Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (5) : 612-624     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00612
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Does mobile shopping make fast decisions? The role of contextual factors and thinking style
Minxue HUANG,Wei WANG()
Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
Download: PDF(985 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Previous studies have proposed that firms attempt to reduce online shopping choice deferral, which may lead consumers to abandon or drop their shopping carts before making their final purchase. Moreover, given their mobility and tactile effects, the use of mobile devices can make consumers more emotional compared with the use of desktop computers, thereby triggering a decision-making process. However, the results of some surveys reject such case and instead reveal that the decision-making process of consumers is influenced by the interaction between contextual factors and product attributes. In this paper, these contextual factors were classified into mobile devices and personal computers, while product attributes were classified into low price and high price. Inspired by dual-process theory, we supposed that high (low) price might evoke the rational (experiential) thinking styles of consumers and that mobile devices (personal computers) could trigger their experiential (rational) thinking styles. When these thinking styles are triggered by price and device types, the online choice deferral of these consumers will be reduced.
We performed two studies to verify these hypotheses. In Study 1, we collected 3, 674 order data from the Tmall online shopping platform for around two months with the cooperation of a wine company based in China. The threshold regression analysis of secondary data showed that the shopping terminal (mobile phones and personal computers) had no main effect on online shopping choice deferral. However, these results highlighted a significant interaction between product price and device type. As predicted in hypothesis 1, the results indicate that online consumers have significantly more choice deferral for a low-price product when shopping using their personal computers than their mobile phones. Meanwhile, these consumers have significantly more choice deferral for high-price products when shopping using their mobile phones than their personal computers. We also conducted a laboratory experiment to test our hypotheses and verified the mediating effect of thinking style by bootstrapping. We recruited 138 participants in Study 2. Our 2 (device type: mobile phone vs. personal computer) × 2 (price level: low vs. high) between-subject design showed that these participants had significantly lower tendency of choice deferral for low-price products when using mobile phones than when using personal computers. On the contrary, these participants showed a significantly lower tendency of choice deferral for high-price products when using personal computers than when using mobile phones. The mediating effect of thinking style was also verified.
The results suggest that online shopping choice deferral is affected not only by product attributes (such as price level in this paper) but also by specific situations (such as device type in this paper). High- (low-)priced products may evoke the rational (experiential) thinking styles of these consumers, while mobile devices (personal computers) can trigger their experiential (rational) thinking styles. When the thinking style is triggered by the product price and device, the online choice deferral of these consumers can be reduced. On the contrary, triggering these two thinking styles at the same time can increase their online shopping choice deferral.
The theoretical contributions of this research are as follows. First, this study offers a deeper understanding of the consumer shopping scenario by showing that different types of devices can trigger different thinking styles, thereby extending the current perspectives toward mobile shopping. Second, this study enriches the previous research on choice deferral by exploring the situational effect on the decision-making process. Third, this study extends the current understanding of the experiential and rational thinking styles by examining the relationship between these two styles, thereby contributing to dual-process theory. The findings of this study can also help companies improve their scenario-based target marketing.

Keywords choice deferral      dual-process theory      rational thinking style      experiential thinking style      device type     
ZTFLH:  B849: F713.55  
Corresponding Authors: Wei WANG     E-mail: 497092314@qq.com
Issue Date: 20 March 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Minxue HUANG
Wei WANG
Cite this article:   
Minxue HUANG,Wei WANG. Does mobile shopping make fast decisions? The role of contextual factors and thinking style[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 612-624.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00612     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I5/612
  
购买终端 低价格 高价格 总计
手机端 1568 629 2197
PC端 1015 462 1477
总计 2583 1091 -
  
变量 N 极小值 极大值 M SD
单价 3674 12 410 98.19 83.98
购买终端 3674 0 1 0.44 0.49
订单时长 3674 6 106899 2252.11 12048.19
  
参数 估计值 t p
μ 1.426 5.941 < 0.001
β1 0.001 0.312 0.757
β2 -0.01 -5.496 < 0.001
  
  
  
