The Effect of Fluid Compensation on Group Members' Satisfaction after Concessions

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240118

Abstract

Abstract: Groups are becoming increasingly important contexts for people to make consumption decisions and behaviors, and consumers often complete consumption choices as group members. It is worth noting that group members may have different preferences for a product, and those who disagree with the majority may sacrifice their preferences and make consumption choices consistent with the group they identify with. This phenomenon is called concessions. Concessions lead to lower post-decision satisfaction and even harm subsequent consumption behavior and group behavior. Because the dissatisfaction of concessionaries is rooted in the fact that some attributes of the product do not satisfy their own needs, we classify the concessions of group members into concessions to hedonic attributes and concessions to utilitarian attributes. According to the Fluid Compensation Theory, when the current product attribute does not meet consumption expectations, people are more likely to seek and affirm another irrelevant attribute to indirectly eliminate the dissatisfaction after concessions with new purchase reasons. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate whether fluid compensation of utilitarian information can improve the post-concession dissatisfaction when group members concede because the product's hedonic attribute does not meet the demand. We also examined how compensation of hedonic information affects the satisfaction of conceders when group members concede because they do not like the product's utilitarian attribute. The mediating mechanisms and moderating variables are further explored.
To support the hypothesis of fluid compensation on product satisfaction after concessions, this study first collected some secondary data of consumer reviews in a group consumption scenario. Reviewers indicated that they initially did not want to participate in group consumption because of the hedonic attributes of the target product, and were impressed by the utilitarian attributes after going to the consumption in order to fit in the group, which alleviated the post-decisional dissatisfaction. This was initial evidence of the main effect. Three experiments were then conducted to further explore the main effect, mediating effect, and moderating effect. A concession scenario was first set up, in which subjects did not like the crowd-favored product because their hedonic or utilitarian preferences were different from the group, and then compensated for the hedonic or utilitarian attributes after the subjects chose to concede, followed by measurement of variables such as product satisfaction and certainty.
Experiment 1 supported the main effect where compensation for utilitarian (vs. hedonic) information led to higher (vs. lower) product satisfaction when group members conceded to hedonic attributes, while compensation for utilitarian and hedonic information had no difference on product satisfaction when group members conceded to utilitarian attributes. Experiment 2 supported the mediating effect of certainty. That is, compensation for utilitarian information led to higher product satisfaction through higher certainty compared to hedonic information when group members conceded to hedonic attributes, while compensation for hedonic information led to no significant increase in product satisfaction through lower certainty compared to utilitarian information when group members conceded to utilitarian attributes. Experiment 3 supported the moderating effect of perceived similarity, where perceived similarity in in-group hedonic preferences leads to higher product satisfaction through increased certainty in hedonic compensation (vs. utilitarian compensation) after concessions to utilitarian attributes.
According to our study, fluid compensation based on product hedonic and utilitarian attributes mitigates dissatisfaction after concessions and also validates the mediating effect of certainty and the moderating effect of perceived preference similarity. The findings add new improvement strategies to the concession phenomenon of group consumption, applying psychological theory to the marketing field to solve real-world problems. This study suggests that marketers should mention the utilitarian attributes of the product while communicating the hedonic value of the product to the group; when promoting utilitarian products with hedonic compensation to the group, they need to pay attention to whether the group's hedonic preferences for the target product are similar.

Key words: concessions, hedonic/utilitarian information compensation, certainty, perceived similarity, product satisfaction

摘要： 群体消费中,少数成员会牺牲自我偏好,购买与多数成员相同的产品,该让步行为导致较低的产品满意度。为改善该现象,本研究通过二手数据及实验1发现：基于产品的享乐及功利属性,让步类型与补偿信息的交互对产品满意度产生显著影响。实验2验证了确定感在上述交互效应中发挥中介作用。实验3证明了感知相似性的调节作用,感知偏好相似能提升享乐信息补偿的确定感,有效恢复对功利属性让步后的产品满意度。本研究发现流体补偿策略能恢复群体成员让步后的产品满意度,并明晰其影响路径和边界,为群体营销理论及实践提供有益发展和科学指导。

关键词: 让步, 享乐/功利信息补偿, 确定感, 感知相似性, 产品满意度

Huang Jing, Wang Hao, Wang Zhengrong. The Effect of Fluid Compensation on Group Members' Satisfaction after Concessions[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(1): 151-160.

