Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Effects Of Classical and Operant Conditioning On Online
Consumer Purchase and Repurchase Intention
Yi Fen Chen and Jian Han Jiang
Previous research has shown that people are influenced by product stimuli
when making decisions. This study presents two studies examining the
effects which classical conditioning and operant conditioning have on online
consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. This work proposes two stages
of an experiment. In the first and second stages, the research models are
based on classical and operant conditioning stimulus. In the first stage, A 2
(classical conditioning: conditioning/ unconditioning) x 2 (product type:
utilitarian/hedonic product) online experiment was conducted. Additionally, in the
second stage, A 2 (operant conditioning: positive/negative reinforcement) x 2
(product type: utilitarian/hedonic product) x 2 (sales promotion: monetary/nonmonetary) online experiment was conducted. The results showed that when
consumers received classic and operant stimulus, their purchase
repurchase intention can become significantly higher for hedonic products
than for utilitarian products. Finally, when consumers received negative
reinforcement stimulus, their repurchase intention did not become significant.
JEL Codes:
1. Introduction
Learning is a process of constant development, involving different stimulation and
receiving immediate feedback. People continue to adjust to the situation under changing
reactions. Previous studies defined learning as two stimuli, or a stimulus and a reaction,
between the formation of the association or gain. Application studies regarding consumer
behavior indicate that consumer behavior has changed because of learning. Mehrabian
and Russell (1974) proposed that the framework of the basic structure of the implications
for environmental stimuli (S) result in the organism’s emotional reaction (O), and further
produce the behavior or aversion response (R). Scholars in the past have presented the
stimulus-organism-response model according to environmental psychology. However, with
the rise of the Internet, online shopping has seen the most rapid growth of all retail
channels; more and more scholars have begun to submit research related to this
phenomenon. Eroglu et al. (2001) indicated that online stores could not provide some of
the incentives of general retail stores, including atmospheric factors such as smell for
instance; however, other environmental stimulation factors can still be realized visually
(such as the color, pictures, layout design and parts of the website that provide the audio
stimuli to influence consumer psychological and behaviorial reactions.
Kotler (1991) proposed that promotion is the continuous use of all kinds of incentive tools,
most of which have a short-term nature; they are mainly used to stimulate and encourage
consumers or dealers to make advance purchases or purchase more products.
__________________________________________________________
Dr. Yi-Fen Chen, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. Email : fen1307@gmail.com
Jian Han Jiang, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. Email : zxc31387@hotmail.com
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
There are two kinds of stimulus modes: classical conditioning and operating restrictions.
Although different, they also have some similar principles which can be applied, such as in
alternative classical conditioning and operation conditioning. (Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966;
Liebert, Sprafkin & Davidson, 1982; Craig & Weinstein, 1965; Vaughn & Lanzetta, 1980).
Previous scholars have mostly had discussions on individual consumers following the
classical or operant conditioning stimulus response.
To date, few studies have specifically investigated the moderating influence of the
classical and operant conditioning on consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. The
purpose of this work is to examine the effects which classical conditioning and operant
conditioning have on online consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. This work
proposes two stages of the experiment. In the first stage, the research model is based on
a classical conditioning stimulus. In the second stage, the research model is based on the
operating constraints of the stimulus. This work presents two experiments and the results
of this research are then discussed.
2. Literature Review
Learning is defined as the practice or experience of relatively lasting behaviorial change.
John (1913) proposed the Stimulus-Response (S-R) model: people’s learning is formed by
stimuli and the response of the connection as well as the formation of such a coupling by
enhancement; the influence of factors such as practice affect people’s behavior and
attitudes. Thorndike (1913) found another kind of restriction known as tool operant
conditioning, which enhances the learning behavior theory foundation.
2.1Environmental Psychology
Environmental psychology is the study of the environment and people's psychology and
behavior: the relationship between applied social psychology, also called human ecology
or ecological psychology. In the earlier days, environmental psychology-related literature
mostly applied to the work environment, living environment or the entertainment
environment and human behavior. During this early stage, authors focussed less on the
retail market environment and consumer purchase behavior research (Craik, 1973).
John’s (1913) Stimulus-Response(S-R) model points out that people’s psychological
reaction to change occurs through external environment information caused by
stimulation. People’s learning is caused by the relationship between the stimulus and
response of the connection, and the formation of the connection by enhancement,
practice; the influence of such factors affects people's behavior and attitudes. Later,
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) used this theory to do further research and put forward the
“stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R)” model, which became the model of environmental
psychology. The M-R model is used to study the influence of the main store environment
on consumption. The research discussed the physical environment, which had a direct
impact on the consumer’s in-store behavior. Schultz, Robinson and Petricon (1993)
explained the promotion aimed at business representatives, distributors or consumers as a
direct stimulus or incentive to promptly increase sales volumes.
