سفر جاده ای، راه پیش رو، یا صرفا در جاده؟ هنگامی که چهارچوب پیشرفت، انگیزش را در دستیابی به هدف تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29937||2014||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11878 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 1, January 2014, Pages 49–62
Abstract The present research examined the dynamic interplay between the framing of one's progress from an initial state toward an end state (i.e., framed as the distance traveled from the initial state to the current state -‘to-date’ versus framed as the distance left from the current state to the end state -‘to-go’) and construal level in influencing motivation in goal pursuit. In three experiments we found that both state and chronic differences in experienced construal level modulate the impact of progress framing on motivation at a specific stage in goal pursuit, i.e., when consumers are halfway between the initial and end state, but is less consequential at the initial or end stages. This modulation shows that type of framing only affected motivation of people with an abstract, but not a concrete mindset. Under these conditions, progress framed in terms of to-date produced increased motivation compared to a to-go frame. Moreover, perceived goal distance was found to mediate the impact of progress framing on motivation for individuals with an abstract, but not a concrete mindset.
1. Introduction Documented commercial loyalty programs have a history of at least 150 years. One of the very first loyalty programs is thought to originate from the B.A. Babbit Company that launched a program in 1852, where consumers could collect points found inside soap packages (Lonto, 2004). Today's equivalent might well be the smartphone-based loyalty app Shopkick which is used for essentially the same objective: to collect points (i.e., Kicks) to be redeemed for various rewards. Although most loyalty programs clearly differ in executional style and rewards offered, one thing they all have in common—similar to most other goal pursuit settings—is that they provide information about the consumer's progress in the attainment of the reward. How to do that as effectively and efficiently as possible has challenged marketers throughout the ages. For instance, the Esso Extra program depicts its members' progress in terms of how many points they still need to collect in order to attain a certain gift, which they term ‘the road to reward’. Shell on the other hand focuses on the number of points (i.e., Air Miles) members have already collected, i.e., on the road traveled. Do these subtle differences in how to present progress information matter for consumer motivation in goal pursuit? The question is pertinent given that studies indicate that while many consumers sign-up for loyalty programs, a substantial percentage (approximately 75–80%; Capizzi & Ferguson, 2005) drops out about halfway the process. In the present paper, we will address this issue. More specifically, we will focus on how and when such cues on the road traveled versus the road ahead affect consumer motivation at various stages of the goal pursuit process. Moreover, we assess the role of consumers' construal level in this process and will demonstrate that this construct allows for another way in which progress cues can be perceived, i.e., as simply being on the road. In short, we will assess when and how the framing of progress information affects motivation in goal pursuit from the initial to the end state of the goal pursuit process, and when it is largely inconsequential in doing so.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
11. Results and discussion 11.1. Manipulation check Our manipulation check confirmed that participants adopted different perspectives to monitor progress in both progress framing conditions. Specifically, participants in the to-date condition were more focused on what had been accomplished in the word-comparison task (Mto-date = 4.45 vs. Mto-go = 3.95; t(126) = 1.69, one sided p = .04), whereas participants in the to-go condition were more focused on what remained to be done to reach the end state (Mto-date = 4.18 vs. Mto-go = 4.74; t(126) = 1.94, one sided p = .03). 11.2. Motivation in goal pursuit A 2 (progress framing) × 2 (construal level) × 3 (progress stage) mixed ANCOVA was conducted on our motivation measure. Following previous research, we controlled for idiosyncratic variance and possible habituation effects (by including the sum of inter-trial break times of the non-target trials as a covariate; Fazio, 1990 and Touré-Tillery and Fishbach, 2012). The analysis revealed a main effect of progress stage (F(2,246) = 35.68, p < .001), indicating that inter-trial times decreased as participants moved from the beginning via the middle to the end (Mbeginning = 3.89, SD = 3.99; Mmiddle = 2.18, SD = 1.64; Mend = 1.53, SD = .84). 