黄静, 王好, 王正荣. 流体补偿对群体成员让步后满意度的影响^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(1): 151-160.

References

[1] 黄敏学, 高蕾, 李婷. (2021). 移动场景下的口碑评价: 调节定向视角. 南开管理评论, 24(3), 50-61.
[2] Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
[3] Aribarg A., Arora N., & Bodur H. O. (2002). Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 336-349.
[4] Atherton, G., & Cross, L. (2020). Walking in my shoes: Imagined synchrony improves attitudes towards out-groups. Psychological Studies, 65(4), 351-359.
[5] Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), 45-61.
[6] Bar-Anan Y., Wilson T. D., & Gilbert D. T. (2009). The feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions. Emotion, 9(1), 123-127.
[7] Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146-159.
[8] Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
[9] Dugan R. G., Clarkson J. J., & Beck J. T. (2021). When cause-marketing backfires: Differential effects of one-for-one promotions on hedonic and utilitarian products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 532-550.
[10] Faraji-Rad A., Samuelsen B. M., & Warlop L. (2015). On the persuasiveness of similar others: The role of mentalizing and the feeling of certainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 458-471.
[11] Farmer A., Kidwell B., & Hardesty D. M. (2021). The politics of choice: Political ideology and intolerance of ambiguity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 6-21.
[12] Givi, J., & Galak, J. (2017). Sentimental value and gift giving: Givers' fears of getting it wrong prevents them from getting it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 473-479.
[13] Goodman, J. K., & Irmak, C. (2013). Having versus consuming: Failure to estimate usage frequency makes consumers prefer multifeature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 44-54.
[14] Harmeling C. M., Palmatier R. W., Fang E., & Wang D. W. (2017). Group marketing: Theory, mechanisms, and dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 81(4), 1-24.
[15] Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2010). Action-based model of dissonance: On cognitive conflict and attitude change. In J. P. Forgas, J. Cooper, & W. D. Crano (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 163-181). Psychology Press.
[16] Hayes A. F.(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
[17] Heine S. J., Proulx T., & Vohs K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88-110.
[18] Inzlicht, M., & Al-Khindi, T. (2012). ERN and the placebo: A misattribution approach to studying the arousal properties of the error-related negativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 799-807.
[19] Iyengar R., van den Bulte C., & Lee J. Y. (2015). Social contagion in new product trial and repeat. Marketing Science, 34(3), 408-429.
[20] Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. H. (2017). The effects of promotions on hedonic versus utilitarian purchases. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 59-68.
[21] Kurt, D., & Inman, J. J. (2013). Mispredicting others' valuations: Self-other difference in the context of endowment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 78-89.
[22] Mandel N., Rucker D. D., Levav J., & Galinsky A. D. (2017). The compensatory consumer behavior model: How self-discrepancies drive consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 133-146.
[23] Menon G., Kyung E. J., & Agrawal N. (2009). Biases in social comparisons: Optimism or pessimism? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 39-52.
[24] Messick, D. M., & Cook, K. S. (1983). Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives. Praeger.
[25] Oliver, R. L. (2013). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge.
[26] Pham M. T.(2008). The lexicon and grammar of affect as information in consumer decision making: The GAIM. In Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 167-200). Psychology Press.
[27] Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 317-335.
[28] Randles D., Inzlicht M., Proulx T., Tullett A. M., & Heine S. J. (2015). Is dissonance reduction a special case of fluid compensation? Evidence that dissonant cognitions cause compensatory affirmation and abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 697-710.
[29] van Veen V., Krug M. K., Schooler J. W., & Carter C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience, 12(11), 1469-1474.
[30] Voss K. E., Spangenberg E. R., & Grohmann B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.
[31] Whitley S. C., Trudel R., & Kurt D. (2018). The influence of purchase motivation on perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 710-724.
[32] Wu E. C., Moore S. G., & Fitzsimons G. J. (2019). Wine for the table: Self-construal, group size, and choice for self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 508-527.