According to the above literature, this study used Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) S-O-R
model for extension. This work proposes classical conditioning and operant conditioning to
stimulate consumers through the research on consumers' emotions, following the
stimulation of the reaction.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
2.2 Classical Conditioning
The classical theory of conditioning was first proposed by the Russian physiologist Pavlov
(Pavlov, 1972) with dogs as subjects. In the experiment a bell is rung after which food is
given. By repeating the test, as the dogs heard the bell, it would cause them to salivate;
this is a conditioned stimulation (ring) and an unconditioned stimulus (food) producing
coupling. Bruewer (Bruewer, 1974) elaborated on the traditional classical conditioning
hypothesis. He explained that the repeated Conditioned Stimulus (CS) with Unconditioned
Stimulus (US) in the unconscious state causes the Conditioning Stimulus to be triggered
by a conditioned response (CR). Shimp (1991) also explained restricted learning as
signifying that when an animal or human experiences the different environmentallyproduced coupling, the special stimulation produces new reactions, one after another.
Gorn (1982) applied the classical conditioning experiment to consumer products. He let
subjects observe a slide show of different color pens (CS) while they listened to their
favorite (UR) music (US). The results showed that when subjects heard pleasant music
they formed a pen preference (CR).
Classical conditioning theory can be used to understand/explain the effect of advertising,
according to Smith, Feinberg, and Burns (1998). As early as the 1970s, classical
conditioning theory was mentioned in the marketing field, and was the accepted theory
underlying the advertising-related process Gorn (1982), Nord and Peter (1980) also
thought classical conditioning may change consumer preferences in TV advertising. Allen,
Janiszewski (1989) and Dawson (1973) found that the successful restriction usually was
accompanied by "contingency awareness". With the combined exposure of conditioning
stimulus and unconditioned stimulus, participants learn that a special unconditioned
stimulus appears conditionally accompanied by a special conditioning stimulus. This
restriction/unconditioned stimulus pairing characteristic of the discrimination is called the
accidental perception. Associative learning refers to instances when animals or humans
make connections among various events that take place in their environment (Shimp,
1991).
From the above literature, we can understand the classical conditioning learning process,
comprising a restricted stimulation and unconditioned stimulus accompanied by repetition.
And we can trigger the conditioning stimulus by a restriction of the reaction model. In the
first stage of the study, with the consumer product advertising stimulus, we observed that
consumers can restrict the stimulation and the associated unconditioned stimulus,
affecting consumers’ attitudes towards products and even the purchasing intention.
2.3 Product Attitude
In the consumption behavior study, attitude was regarded as a predictor of purchase
intention and the buyer’s behavioral importance index (Riley, Ehrenberg, Castleberry,
Barwise and Barnard, 1997). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined attitude as how people
stimulate specific consumer and affect their preferences for products. Liu (2003) thought
that product attitude can help to understand the consumer, as it usually directly affects the
purchase intention. So product attitude is a key marketing strategy. According to the
above studies, product attitude could reveal how consumers evaluate products to
purchase what they want. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:
H1: A conditioned group is positively influenced in regard to product attitude.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
2. 4 Product Type: utilitarian versus hedonic (classical conditioning)
Batra and Ahtola (1990) found that consumers perceive and evaluate products along two
different dimensions: utilitarian and hedonic. Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) reported that
hedonic products need attendant qualities such as fantasy, happiness and fun. Utilitarian
products seek to meet basic needs or to complete functions or practical tasks. Prelec and
Loewenstein (1998) found that in hedonic products the main aspect is the enjoyment
experience, which is more difficult to assess and greater than the actual functional
quantitative delivery benefits of utilitarian products. Babin and Griffin (1994) divided
consumer shopping into utilitarian and hedonic consumption values. The practicality of
consumer behavior was described as functional, task-related and rational. Usually this
means a deliberately efficient way to buy the product. Consumer value and emotional
value of consumption are more subjective and personal, and more frequently fun and
playful, rather than just related to completing a task; therefore, the emotional consumer
value reflects the consumer shopping entertainment potential and emotional value.
Michael et al. (2000) found that the preference utility properties would be used to carefully
evaluate the attributes of each brand and the final integration on the assessment of the
various attributes of each brand, before forming brand preferences through rational
decision-making tendencies. When consumers’ demand is pleasure-driven, their behavior
is an emotional response or fantasy in order to satisfy an experiential need; thus, the
consumers' behavior is a subjective experience. Consumers use the product to meet this
stimulus, catering to their self-confidence and fun-demand (Solomon, 2002; Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982).
Hedonic demand does not only respond to external stimulus and reality (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982), so the process of consumption usually requires the product to provide
excitement, self-confidence and fantasy, and focusing less on the actual performance of
the commodity (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) found that
consumers gave up the decision-making scenarios for feature situations. Consumers
would choose to keep the hedonic properties, and abandon the contexts. In the classical
conditioning of the stimulation, we know that the consumer attitude was influenced by the
product type (utilitarian/hedonic). Thus, according to the above assumptions, this study
hypothesizes that:
H2a: A conditioned group will have a positive product attitude regarding a hedonic
product rather than a utilitarian product.
