The Effect of Consumers' Mind-Set on Channel Migration Intention

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240416

Abstract

Abstract: With the development of mobile internet technology and multiple channels available for consumers, the study of consumers' channel migration intention has become a hot topic in the field of consumer behavior. Past studies on the antecedents of consumers' channel migration intention were mainly conducted within the framework of channel attributes, product classification, consumer characteristics, and demographics. However, the effect of consumers' mind-set on channel migration intention remains unclear. Since consumers' maximizing/satisficing mind-set is a main influence factor of decision-making among consumers, it is of great significance to investigate the causal relationship between maximizing/satisficing mind-set and channel migration intention, as well as its boundary and psychological mechanisms.
According to prior literature, consumers' mind-sets can be stimulated to engage in maximizing or satisficing by contextual factors. For consumers with maximizing mind-set, they intend to achieve the best outcome while making decisions by searching and comparing more options. After searching online, they may migrate to the offline channel to expand their option set and purchase here. In contrast, consumers with satisficing mind-set may decide to purchase when they encounter an option they may accept. They may feel that the online channel they used to search for information is enough to meet their purchasing need, for which they are not likely to migrate to offline channel for consumption. With this in mind, we predict that consumers with maximizing mind-set will have higher channel migration intention than those with satisficing mind-set. Moreover, previous research found that consumers with maximizing or satisficing mind-set don't vary in the importance they place on desirability, but the latter are less likely to sacrifice feasibility when pursuing the same goal than the former. Therefore, under the circumstance of low feasibility, compared to consumers with satisficing mind-set, those with maximizing mind-set may have lower cognitive lock-in because they have a lower preference for minimizing their cost, and then, they have higher channel migration intention. Under the circumstance of high feasibility, consumers with maximizing or satisficing mind-set do not vary by their preference for minimizing their cost and are not different in cognitive lock-in and channel migrant intention. Viewed collectively, we predict that cognitive lock-in mediates the moderate effect of feasibility on the influence of consumers' mind-set on channel migration intention.
Three experiments were conducted to test the assumptions. Experiment 1 was designed to provide preliminary evidence for the effect of consumer mind-set on channel migration intention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (maximizing vs. satisficing) in a between-subject design. Then, they rated their channel migration intention. The results showed that participants with maximizing mind-set had higher channel migration intention than those with satisficing mind-set. Experiment 2 used 2 (consumer mind-set: maximizing vs. satisficing) × 2 (feasibility: high vs. low) between-subject design to test the moderating role of feasibility. After being randomly assigned to the high or low feasibility condition, we used the same method to manipulate consumers' mind-set and measure channel migration intention as in experiment 1. The result showed that consumers' mind-set affected channel migration intention under low feasibility condition but not high feasibility condition. Experiment 3 aimed to explore the mediating role of cognitive lock-in in that moderating effect above, and it was the same as experiment 2 with two exceptions. First, we utilized a new method to manipulate consumers' mind-set to address the question of generalizability in experiment 1 and 2. Second, participants rated their cognitive lock-in after rating their channel migration intention. The results showed the same moderated mediation effect as expected.

Key words: mind-set, feasibility, cognitive lock-in, channel migration intention

摘要： 本研究通过三个实验探索思维模式是否影响消费者的渠道迁徙意愿以及可行性的调节作用和影响机制。结果发现：（1）相比于满意型思维模式个体,最大化思维模式个体的渠道迁徙意愿更高。（2）当可行性低时,最大化思维模式个体的渠道迁徙意愿高于满意型思维模式个体;当可行性高时,二者没有显著差异。（3）心智锁定中介可行性对思维模式和渠道迁徙意愿间关系的调节作用：当可行性低时,最大化思维模式个体的心智锁定显著低于满意型思维模式个体,进而有更高的渠道迁徙意愿;当可行性高时,前述中介效应不存在。本研究扩展了思维模式在消费者行为领域的影响,丰富了消费者渠道迁徙行为前因变量,有助于在移动互联网时代发现消费者的渠道迁徙规律。

关键词: 思维模式, 可行性, 心智锁定, 渠道迁徙意愿

Chen Jie, Fan Wenjian, Zhu Jiawei. The Effect of Consumers' Mind-Set on Channel Migration Intention[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(4): 895-901.