  
来源 第三类平方和 df 平均值平方 F p
修正的模型 99.626 3 33.209 77.101 < 0.001
截距 2862.513 1 2862.513 6645.895 < 0.001
购买终端 2.957 1 2.957 6.865 0.010
价格水平 0.000 1 0.000 0.001 0.978
购买终端×价格水平 97.370 1 97.370 226.063 < 0.001
错误 57.716 134 0.431 - -
总计 3019.750 138 - - -
校正后系数 157.342 137 - - -
  
变量 模型1延迟选择 模型2经验性思维 模型3理性思维 模型4延迟选择
β t β t β t β t
手机端 -0.04 -0.33 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.78 -0.03 -0.29
价格水平 -0.44 -0.95 1.04* 2.07 -0.43 -0.53 -0.21 -0.46
手机端×价格水平 1.28* 2.51 -1.79** -3.20 0.45 0.51 0.89 1.65
经验性思维 -0.22* -2.02
理性思维 -0.02 -0.25
调整后R2 0.67 0.61 0.01 0.68
  
  
  
变量 模型1延迟选择 模型2经验性思维 模型3理性思维 模型4延迟选择
β t β t β t β t
PC端 0.33** 2.68 0.47* 2.59 0.28* 2.35 0.18 1.54
价格水平 0.28 0.58 -0.15 -0.21 0.48 1.00 0.05 0.11
PC端×价格水平 -1.11* -2.24 -0.04 -0.05 -1.31** -2.70 -0.45 -0.98
经验性思维 0.02 0.25
理性思维 0.50*** 4.23
调整后R2 0.64 0.21 0.65 0.67
  