H2b: An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a
hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product.
2.5 Purchase Intention
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined purchase intention, which is the consumers’ subjective
tendency regarding a commodity, and confirmed that it can be used as an important index
of consumer behavior. Fishbein and Middlestadt (1995) found that consumer attitudes can
be used to predict behavioral intentions. Consumer attitudes have a positive influence on
purchase intention (Dubé et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2002; Voss et al., 2003). Accordingly,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
H3: Product attitude has a positive influence on purchase intention.
2.6 Operant Conditioning
Skinner (1963) defined the participants through an external stimulation enhancement that
can actively engage them in some behavior; because the restricted operation mode is a
kind of voluntary study course, rather than a classical conditioning pattern, it can explain
the change of behavior. The operant model is used in the promotional activities of the
instance (Nord & Peter, 1980). According to the Foxall (1990), positive or negative
influences are enhanced when individuals receive reinforcement, such as the evaluations
of others.
2.7 Consumer Emotion
Organisms are the so-called intermediary under the stimulus of the environment; they can
be adjusted to respond via cognitive perception and emotions which interact with each
other. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) proposed the M-R model organism variables for
consumers' emotions. Consumers receive environmental stimuli which lead to emotional
changes. There are three main kinds of emotional states: pleasure, arousal and
dominance. Pleasure refers to consumers feeling interested and enjoying an environment;
arousal refers to environmental stimuli causing consumers to experience mental
excitement or invigoration; domination is when consumers can feel external stimuli and
that they are in control. In the adjustment M-R model, by using pleasure, arousal and
domination, their relationship to avoidance behavior can be explored. Donovan and
Rossiter (1982) and Donovan et al. (1994) found that pleasure determined the most
powerful avoidance behavior for emotional factors. With "pleasant emotions" and
"awakening emotions" consumers will stay in the store longer and their purchase intention
will be improved with the help of service personnel. The extra time and money spent may
also be increased by 12% on average. Baker et al. (1992) found that more than pleasure,
arousal and purchase intentions are positively correlated; Fiore et al. (2005) identified
experiential value and utilitarian value as affecting consumer response variables (attitude
and purchase intention). Eroglu et al. (2003) found that website design links have a
positive impact on the joy and excitement of interested buyers’ attitudes, satisfaction and
behavior. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4a: Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and
arousal.
H4b: Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and
arousal.
2.8 Product Type: utilitarian versus hedonic (operant conditioning)
Past studies have pointed out that the product type will influence consumers' emotional
evaluation (Pham, 1998). Raghunathan and Irwin (2001) pointed out that a hedonic
product will have a significant impact on consumer evaluation, unlike utilitarian products.
Consumers prefer hedonic products (Lim & Ang, 2008). Kempf (1999) also pointed out
that the hedonic test evaluation and ultimately brand attitude arouse important decisive
factors. In addition, regardless of the amount of involvement in the consumer products,
emotions affect their attitudes. Therefore, this research explores the different product
function attributes and its influence on consumer emotions through different stimulations.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
H5a: A positive reinforcement results in higher consumer pleasure for a hedonic
product than for a utilitarian product.
H5b: A negative reinforcement results in higher consumer arousal for a hedonic
product than for a utilitarian product.
2.9 Sales Promotion
Kotler (2000) pointed out that promotion includes a variety of incentive tools, mostly shortterm properties; its main purpose is to stimulate the target customers or dealers for a
particular product or service. Campbell and Diamond’s (1990) are divided into promotional
methods monetary and non-monetary. The monetary method includes monetary
performance products and price comparisons, such as discounts, coupons, etc; it is not
easy to compare non-monetary product prices, such as gifts, door prizes, etc. Mela, Gupta
& Lehmann (1997), in regard to the promotion and advertising of consumer brand
behavior, studied the long-term effects of the promotional tools, dividing them into two
categories: price-oriented promotional tools (such as discounts, future sales and discount
coupons) and non-price-oriented promotional tools (eg. merchandise display and “comes
with gifts” promotions).
Dodson, Tyboutand & Sterntha (1978) used price incentives to boost future re-purchases.
The results are in line with the self-perception of management theory (self-perception
theory). When consumers' purchase behavior resulting from promotions (external factors),
is based on economic value and the formation of cross-trading, and not on brand quality
(internal factors) while causing consumer, such behavior will lead to the purchase of
promotional products; repurchase probability will be lower during the non-promotional
period. Thus, this research proposes the following hypotheses:
H6a: Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention
and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase
intention.
H6b: A negative reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention
and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase
intention.
2.10 Repurchase Intention
The repurchase Intention is an important indicator of marketing (Fornell, 1992). Dodds &
Monroe (1985) proposed that the customer’s purchase intention is based on behavior
propensity. Folkes (1988) pointed out that repurchase involves a causal relationship. By
purchasing products or services, customers expect to be reimbursed if the product or
service fails to meet expectations; this will affect subsequent behavior intention. Kotler and
Keller (2009) pointed out that when consumers purchase products or services, they will
experience some degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and their psychological changes
will affect their subsequent conduct. If the consumers are satisfied, they will buy again, or
have a higher willingness to reuse; this is called the repurchase intention, which belongs
to one of the conduct dimensions, also known as the customer's repeat patronage.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
The general measure of the dimensions of multi-repurchase intentions is divided into the
two main categories: repeat purchase and recommendations to others. Therefore, this
study refers to the study of Kotler (1997). The Wong & Sohal (2003) repurchase intention
scale of this study is divided into repeat purchase, word-of-mouth recommendations and
recommendations to others. This research proposes the following hypothesis:
H7: Consumer pleasure and arousal have a positive influence on repurchasing
intentions.
3. The Methodology and Model
3.1 Research framework-stage 1
The research framework is illustrated in Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. In the first stage, the classical
conditioning was the independent variable and both classic conditioning and operant
conditioning were manipulated. Purchase intention was chosen as the dependent variable.
Product type affects consumer attitude and is a moderating variable. Product type is defined as
utilitarian or hedonic.
Classical Conditioning
-Product Stimulus
Product Type
Consumer Decision
-Utilitarian
-Hedonic
Product Stimulus
-Conditioning
-Unconditioning
Consumer Attitude
H3
H2
Product Attitude
Purchase Intention
H1
Fig. 3.1.1 Research framework-stage 1
3.2 Research framework-stage 2
The research framework is illustrated in Figure 3.2.1. In the second stage, the operant
conditioning was the independent variable. Repurchase intention was chosen as the dependent
variable. Product type and sales promotion affect consumer emotion and are moderating
variables. Product type is defined as utilitarian or hedonic.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Operant Conditioning
-Product Stimulus
Positive
Reinforcement
Negative
Reinforcement
Product Type
-Utilitarian
-Hedonic
H5
H4
Sales Promotion
Consumer
Decision
Consumer
Emotion
Pleasure
H6
Repurchase
Intention
Arousal
-Monetary Promotion
-Non-monetary Promotion
H7
Fig. 3.2.1 Research framework-stage 2
3.3 Sample
The data were gathered through an internet survey (http://www.mysurvey.tw/index.htm). Table
3.3.2 displays the online shopping experience of participants. This includes the five major
items considered by this study: Do you have online shopping experience? How long have
you been shopping online. How often do you shop online? How often do you browse
online shopping websites? How much money do you spend on online shopping each time
? As shown in Table 3.3.1, all of the participants have online shopping experience. Most of
the participants have had more than three years of online shopping experience. Most of
participants purchased on online shopping every one month. About 40.94% of participants
browsed online shopping websites each week.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 3.3.1 Characteristics of Respondents (n=320)
Item
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Shopping Yes
320
100.0%
How long have you Less than One Year
shopping
in
online One-three years
experience?
Three-five years
Five-seven years
More than Seven
Years
How often do you on Every Week
shopping online?
Every Two Weeks
Every Month
Every Two Months
Every Six Months
How often do you glance Every Two Months
at
online
shopping Every Month
website?
Every Week
Every Five Days
Every Two Days
How much money do you Under 500 NT
spend for online shopping 501-1,000 NT
each time?
1,001-2,000 NT
2,001-3,000 NT
More than 3,000 NT
Total
13
34
88
108
77
4.07%
10.62%
27.50%
33.75%
24.06%
7
26
53
126
108
44
42
131
27
76
129
101
43
31
16
320
2.19%
8.12%
16.56%
39.38%
33.75%
13.75%
13.12%
40.94%
8.44%
23.75%
40.31%
31.56%
13.44%
9.69%
5.00%
100.0%
Online
Experience
Description
3.4 Manipulation Checks
Following Khan & Dhar (2010), this study tested consumer knowledge of hedonic and
utilitarian products. Participants were asked to rate each statement on a Likert scale
ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. We tested consumers’ knowledge
of hedonic and utilitarian products. Participants were asked to answer with their level of
agreement with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. We
offered the available goods from online shopping sites for participants to choose from. The
result of the pretest indicated that the notebook was perceived as a utilitarian product
(M=4.226) and MP5 was perceived as a hedonic product (M=4.560).
