Power and consumer preferences

1
Power and consumer preferences

• Anna Maria Zawadzka
• University of Gdansk, Poland
• IAREP conference, Rome, Italy, 36 September,
  2008

2
Theoretical background

• The presented research was based on the following
  theoretical background
• Exploration concerning influence of power on
  peoples choices and behaviour.
• Analysis of the relationship between
  promotion/prevention self-regulatory focus and
  consumer preferences.
• Previous studies concerning the relationship
  between power and consumer preferences.

3
1. influence of power on peoples choices and
behaviour

• Possession or lack of power activates two
  different self-regulatory systems approach and
  inhibition systems.(Keltner, Grunfeld, Anderson
  2003)

4

• Possession of power results in the following
• enhance of self-esteem and self-evaluation of
  task performance (Keltner et all. 2003,
  Struzynska-Kujalowicz, Wojciszke 2007)
• intensification of feeling positive emotions,
  attention to social rewards, expression of true
  attitudes and opinions(Galinsky, Grunfeld, Magee
  2003)
• increase in searching for risk and readiness to
  undertake actions linked with risk (Anderson,
  Galinsky 2006).

5
2. relationship between promotion/prevention
self-regulatory focus and consumer preferences

• Relationships between promotion focus and
  consumer preferences product attributes linked
  with creativity (Bettman, Sujan 1987), luxurious
  alternatives and attributes of products (Safer
  1998, Werth, Foerster 2007), hedonic attributes
  of products (Chernev 2004).
• Relationships between prevention focus and
  consumer preferences for safe product attributes
  (Bettman, Sujan 1987), utilitarian alternatives
  and attributes of products (Chernev 2004, Safer
  1998, Werth, Foerster 2007).

6
3. relationship between power and consumer
preferences previous studies

• Differences concerning financial expectations
  (Henry 2005), product choices (Stephen, Markus,
  Townsend 2007) and amount of the food eaten vs.
  liking (Wieck, Guinote 2008) between people
  possessing power and lacking power.
• Increase in preference for products associated
  with power in case of persons lacking power
  (Rucker, Galinsky 2008).

7
Question

• How does power affect preferences for brands and
  materialism?

8
Assumption
9
Hypotheses

• H1 Elevated power results in increase in high
  status brands preference.
• H2 Elevated power results in increase in
  materialism.

10
STUDY 1

• Subjects
• 87 students, 45 men and 42 women, age M21,39
  (SD1,43).
•  
• Experimental design
• 2 x group (elevated power vs. reduced power)

11
Materials

• Independent variablesActivation of thoughts
  about ones previous experience of possessing or
  lacking power.
• Dependent variablesAttitudes to high status
  brands and low status brands of the car and
  t-shirt, shoes, beer (selected on the basis of
  the pre-test results).a Cronbach for high status
  brands scale a0,80a Cronbach for low status
  brands scale a0,80

12
Results

• t Student test analysis
• High status brands
• t(79)1,86, plt0,066
• Low status brands
• T(79)lt1

13
Study 2 (in cooperation with Katarzyna Kazojc)

• Subjects
• 140 men car sellers, high school and college
  education level, age M35. (SD11)
•  
• Experimental design
• 2 x group (elevated power vs. reduced power)

14
Materials

• Independent variables
• Activation of thoughts about ones previous
  experience of possessing power over the customer
  or being under the customers control.
• Dependent variablesAttitudes to high status
  brands and low status brands of the car, clothes,
  chocolate, alcohol cosmetics (selected on the
  basis of the pre-test results).a Cronbach for
  high status brands scale a0,89a Cronbach for
  low status brands scale a0,85

15
RESULTS

• t Student test analysis
• High status brands
• t(138)-2,73, plt0,007
• Low status brands
• t(138)4,76, plt0,001

16
STUDY 3

• Subjects
• 103 students, 34 men and 69 women, age M23
  (SD1).
•  
• Experimental design
• 2 x group (elevated power vs. reduced power)

17
MATERIALS

• Independent variablesPair work manager vs.
  subordinate roles.
• Dependent variablesMaterialism level measured
  with Functional Materialism Questionnaire
  (Zawadzka) consisting of three scalesa)
  possessing the latest products a0,70b)
  purchasing exclusive products a0,69c) limiting
  possessions to utility products a0,77

18
RESULTS

• t Student test analysis
• Possessing the latest products
• T(98)1,20, plt0,23
• Purchasing exclusive products
• T(98)2,25, plt0,03
• Limiting possessions to utility products
• T(98)-1,27, plt0,21

19
STUDY 4

• Subjects
• 100 students, 49 men and 51 women, age M20,4
  (SD1,68).
•  
• Experimental design
• 3 x group (elevated power vs. reduced power vs.
  control group)

20
MATERIALS

• Independent variablesPair work experimental
  group - manager vs.. subordinate roles, control
  group - the same status.
• Dependent variablesMaterialism level measured
  with Functional Materialism Questionnaire
  consisting of three scales a) possessing the
  latest products a0,88 b) purchasing exclusive
  products a0,78 c) limiting possessions to
  utility products a0,70

21
RESULTS

• T Student test analysis
• Possessing the latest products
• Flt1
• Purchasing exclusive products
• F(2,89)2,44, plt0,09
• Elevated power vs. reduced power
• t(62)1,84, plt0,07
• Limiting possessions to utility products
• F(2,89)1,91, plt0,15
• Elevated power vs.. reduced power
• t(62)-1,91, plt0,06

22
CONCLUSIONS

• Elevated power results in increase in high status
  brands preference (study 1, study 2) and may
  result in decrease in low status brands
  preference (study 2).
• Elevated power results in increase of materialism
  in case of purchasing exclusive products (study
  3, study 4) and may result in decrease in utility
  products preference in case of limiting
  possessions to utility products (study 4).

23
Anna Maria Zawadzka

• Department of Psychology, University of Gdansk,
  Polandpsyamz_at_univ.gda.pl