陈洁, 范雯健, 朱嘉伟. 消费者思维模式对渠道迁徙意愿的影响^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(4): 895-901.

References

[1] 刘楠, 李爱梅, 叶子铭, 周蕾, 丁浩. (2021). 一拍即合: 选择闭合影响最优化型决策风格者选择超载的中介机制. 心理科学, 44(4), 904-911.
[2] 朱冬青, 谢晓非. (2013). 最优化与满意型决策风格孰优孰劣?心理科学进展, 21(2), 309-316.
[3] Ailawadi, K. L., & Farris, P. W. (2017). Managing multi- and omni-channel distribution: Metrics and research directions. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 120-135.
[4] Aw, E. C. X. (2020). Understanding consumers' paths to webrooming: A complexity approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101991.
[5] Carrillat F. A., Ladik D. M., & Legoux R. (2011). When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers. Marketing Letters, 22(3), 283-296.
[6] Chiang, K. P., & Dholakia, R. R. (2003). Factors driving consumer intention to shop online: An empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1-2), 177-183.
[7] Chung S., Cho C. K., & Chakravarti A. (2021). It is different than what I saw online: Negative effects of webrooming on purchase intentions. Psychology and Marketing, 39(1), 131-149.
[8] Flavián C., Gurrea R., & Orús C. (2019). Feeling confident and smart with webrooming: Understanding the consumer's path to satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 47, 1-15.
[9] Gao W., Liu Y. M., Liu Z. P., & Li J. Y. (2018). How does presence influence purchase intention in online shopping markets? An explanation based on self-determination theory. Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(8), 786-799.
[10] Goldsmith K., Roux C., & Ma J. J. (2018). When seeking the best brings out the worst in consumers: Understanding the relationship between a maximizing mindset and immoral behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 293-309.
[11] Hsieh, M. H., & Yalch, R. F. (2020). How a maximizing orientation affects trade-offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome-versus process-focused decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(1), 39-51.
[12] Irmak C., Wakslak C. J., & Trope Y. (2013). Selling the forest, buying the trees: The effect of construal level on seller-buyer price discrepancy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 284-297.
[13] Levav J., Reinholtz N., & Lin C. (2012). The effect of ordering decisions by choice-set size on consumer search. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 585-599.
[14] Luan, M., & Li, H. (2017a). Good enough—compromise between desirability and feasibility: An alternative perspective on satisficing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 110-116.
[15] Luan, M., & Li, H. (2017b). Maximization paradox: Result of believing in an objective best. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 652-661.
[16] Ma, J. J., & Roese, N. J. (2014). The maximizing mind-set. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 71-92.
[17] Neslin, S. A. (2022). The omnichannel continuum: Integrating online and offline channels along the customer journey. Journal of Retailing, 98(1), 111-132.
[18] Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D., & Hayes A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
[19] Rim, H. B. (2017). Impacts of maximizing tendencies on experience-based decisions. Psychological Reports, 120(3), 460-474.
[20] Schwartz B., Ward A., Monterosso J., Lyubomirsky S., White K., & Lehman D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197.
[21] Shankar, A., & Jain, S. (2021). Factors affecting luxury consumers' webrooming intention: A moderated-mediation approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, Article 102306.
[22] Shi X. P., Lin Z. B., Liu J., & Hui Y. K. (2018). Consumer loyalty toward smartphone brands: The determining roles of deliberate inertia and cognitive lock-in. Information and Management, 55(7), 866-876.
[23] Tezer, A., & Bodur, H. O. (2020). The greenconsumption effect: How using green products improves consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 25-39.
[24] Tok D., Chen X., & Chu, X. Y. M. (2021). “I want It! Can I get it?” How product-model spatial distance and ad appeal affect product evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 135, 454-463.
[25] Trope Y., Liberman N., & Wakslak C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
[26] Vann R. J., Rosa J. A., & McCrea S. M. (2018). When consumers struggle: Action crisis and its effects on problematic goal pursuit. Psychology and Marketing, 35(9), 696-709.
[27] Verhoef P. C., van Ittersum K., Kannan P. K., & Inman J. (2022). Omnichannel retailing: A consumer perspective. In L. R. Kahle, T. M. Lowrey, & J. Huber (Eds.), APA handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 649-672). American Psychological Association.
[28] Zauberman, G. (2003). The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 405-419.