After the t-test (Table 3.4.1), we could confirm that MP5 (t = 14.572) was suitable as a
utilitarian product and the notebook (t = 10.984) was suitable as a hedonic product in the
experiment. As the notebook can be carried around easily, it is more convenient and
practical than desktop computers. There are a lot of hedonic functions in a MP5 (such as
music, movies and games). Thus, we chose a notebook as a utilitarian product, and an
MP5 as a hedonic product.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 3.4.1 Compared T test (Utilitarian/Hedonic Product)
Hedonic
Product
Utilitarian
Product
Product
Mean
Std. Dev
MP5
1.678a
1.032
Note
book
1.363b
1.012
t
df
p-value
14.572***
29
0.000
10.984***
29
0.000
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
3.5 Material
The target product of the utilitarian test was the notebook; the target product of the hedonic tests
was the MP5. The information on the utilitarian product test was: “Intel Core i5-2.4GHz; 15.6 HD
LED; 2 GB DDR3 Memory; 640GB Hard Disk, NT$18,000.” The information on the hedonic
products test was: “Cortx A8-1.2GHz; 800*480; 9 inches, WIFI and 3G, NT$5,000.” In the
sales promotion, we chose the cash voucher and gift voucher for the notebook and MP5.
We designed the same 4% discount on MP5 and the notebook’s price. Participants could
use cash vouchers to get a discount of NT$720 on the notebook, and NT$200 on the MP5.
When participants purchased the notebook, they could use a gift voucher to get a 32GB flash
drive. If participants purchased the notebook, they could use the gift voucher to get a headset.
The 32GB flash drive and headset had the same value.
3.6 Experimental design and procedure
Experiment stage 1 was a 2 (classical conditioning: experiment/control) x 2 (product types:
utilitarian/hedonic product) online experiment. Table 3.5.1 illustrates the experiment design of
this study.
Table 3.5.1 Experiment Design-Stage1
Groups
Classical Conditioning
1.
Experiment Group
2.
Control Group
3.
Experiment Group
4.
Control Group
Product Types
Utilitarian
Hedonic
Experiment stage 2 was a 2 (operant conditioning: experiment/control) x 2 (product types:
utilitarian/hedonic product) x 2 (sales promotion: monetary/non-monetary promotion) online
experiment. Table 3.5.2 illustrates the experiment design of this study.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 3.5.2 Experiment Design-Stage2
Groups
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Operant Conditioning
Product Types
Utilitarian
Positive
Reinforcement
Hedonic
Utilitarian
Negative
Reinforcement
Hedonic
Promotion Ways
Monetary
Non-monetary
Monetary
Non-monetary
Monetary
Non-monetary
Monetary
Non-monetary
In the first experiment, we designed eight questions. Participants were randomly asked to
comment on their consumer experience. Then, respondents received scenario information
regarding the online shopping page of the first experiment. The pages showed questions
relating to the two types of classical conditioning, including conditioning and
unconditioning, and used two types of products (a notebook and an MP5) as interference.
The subjects were asked to answer three questions about product attitude and five
questions about purchase intention (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Each item was measured
on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were indicated by their level of agreement with
each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. In the second experiment,
we designed eight questions. Respondents received scenario information regarding the
online shopping page of the first experiment. The pages showed questions relating to two
types of operant conditioning, including positive reinforcement and negative
reinforcement, and used two types of products (a notebook and a MP5) as interference.
The subjects were asked to answer eight questions about consumer emotions (Mehrabian
and Russell 1974) and were divided into two types of sales emotion (monetary promotion
and non-monetary promotion). Finally, further pages showed three to five questions
measuring the repurchase intention (Dodds & Monroe 1985). Each item was measured on
a five-point Likert scale. Responses were indicated by their level of agreement with each
statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.
3.6 Measurement
This study defined purchase and repurchase intentions as the degree to which consumers
intend to buy products. The following items in Table 3.6.1 were adapted from the
measurement items (Mannsi et al., 2011; Dodds et al., 1991). Each item was measured
on a Likert five point scale. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement
with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 3.6.1 Measurement
Construct
Source
Product Attitude
Purchase Intention
Consumer Emotion
Repurchase Intention
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
Kotler (1997);Wong and Sohal (2003)
4. The findings
4.1 Reliability of Measure
The reliability analysis detection of each variable in the questionnaire checked the internal
consistency. Cronbach's α value was used to measure the scale of reliability. Cronbach's
α value table correlation between the questionnaire showed that the higher the value, the
higher the internal consistency. The Cronbach α coefficient was above 0.7 recommended
by Cortina (1993), so we could conclude that the reliability of the framing measurement
was appropriate for testing our hypothesis. Cronbach’s α (stage 1) of the product attitude
and purchase intention was 0.728 and 0.848, respectively. The Cronbach α (stage 2) of
product consumer emotion, sales promotion, endowment effect and repurchase intention
was 0.862, 0.721, 0.788 and 0.736, respectively, as shown in Table 4.1.1.
Table 4.1.1 Reliability
Construct
Product Attitude
Purchase Intention
Consumer Emotion
Repurchase Intention
Cronbach's α
0.728
0.848
0.862
0.736
Source
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Mehrabian and Russell(1974)
Kotler (1997);Wong and Sohal (2003)
4.2 Measurement Result for Product Attitude and Purchase Intention
Tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 provide descriptive question items for each research variable,
including mean and standard deviations. The research variable is four items consisting of
product attitude and purchase intention. In stage 1, Table 4.2.1 indicates that the highest
extent of the agreement in product attitude is shown in item (1) (M= 3.425). The lowest
extent of agreement in product attitude is shown in item (3) (M= 3.266).
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320)
Research Item
Mean
(1) After I reading this advertisement, I 3.425
think the wares are good in this promotion
(2) After I reading this advertisement, I 3.319
think the goods are charm in this
promotion.
(3) After I reading this advertisement, I like 3.266
this product.
Product
Attitude
Std. Dev.
0.735
0.833
0.789
Second, Table 4.2.2 indicates that the highest extent of agreement in purchase intentions
is shown in item (5) (M= 3.363), followed by (1) (M= 3.241). The lowest extent of
agreement in product attitude in shown on item (2) (M= 3.044).
Table 4.2.2 Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320)
Research Item
(1) I want to have this product.
(2) I intend to purchase this product.
(3) I would like to recommend this product
to others.
(4) I intend to put this product into online
shopping cart.
(5) I would buy this product if I want it in
the future.
Purchase
Intention
Mean
3.241
3.044
3.150
Std. Dev.
0.854
0.866
0.894
3.063
0.951
3.363
0.906
4.3 Measurement Result for Sales Promotion and Repurchase Intention
In stage 2, Table 4.3.1 indicates that the highest extent of agreement in sales promotion is
shown in item (1) (M= 3.900), followed by (8) (M= 3.869). The lowest extent of agreement
in product attitude in shown on item (6) (M= 3.294).
Second, Table 4.3.1 indicates that the highest extent of agreement in repurchase
intentions is shown in item (1) (M= 3.703). The lowest extent of agreement in product
attitude is shown in item (2) (M= 3.266).
Table 4.3.1 Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320)
Repurchase
Intention
Research Item
(1) I would like to recommend my
relatives and friends.
(2) I would like to this product again.
(3) I would recommend this product if my
relatives and friends.
Mean
3.703
Std. Dev.
0.757
3.266
3.653
0.872
0.769
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
4.4 Result of Classic conditioning Comparing Test
H1 posited that the effects of the classical conditioning experiment group on product attitude
would differ from those of the unconditioned control group. Table 4.3.2 indicates T test results
were (t= 2.436, p<0.008). This rejects the null hypothesis and means that the experimental
group and control group of product attitude had significant differences. This result supported
H1. Table 4.3.2 Results of each group of T test
Source
Mean
Experiment Group of Product 3.460
Attitude (conditioning)
Control Group of Product
Attitude (unconditioning)
t-value p-value
2.436 0.008***
3.275
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
4.5 Moderating the Product Stimulus (Classic) by Product Type
The results in Table 4.1.1 shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (classic) and
product type (F= 4.827, p< 0.029). The results show that there was significant prodct attitude
difference between hedonic and utilitarian products under classic conditioning group (M hedonic ,
conditioning= 3.646, M utilitarian, conditioning= 3.275; t = 4.805, p= 0.000). H2a was supported. An
unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product
rather than a utilitarian product. (M hedonic, unconditioning = 3.296, M utilitarian, unconditioning =
3.254; t= 1.916, p< 0.028). H2b was supported.
Table 4.5.1 Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Attitude ANOVAs
Construct
Product
Attitude
Product Stimulus
(Classic)
Product Type
Product Stimulus
(Classic)* Product
Type
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
df
1
MS
2.750
F
6.127**
p-value
0.014
1
1
3.403
2.167
7.581***
4.827**
0.006
0.029
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Fig. 4.5.2 The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Classic) and Product Type
on Product Attitude
4.6 Relationship between Product Attitude and Purchase Intention
Table 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 shows the results of product attitude under classic conditioning on
purchase intention. The results show that the product attitude had a significant influence on
purchase intention (F= 29.686, p< 0.000). Consumers revealed a significantly higher purchase
intention when they received classic conditioning stimuli (β= 0.292, p<0.000). This result
supported H3.
Table 4.6.1 Results of Regression on Purchase Intention ANOVAs
Dependent Variable
Purchase Intention
df
1
MS
15.545
F
29.686***
p-value
0.000
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
Table 4.6.2 Results of Regression on Purchase Intention
Dependent Variable
Purchase Intention
Regression
Coefficient
0.322
Std.
Error
0.059
Beta
0.292
t
5.448
p-value
0.000
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
4.7 Moderating the Product Stimulus (Operant) by Product Type
The results in Table 4.7.1 shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (operant) and
product type (F= 6.398, p< 0.012). H4 was supported. The results show that there was
significant prodct attitude difference between hedonic and utilitarian products under operant
conditioning group (M hedonic , positive reinforcement= 3.786, M utilitarian, positive reinforcement=
3.491; t= 4.706, p= 0.000). H5a was supported. An unconditioned group results in a negative
product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. (M hedonic ,
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
negative reinforcement= 3.734, M
H5b was not supported.
utilitarian,
negative reinforcement= 3.752; t= -0.270, p< 0.394).
Table 4.7.1 Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Emotion ANOVAs
Construct
Consumer
Emotion
df
1
Product Stimulus
(Operant)
Product Type
1
Product Stimulus
1
(Operant) * Product Type
MS
1.408
F
4.614**
p-value
0.032
1.547
1.953
5.068***
6.398**
0.025
0.012
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
Fig. 4.7.2 The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Operant) and Product Type
on Consumer Emotion
4.8 Moderating the Product Stimulus (Operant) by Product Promotion
The results in Table 4.7.1 shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (operant) and
sales promotion (F= 4.270, p< 0.040). Product stimulus can affect repurchase intention. The
results show that there was significant prodct attitude difference between hedonic and utilitarian
products under operant conditioning (M monetary , positive reinforcement= 3.913, M non-monetary,
positive reinforcement= 3.483; t= 3.398, p= 0.000). H6a was supported. An unconditioned
group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a
utilitarian product. (M monetary, negative reinforcement= 4.038, M non-monetary, negative
reinforcement= 3.258; t= 12.443, p< 0.000). H6b was supported.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 4.8.1 Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Decision ANOVAs
Construct
Repurchase Product Stimulus
Intention
(Operant)
Product Type
Product Stimulus
(Operant) * Product Type
df
1
MS
1.464
F
4.133**
p-value
0.043
1
1
32.939
1.512
92.993***
4.270**
0.000
0.040
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
Fig. 4.8.2 The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Operant) and Sales Promotion
on Repurchase Intention
4.9 Relationship between Consumer Eomtion and Repurchase Intention
Table 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 shows the results of consumer emotion under operant conditioning on
repurchase intention. The results show that the consumer emotion had a significant influence on
repurchase intention (F= 15.327, p< 0.000). Consumers revealed a significantly higher purchase
intention when they received operant conditioning stimuli (β= 0.214, p<0.000). This result
supported H7.
Table 4.9.1 Results of Regression on Repurchase Intention ANOVAs
Dependent Variable
Repurchase Intention
df
1
MS
4.637
F
15.327***
p-value
0.000
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
Table 4.9.2 Results of Regression on Repurchase Intention
Dependent Variable
Repurchase Intention
*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001
Regression
Coefficient
0.178
Std.
Error
0.045
Beta
0.214
t
3.915
p-value
0.000***
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Table 4.9.2 Summary of Hypotheses Test
H1
H2
`H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Hypotheses
Results
A conditioned group is positively influenced in regard to
product attitude.
(a) A conditioned group will have a positive product
attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a
utilitarian product.
(b) An unconditioned group results in a negative product
attitude regarding a utilitarian product rather than a
hedonic product.
Product attitude has a positive influence on purchase
intention.
(a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on
consumer pleasure and arousal.
(b) Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on
consumer pleasure and arousal.
(a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on
consumer pleasure and arousal.
(b) Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on
consumer pleasure and arousal.
(a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on the
repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more
moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention.
(b) A negative reinforcement has a positive influence on
the repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more
moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention.
Consumer pleasure and arousal have a positive influence
on repurchasing intentions.
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
5. Summary and Conclusions
This study examined the influence of classic and operant conditioning on online consumer
purchase and repurchase intentions. In the first experimental result, we confirmed that
the consumer was affected by the product advertising picture effect; consumers were
attracted to the product message, were restricted to the preference of products, and the
products produced positive or negative attitudes. We think that advertisements of the
implied emotional stimulation can directly influence the attitudes of consumers using the
classical conditioning learning principle. Finally, the consumers' attitude toward the
product influenced their purchase intention. Most of the hypothesis were supported. The
results also showed that when consumers received negative reinforcement stimulus, their
repurchase intention did not become significantly higher for hedonic products than for
utilitarian products. Therefore, H5b was not supported. The reason for this result might be
that for some consumers not all of the hedonic products were necessities (Lacher, 1989).
Thus, their repurchase intention did not become significantly higher under negative
reinforcement stimulus. However, when the hedonic products were important to
consumers, repurchase intention was raised significantly by negative reinforcement
stimulus. Therefore, there was no significant difference between utilitarian and hedonic
products under positive reinforcement stimulus. Furthermore, consumers were sensitive to
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
negative reinforcement stimuli when the products were utilitarian products. Thus,
repurchase intention towards utilitarian products was lower under negative reinforcement
stimulus (Sen & Lerman, 2007; Cheung et al., 2009). Compared with classical
conditioning, operation conditioning mainly emphasized that consumers were affected by
external stimulation enhancement, and were also active and engaged in learning activities.
In the second experiment using coupons and gift vouchers, the restriction of sales
promotion activities affected consumers' repurchase intention. We expected that the
consumer, through operant conditioning, would respond to different promotions (coupons
and gift vouchers). Finally, it influenced consumers' emotions in regard to their repurchase
intention. In the past, classical and operant conditioning were usually separate discussions,
but in this study we tried to make the sequential arrangement the second phase of the
experiment. Its significance for consumers occurred through passive classical conditioning
stimulation, and then in the operation and under active stimulation. It allows the consumer
to learn, and influences consumers’ purchase intention and repurchase intention.
References
Allen, Chris T. and Chris A. Janiszewski (1989), Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness
in Attitudinal Conditioning With Implications for Advertising Research, Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(2), 30-43.
Bandura, A. & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of
arousal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 54-62.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of
consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Babin, B. J., William, R. D., & Mitch, G. (1994). Work and/or Fun：Measuring Hedonic
and Utilitarian Shopping Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions”, Journal of Retailin, 68(4), 445-460.
Craig, K. D., & Weinstein, M. S. (1965) Conditioning vicarious affective arousal.
Psychology Reports, 17, 955-963.
Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 403-421.
Crowder, M. J. (1978). Beta-binomial anova for proportions. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 27, 43-37.
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L. & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth:
informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.
Liu, C. I. (2003). Effect of Reason Analyzing on Consumer Attitude Change: The
Moderating Role of Need for Cognition.
Dawson, M. E. (1973). Can classical conditioning occur without contingency learning?
A review and evaluation of the evidence, Psychophysiology, 10(1), 82-86.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Dubé, L., Cervellon, M. C., & Jingyuan, H. (2003). Should consumer attitudes be reduced
to their affective and cognitive baseds ? Validation of a hierarchical model.
International Journal of marketing research, 20, 259-272.
Dodson, A., Tybout, A., & Sternthal, B. (1978). The Impact of Deals and Deal
Retraction on Brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), 72-81.
Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). “Store atmosphere: the environmental
psychology approach”, Journal of Retailing, 58, 34-57.
Dhar, R., & Klaus, W. (2000). Consumer Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian
Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 60-71.
Donovan, R. J., Marcoolyn G., Nesdale A. Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 70, 283-294.
Dodds, W. B. & Kent, B. M. (1985). The Effect of Brand and Price Information on
Subjective Product Evaluations. Quoted in Advances in Consumer Research, 85-90.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online
retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 54,
177-184.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of
online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology & Marketing, 20 (2),
139-150.
Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish
Experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6-21.
Foxall, G. R. (1990). Consumer psychology in behavioral perspective. New York:
Routledge.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and
New Directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 548-565.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and
change: Fact or artifact ? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 181-202.
Fiore, A. M., Kim, J., & Lee, H. (2005b). Effect of image interactivity technology on
consumer responses toward the online retailer. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
19(3), 38-53.
Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1982). Behavioral evidence of the effects of televised food
messages on children. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 200-205.
Huck S. W., & MeLean R. A. (1975). Using a Repeated Measures ANOVA to Analyze the
Data from a Pretest-Posttest Design: A Potentially Confusing Task. Psychological
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Bulletin, 82, 511-518.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Morris, B. H. (1982). Hedonic Consumption : Emerging
Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
Kotler, P. （2000）. Marketing Management： Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
control, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and
control, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kim, M. K., Park, M. C., & Jeong, D. H. (2004). The effects of customer satisfaction and
switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services.
Telecommunications Policy, 28, 145-149.
Khan, U. & Dhar, R. (2010). Price framing effects on purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles.
Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1090-1099.
Schultz, E., Don, Robinson, A. William & Petricon Lisa, (1993). Sales Promotion
Essentials, 2. NTC Publishing Group.
Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer theory
and research. Handbook of Consumer Behavior, 162-187.
Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E.W., & Engle, R.W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning
experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. The Journal
of Consumer Research, 18, 1-12.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well
they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (4), 434-446.
Sen, S. & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative
consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 76-94.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
Liebert, R. M., Sprafkin, J. N., & Davidson, E. S. (Eds.). (1982). The early window: Effects
of television on children and youth. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lacher, K. T. (1989). Hedonic consumption: music as a product. Advances in Consumer
Research, 16, 367-373.
Morris, J. D., Woo, C., Geason, J. A., et al. (2002). "The power of affect: predicting
intention". Journal of Advertising Research, 42(3), 7-17.
Miller, N. E. (1969). Learning of visceral and glanduter responses. Science, 163, 434-449.
Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference
1 - 2 April 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-20-7
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Michael, W. A., Marc, W., & Sik, H. N. et al. (2000).Values and beliefs of vegetarians and
omnivores, Journal of Social Psychology, 140(8), 405-422.
Peltier, J. W., & Westfall, J. (2000). Dissecting the HMO-benefits managers relationship:
What to measure and why. Marketing Health Services, 20(2), 4-13.
Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings
and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4-28.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College.
Watson, John B. (1913). Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177.
Vaughn, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1980). Vicarious instigation and conditioning of facial
expressive and autonomic responses to a model's expressive display of pain.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 909-923.
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.