1 Anderson, C. J . ( 2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129( 1), 139-167.
2 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A . ( 1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51( 6), 1173-1182.
3 Beatty S. E., & Smith, S. M . ( 1987). External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14( 1), 83-95.
4 Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J . ( 2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24( 2), 226-233.
5 Brengman M., Geuens M., Weijters B., Smith S. M., & Swinyard R . ( 2003). Segmenting internet shoppers based on their web-usage-related lifestyle: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Research, 58( 1), 79-88.
6 Chang Y. P., Xiao W. F., Qin W., & Yan J . ( 2012). The influence mechanism of third-party product reviews (TPRs) on impulse buying intention within the internet environment: By product category and commentators rank for regulation variables. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 9), 1244-1264.
6 [ 常亚平, 肖万福, 覃伍, 阎俊 . ( 2012). 网络环境下第三方评论对冲动购买意愿的影响机制: 以产品类别和评论员级别为调节变量. 心理学报, 44( 9), 1244-1264.]
7 Chezy, O. ( 2004). Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price thresholds: Predicting basic consumer reaction to price. Journal of Consumer Research, 30( 4), 612-621.
8 Cho, C. H, Kang, J., & Cheon, H. J . ( 2006). Online shopping hesitation. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 9( 3), 261-274.
9 Cooke A. D. J., Meyvis T., & Schwartz A . ( 2001). Avoiding future regret in purchase-timing decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27( 4), 447-459.
10 Crockett M. J., Apergis-Schoute A., Herrmann B., Lieberman M. D., Müller U., Robbins T. W., & Clark L . ( 2013). Serotonin modulates striatal responses to fairness and retaliation in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 33( 8), 3505-3513.
11 Cryder C., Botti S., & Simonyan Y . ( 2016). The charity beauty premium: Satisfying donors “want” versus “should” desires. Journal of Marketing Research. 54( 4), 605-618.
12 Dai, X. C., & Hsee, C. K . ( 2013). Wish versus worry: Ownership effects on motivated judgment. Journal of Marketing Research, 50( 2), 207-215.
13 Dhar, R. ( 1996). The effect of decision strategy on decision to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9( 4), 265-281.
14 Dhar. R . ( 1997 a). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24( 2), 215-231.
15 Dhar, R. ( 1997 b). Context and task effects on choice deferral. Marketing Letter, 8( 1), 119-130.
16 Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M . ( 1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25( 4), 369-384.
17 Dijksterhuis, A. ( 2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87( 5), 586-598.
18 Dijksterhuis A., Bos M. W., Nordgren L. F., & Baaren R. B . ( 2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation- without-attention effect. Science, 311( 5763), 1005-1007.
19 Dijksterhuis, A., & Olden, Z. V . ( 2006). On the benefits of thinking unconsciously: Unconscious thought can increase post-choice satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42( 5), 627-631.
20 Dodds W. B., Monroe K. B., & Grewal D . ( 1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28( 3), 307-319.
21 Elder, R. S., & Krishna A . ( 2012). The ‘Visual depiction effect’ in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003.
22 Epstein, S. ( 1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49( 8), 709-724.
23 Evans, J. S. B. T . ( 2002). Logical and human reasoning: An assessment of the deductive paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128( 6), 978-996.
24 Evans, J. S. B. T . ( 2003). In two minds: Dual-process account of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7( 10), 454-459.
25 Ferreira M. B., Garcia-Marques L., Sherman S. J., & Sherman J. W . ( 2006). Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91( 5), 797-813.
26 Fiske S. T., Lin M., & Neuberg, S. L .( 1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S Chaiken & Y Trope (Eds), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp 231-254). New York: Guilford Press.
27 Frost, R.O., & Shows, D. L . ( 1993). The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31( 7), 683-692.
28 Gilovich T., Griffin D., & Kahneman D . (Eds.)( 2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29 Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R . ( 1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22( 2), 186-199.
30 Grewal D., Monroe K. B., & Krishnan R . ( 1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers' perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62( 2), 46-59.
31 Hansen, B. E . ( 2000). Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrica, 68( 3), 575-603.
32 Hayes A. F. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
33 Hayes, A. F . ( 2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavior Research, 50( 1), 1-22.
34 Hubert M., Blut M., Brock C., Backhaus C., & Eberhardt T . ( 2017). Acceptance of smartphone-based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing, 34( 2), 175-194.
35 Hedgcock W. M., Rao R. S., & Chen H. A . ( 2016). Choosing to choose: The effects of decoys and prior choice on deferral. Management Science, 62( 10), 2952-2976.
36 Hsee, C., & Rottenstreich, Y . ( 2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 133( 1), 23-30.
37 Huang M. X., Yao S. Y., & Liu M. H . ( 2018). Self-enhancing or self-deprecating: How can celebrity endorsement enhance the marketing effectiveness of advertisements in social media. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 8), 907-919.
37 [ 黄敏学, 姚舜禹, 刘茂红 . ( 2018). 自强还是自嘲?名人代言如何提升社会化媒体广告的营销效果. 心理学报, 50( 8), 907-919]
