that anthropomorphic product presentation influenced brand choice
simply due to a halo effect, we also measured participants’ attitude toward the Canon printer
shown in the video (1 = “bad/negative/unfavorable/dislike,” 7 = “good/positive/favorable/like;”
α = .97).
Manipulation and Control Checks. As expected, the anthropomorphism of the Canon
printer was higher in the anthropomorphic condition than in the neutral condition (Manthropomorphic
= 3.74 vs. Mneutral = 2.10; F(1,154) = 49.00, p < .001). Moreover, the anthropomorphism
manipulation did not influence participants’ attitude toward the Canon printer (F(1,154) = .87,
p > .3).
Brand Choice. A logistic regression showed that participants were less likely to choose
9
the Staples ink cartridge pack for their Canon printer in the anthropomorphic condition (50.0%)
than in the neutral condition (65.8%; Wald = 3.94, p < .05).
Discussion. Confirming hypothesis 1, Study 1 provided initial evidence that
anthropomorphic product presentation will decrease choice share of complementary accessories
from a competing brand, and suggested that such an effect is not simply a halo effect associated
with product anthropomorphism, given that anthropomorphic product presentation did not
influence participants’ attitude toward the base product (i.e., Canon printer).
Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to show that perceived incompatibility between the base
product and complementary accessories from a competing brand mediates the effect of
anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice (hypothesis 2), and aversion to foreign
body-related substances will strengthen such an effect (hypothesis 3).
Procedure. We randomly assigned 102 undergraduate students from a larger West Coast
university in the United States (59 females) to either an anthropomorphic condition or a neutral
condition. To generalize the results of Study 1, we employed another set of stimuli and
manipulated anthropomorphic product presentation using print ads. In the anthropomorphic
condition, a Philips electric toothbrush described itself from a first-person perspective, while the
same electric toothbrush was presented from a third-person perspective in the neutral condition
(see Figure B, Panel A for the product stimuli). After imagining having bought the Philips
electric toothbrush, participants were asked to choose between a pack of Philips replacement
10
brush heads and a pack of low-cost alternative replacement brush heads provided by up & up (a
store brand owned by Target) for their Philips electric toothbrush (see Figure B, Panel B for the
choice stimuli).
Measures. After participants made their brand choice, they rated the perceived
compatibility between the Philips electric toothbrush and up & up replacement brush heads on
two 7-point items (“be compatible with/work well with;” 1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;” α
= .89). Then, they completed the same measures from Study 1 for product anthropomorphism as
a manipulation check and attitude toward the base product (i.e., Philips electric toothbrush) as a
control variable.
At the end of survey, we measured participants’ aversion to foreign body-related
substances by asking them how disgusting they found each of the following experiences on a
7-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;” α = .81): “receiving a hypodermic (i.e., beneath
the skin) injection in the arm,” “receiving an anesthetic injection in the mouth,” “having a dental
implant,” and “having a blood transfusion,” adapted from Olatunji et al. (2007). We expected that
aversion to foreign body-related substances as a trait-level variable would moderate the effect of
anthropomorphic product presentation on participants’ brand choice of complementary
accessories.
An alternative explanation for the observed effect is that anthropomorphic product
presentation may trigger a consideration related to social relationship, such that participants may
have chosen the same-brand complementary accessory in the anthropomorphic condition because
such an accessory was perceived as an “in-group” member (e.g., relative or friend) to the base
11
product. To test this possibility, we also measured participants’ self-construal (Singelis 1994) at
the end of the study. If the results were indeed driven by participants’ consideration about the
social relationship between the base product and its complementary accessories, it should be
observed that participants with an interdependent self-construal would be more likely to choose
the same-brand complementary accessory because they value social relationship to a greater
extent.
Manipulation and Control Checks. The anthropomorphic presentation induced a higher
level of anthropomorphism than the neutral presentation (Manthropomorphic = 2.74 vs. Mneutral = 2.09;
F(1, 100) = 4.26, p < .05). Although in Study 2, the anthropomorphic presentation marginally
decreased participants’ attitude toward the Philips electric toothbrush (Manthropomorphic = 5.05 vs.
Mneutral = 5.46; F(1, 100) = 2.90, p = .09), such a result only made this study more conservative.
Further, adding product attitude as a covariate did not change the effects of anthropomorphic
product presentation on brand choice or perceived incompatibility reported in the following
sections.
Brand Choice. Replicating the result of Study 1, we found that participants were less
likely to choose the up & up replacement brush head pack for their Philips electric toothbrush in
the anthropomorphic condition (47.2%) than in the neutral condition (69.4%; Wald = 5.05, p
< .03), again supporting hypothesis 1.
Perceived Incompatibility. Anthropomorphic product presentation also decreased the
perceived compatibility between the Philips electric toothbrush and the up & up replacement
brush heads (Manthropomorphic = 4.75 vs. Mneutral = 5.43; F(1, 100) = 5.69, p < .02), and perceived
12
incompatibility mediated the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice
(95%CI: .09, 1.32), supporting hypothesis 2.
Aversion to Foreign Body-Related Substances. Consistent with hypothesis 3, we found
that aversion to foreign body-related substances moderated the effects of product
anthropomorphism on both perceived compatibility (b = -.30, t = -1.64, p = .10) and brand choice
(b = .55, t = 2.05, p < .05), such that these effects were stronger for participants who were more
strongly averse to foreign body-related substances, yet reduced for those who were less averse to
foreign body-related substances (see Figure 3 for the spotlight analyses). A further mediated
moderation analysis showed that the indirect effect of product anthropomorphism on brand
choice through perceived compatibility was significant only for those who were highly aversive
to foreign body-related substances (95%CI: .07, .35). These results further support the body-part
consideration account for the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice.
Self-Construal. Following the approach used in prior research (Ferraro, Bettman, and
Chartrand 2009), we created a self-construal index by subtracting the independence score from
the interdependence score. A moderated regression analysis showed that self-construal did not
moderate the effects of anthropomorphic product presentation on either perceived compatibility
or brand choice (p’s > .2).
Discussion. Study 2 further extended Study 1 by providing support for the proposed
body-part consideration account: first, perceived incompatibility between the base product and
complementary accessories from a competing brand drives the effect of anthropomorphic
product presentation on brand choice; second, the effects of anthropomorphic product
13
presentation on perceived incompatibility and brand choice are stronger for consumers who have
a greater aversion to foreign body-related substances. Study 2 also excluded social-relationship
consideration as an alternative explanation, given that self-construal did not moderate any effect
of anthropomorphic product presentation.
General Discussion
In two studies, we showed that the anthropomorphic presentation of a base product
decreases consumers’ choice share of complementary accessories from a competing brand.
Supporting a body-part consideration account, we further demonstrated that this effect is driven
by the perceived incompatibility between the base product and complementary accessories
offered by a competing brand, and this effect is stronger for consumers who are highly averse to
foreign body-related substances. Our studies further ruled out two alternative explanations. First,
the observed results cannot be simply explained by a halo effect of product anthropomorphism
because the anthropomorphic presentation manipulation did not increase participants’ attitude
toward the base product in our studies. Second, a social-relationship consideration was also
excluded, given that self-construal did not moderate the effect of anthropomorphic presentation
on perceived compatibility or brand choice in Study 2.
This research contributes to the literature on complementary goods. Although the sales of
complementary goods are an important contributor to the brand-level profitability across many
industries, systematic research on brand choice of complementary goods has been scant in the
marketing literature. Recently, Rahinel and Redden (2013) have shown that all else being equal,
14
consumers have a preference for same-brand complementary goods because they believe that
products from the same brand better coordinate with each other. Our studies extend their research
by showing that subtle cues related to anthropomorphic presentation at the level of advertising or
product design can further modify the perceived compatibility between a base product and
complementary accessories from a competing brand, and thus influence consumers’ brand choice
of complementary goods.
The present research also adds to the product anthropomorphism literature. Whereas the
extant research has mainly focused on how product anthropomorphism triggers a consideration
about the social relationship between consumers and the focal product (Aggarwal and McGill
2012; Chandler and Schwarz 2010; Kim and McGill 2011; May and Monga 2014) or influences
consumers’ attribution of product-related incidents to either intentional or incidental factors
(Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto 2013), our research demonstrates a novel mechanism through
which product anthropomorphism influences consumer decision-making by making a body-part
consideration salient to consumers, and identifies important conditions for such a mechanism to
operate.
Finally, by manipulating product anthropomorphism using video and print ads, our
results not only provide strong managerially actionable implications for marketers, but also
suggest a less costly way (compared to lowering product prices or changing product
configurations) for firms, which heavily rely on their sales of complementary goods, to protect
their market shares in the presence of the competition from generic brands that provide low-cost
alternatives.
15
Our further research efforts will focus on the explorations of theoretically-relevant
moderators that can both lend support to the proposed body-part consideration account and
provide straightforward managerial implications. For instance, one implication of the proposed
body-part consideration account is that if the body-part consideration is made salient (vs. turned
off), the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of complementary
goods should also be more manifest (vs. disappear). Thus, it is possible that when a
complementary accessory is explicitly framed as a body part (vs. a non-body part) in ads, the
effect of anthropomorphic product presentation brand choice of complementary goods will be
strengthened (vs. reduced).
16
References
Aggarwal, Pankaj, and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as
a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(December), 468–79.
Aggarwal, Pankaj, and Ann L. McGill (2012), “When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act
Like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (August), 307–23.
Burris, Christopher T., and John K. Rempel (2004), “‘It’s the End of the World as We Know It’:
Threat and the Spatial-Symbolic Self.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86
(1): 19–42.
Dukes, Anthony S., and Lin Liu (2015), “Online Shopping Intermediaries: The Strategic Design
of Search Environments,” Management Science, forthcoming.
Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo (2007), “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor
Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864–86.
Ferraro, Rosellina, James R. Bettman, and Tanya L. Chartrand (2009), “The Power of Strangers:
The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 35 (February), 729–41.
Kim, Sara, and Ann L. McGill (2011), “Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine?
Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38
(June), 94–107.
Landwehr, Jan R., Ann L. McGill, and Andreas Herrmann (2011), “It’s Got the Look: The Effect
17
of Friendly and Aggressive “Facial” Expressions on Product Liking and Sales,” Journal
of Marketing, 75 (May), 132–46.
May, Frank, and Ashwani Monga (2014), “When Time Has a Will of Its Own, the Powerless
Don’t Have the Will to Wait: Anthropomorphism of Time Can Decrease Patience,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (February), 924–42.
Olatunji, Bunmi O., Craig N. Sawchuk, Peter J. de Jong, and Jeffrey M. Lohr (2007), “Disgust
Sensitivity and Anxiety Disorder Symptoms: Psychometric Properties of the Disgust
Emotion Scale,” Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29 (2), 115–24.
Picker, Randal C. (2011), “The Razors-and-Blades Myth(s),” University of Chicago Law Review,
78, 225–55.
Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Joseph F. Rocereto (2013), “When Humanizing Brands
Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization Amid Product
Wrongdoings,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (May), 81–100.
Rahinel, Ryan, and Joseph P. Redden (2013), “Brands as Product Coordinators: Matching
Brands Make Joint Consumption Experiences More Enjoyable,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (June), 1290–99.
Singelis, Theodore M. (1994), “The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent
Self-Construals,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 580–91.
Teece, David J. (2010), “Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation,” Long Range
Planning, 43 (2), 172–94.
18
Tybur, Joshua M., Deborah Lieberman, and Vladas Griskevicius (2009), “Microbes, Mating, and
Morality: Individual Differences in Three Functional Domains of Disgust,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 103–22.
United Laser (2015), “The Toner Truth,” http://www.unitedlaser.com/toner_truth.html.
Waytz, Adam, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley (2010), “Who Sees Human? The Stability and
Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism,” Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5 (3), 219–32.
Waytz, Adam, Carey K. Morewedge, Nicholas Epley, George Monteleone, Jia-Hong Gao, and
John Cacioppo (2010), “Making Sense by Making Sentient: Effectance Motivation
Increases Anthropomorphism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (3),
410–35.
19
FIGURE 1
STIMULI USED IN STUDY 1
Panel A
Anthropomorphic
Neutral
Panel B
20
FIGURE 2
STIMULI USED IN STUDY 2
Panel A
Anthropomorphic
Neutral
Panel B
21
FIGURE 3
THE EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND AVERSION IN STDUY 2