2 Furthermore, the main effect of progress framing proved to be significant (F(1,123) = 5.56, p = .02) such that inter-trial breaks were shorter for to-date participants (M = 2.20, SD = 2.30) than for to-go participants (M = 2.87, SD = 2.22). The main effect of construal level was marginally significant (F(1,123) = 3.45, p = .07), and indicated that participants with an abstract mindset moved to the end state faster (M = 2.27, SD = 2.36) than participants with a concrete mindset (M = 2.79, SD = 2.15). In addition, the analysis revealed the predicted progress framing by progress stage interaction (F(2,246 = 3.87, p = .02). More specifically, when at the beginning of the word-comparison task to-date participants were more motivated to progress to the end state (M = 3.06, SD = 5.40) than to-go participants (M = 4.74, SD = 5.24; F(1,123) = 6.36, p = .01). Conversely, at the end of the goal pursuit process to-go participants were (marginally) more motivated to finish the task (M = 1.39, SD = 1.27) than to-date participants (M = 1.68, SD = 1.30; F(1,123) = 3.30, p = .07). Motivation in the middle of the task did not differ between the progress framing conditions (Mto-date = 2.06, SD = 2.31 vs. Mto-go = 2.30, SD = 2.23; F < 1), thus replicating the ‘stuck-in-the-middle effect’. There were no two-way interactions of progress framing and construal level (F < 1) or of construal level and progress stage (F(2,246) = 1.61, n.s.) on motivation. 3 More importantly, the expected three-way interaction of progress framing, construal level, and progress stage was significant (F(2,246) = 3.52, p = .03). To probe the interaction, progress framing x construal level ANOVAs within each of the three progress stage conditions were performed. 4 Results showed that only in the middle stage of the word-comparison task the progress framing by construal level interaction was significant (F(1,123) = 4.37, p = .04), but neither at the beginning (F < 1) nor at the end (F(1,123) = 1.41, n.s.; see Fig. 1). Simple effects analyses revealed for participants with an abstract mindset higher motivation to reach the end state when they received to-date information (M = 1.72, SD = 3.42) compared to to-go information (M = 2.56, SD = 3.31; F(1,123) = 3.96, p = .05), but this effect was absent for participants with a concrete mindset (Mto-date = 2.41, SD = 3.10 vs. Mto-go = 2.06, SD = 3.02; F < 1). Full-size image (32 K) Fig. 1. Motivation in goal pursuit (break times in seconds) as a function of construal level and progress framing at three progress stages (Experiment 2). Figure options The results of Experiment 2 build on our results from Experiments 1A and 1B. First, we demonstrated the robustness of our findings by replicating our results from Experiments 1A and 1B. That is, we found a directional effect of progress framing for participants with an abstract mindset, but not for participants with a concrete mindset, such that a to-date frame compared to a to-go frame positively affected motivation. Second, Experiment 2 extends the results regarding the framing effects under conditions of an abstract and concrete mindset beyond the 50% progress state, as it revealed that the interplay between progress framing and construal level was particularly relevant when people had progressed halfway, but that close to the initial and end state the role of construal level shrinks. As such, we not only replicated the well-established progress framing effects at the beginning and end stages of goal pursuit, but also the earlier findings on the ‘stuck-in-the-middle effect’ where progress framing appears inconsequential for motivation. We extended this effect by demonstrating that it is subtle and qualified, only surfacing for individuals with a concrete mindset. When in an abstract mindset, though, the ‘stuck-in-the-middle effect’ vanishes and to-date information was found to be more motivating than to-go information. Third, we extended our earlier findings by showing that the results were not confined to hypothetical scenarios but generalized to a realistic, actual goal pursuit context. Moreover, we used a different measure of motivation, i.e., participants' actual behavior throughout goal pursuit. Experiment 2 is also important from a practical perspective, as it provides insight in when different types of progress feedback at different stages of goal pursuit are effective in eliciting motivation, and on how to overcome the ‘stuck-in-the-middle effect’.