38 Jing M., Zhou Y., & Wang F. H . ( 2007). Empirical study on online shopping perceived risk. Journal of Systems & Management, 16( 2), 164-169.
38 [ 井淼, 周颖, 王方华 . ( 2007). 网上购物感知风险的实证研究. 系统管理学报, 16( 2), 164-169.]
39 Kahneman, D. ( Ed) ( 2011). Thinking fast and slow. London, UK, Penguin Books Ltd.
40 Kozinets, R. V . ( 2016). Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews, A commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. Journal of Consumer Research, 42( 6), 834-839.
41 Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L . ( 2009). A framework for marketing management (4 Auflth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
42 Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M. & Netemeyer, R. G . ( 1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30( 2), 234-245.
43 Lichters M., Brunnlieb C., Nave G., Sarstedt M., & Vogt B . ( 2016). The influence of serotonin deficiency on choice deferral and the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 53( 2), 183-198.
44 Liu H. Y., Li A. M., Wang, H. Z. & Wei, H. Y. ( 2012). The effect of promotion types on consumers’ purchase decisions: From the perspective of construal level theory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 8), 1100-1113.
44 [ 刘红艳, 李爱梅, 王海忠, 卫海英 . ( 2012). 不同促销方式对产品购买决策的影响——基于解释水平理论视角的研究. 心理学报, 44( 8), 1100-1113.]
45 Li X. M., & Fu, X. L . ( 2006). The choice deferral in decision making. Journal of Psychological Science. 29( 1), 127-129.
45 [ 李晓明, 傅小兰 . ( 2006). 决策中的延迟选择行为. 心理科学, 29( 1), 127-129.]
46 Li X. M., Ye Q. L., & Yang G. Q . ( 2017). The lack of dominance and choice deferral: Choosing to defer to cope with the feeling of being out of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 157( 6), 754-765.
47 Mallapragada G., Chandukala S. R., & Liu Q . ( 2016). Exploring the effects of "what" (product) and "where" (website) characteristics on online shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80( 2), 21-38.
48 Mathwick C., Malhotra N., & Rigdon E . ( 2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77( 1), 39-56.
49 Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W . ( 1999). Hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106( 1), 3-19.
50 Mochon, D. ( 2013). Single-option aversion. Journal of Consumer Research, 40( 3), 555-566.
51 Mosteller J., Donthu N., & Eroglu S . ( 2014). The fluent online shopping experience. Journal of Business Research, 67( 11), 2486-2493.
52 Mourali M., Yang Z. Y., Pons F., Hassay D . ( 2018). Consumer power and choice deferral: The role of anticipated regret. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35( 1), 81-99.
53 Novak T. P., & Hoffman, D. L . ( 2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36( 1), 56-72.
54 Oviatt S., Cohen A., Miller A., Hodge K., & Mann A . ( 2012). The impact of interface affordance on human ideation, problem solving and inferential reasoning. ACM Transactions On Computer Human Interaction, 19( 3), 1-22.
55 Peck, J., & Johnson, J. W . ( 2011). Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: The role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 28( 3), 222-239.
56 Pejsachowicz, L., & Toussaert, S . ( 2017). Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility. Journal of Economic Theory, 170, 417-425.
57 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.
58 Rassin, E., & Muris, P . ( 2005). Indecisiveness and the interpretation of ambiguous situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 39( 7), 1285-1291.
59 Roselius, T. ( 1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35( 1), 56-61.
60 Shafir E., Simonson I., & Tversky A . ( 1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49( 1-2), 11-36.
61 Shen H., Zhang M., & Krishna A . ( 2016). Computer interfaces and the “direct-touch” effect: Can iPads increase the choice of hedonic food? Journal of Marketing Research, 53( 5), 745-758.
62 Sloman, S. A . ( 1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119( 1), 3-22.
63 Sloman S. A. ( 2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379-396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64 Sohn S., Seegebarth B., & Moritz M . ( 2017). The impact of perceived visual complexity of mobile online shops on user's satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 34( 2), 195-214.
65 Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F . ( 2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23( 5), 645-726.
66 Sun Y., Li S., Yin X. L . ( 2007). Two systems in decision-making and reasoning: Heuristic system and analytic system. Advances in Psychological Science, 15( 5), 721-726.
66 [ 孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉 . ( 2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15( 5), 721-726.]
67 Wang J. H., Malthouse E. C., & Krishnamurthi L . ( 2015). On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91( 2), 217-234.
68 Zhao M., Hoeffler S., & ZauberMan G . ( 2011). Mental simulation and product evaluation: The affective and cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 48( 5), 827-839.
69 Zhao X. S., Lynch J. G., & Chen Q. M . ( 2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37( 2), 197-206.
70 Zhu H. W., Zhang Y. Y., & Gong X . ( 2017). Does company’s humor resolve consumer complaining: The match of humor types and relationship norms. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 4), 526-538.
70 [ 朱华伟, 张艳艳, 龚璇 . ( 2017). 企业幽默能否化解消费者抱怨: 幽默类型与关系范式的匹配. 心理学报, 49( 4), 526-538.]
[1] LI Xiao-Ming;XIE Jia. The Influence Mechanism of Incidental Emotions on Choice Deferral[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(12): 1641-1650.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech