More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety Seeking in Purchases Julie Verstraeten, Ghent University, Belgium Anneleen Van Kerckhove, Ghent University, Belgium Jing Lei, University of Melbourne, Australia Ye Zhao, Schulich Business School This research reveals that shopping baskets are less varied when groceries are ordered online compared to when consumers shop for their groceries offline. We present a large database study and three lab studies that demonstrate this effect and propose that differences in anticipated satiation online versus offline underly this effect. [to cite]: Julie Verstraeten, Anneleen Van Kerckhove, Jing Lei, and Ye Zhao (2020) ,"More Eggs in the Same Basket: How Shopping Online Reduces Variety Seeking in Purchases", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 48, eds. Jennifer Argo, Tina M. Lowrey, and Hope Jensen Schau, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 94-96. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2659643/volumes/v48/NA-48 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Motives For Anonymous Gift-giving and Its Beneficiaries Sarah Marth, University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt, Austria Barbara Hartl, Danube University Krems & Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Eva Hofmann, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Elfriede Penz, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria INTRODUCTION (Ranganathan & Henley, 2008; VandenBos, 2017). The usage of a The literature on gift-giving in recent years answered many public bookcase, from the perspective of giving, is not a purposive questions. For instance: who are the givers and what are the motives act benefitting socio-economic disadvantages, but rather an act with behind gift-giving and re-gifting (Ballantine & Parsons, 2011; Segev, an unknown outcome for others (gift-givers). Important to note here Shoham, & Ruvio, 2013) and how gifting can act as symbolic com- is that public bookcases, as well as other examples in this segment munication between giver and recipient (Sherry, 1983) and therefore such as food-sharing initiatives, offer both the possibility to give and indicate goodwill in a relationship (Caplow, 1982). Thereby, this re- receive simultaneously, which is unlike charitable donations, where search primarily focused on the giving aspect and hence, the giver the role of giver and recipient are distinct at the moment of donating. of gifts. Gift-giving takes many different forms, starting with gifts Furthermore, Sargeant & Woodliffe (2007) point out the necessity of that are given privately and directly, such as gifts for Christmas or asking for a charitable donation as a defining element, which can- birthdays, up to and including gift-giving in the form of charitable not be applied to public bookcases. The research question emerging donations (Sherry, 1983). In all these acts of giving that research has regarding this circumstance is: focused on thus far, it is clear that the recipient is chosen deliberately. RQ 1: What are the motives that lead people to give gifts to Either the giver shares a personal relationship with the recipient, or anonymous recipients? is giving to a particular group of people (e.g. victims of a natural The possibilities of anonymous gift-giving raise the question of disaster) for whom someone (e.g., organizations) is requesting dona- who the recipients are. For example, public bookcases can either be tions. However, there are also forms of gift-giving which build upon utilized for the mere act of sharing, or as a way of giving to people the idea of giving to an unknown recipient without the need to ask of a lower socio-economic status who lack access or the resources for it. One example gaining increasing attention in the last couple of to obtain books. Public bookcases can be discussed as part of the years are so-called public bookcases. These are used to give away sharing economy (Belk, 2014; Botsman & Rogers, 2010) with the unneeded books (gift-giver) but of which may be of some interest to principal idea of less possession and finding alternative manners of others (recipients). Another novel example are food-sharing initia- consumerism. In addition to other characteristics, Bikos and Papad- tives where people provide food in public areas for others to take imitriou (2017) identify public book exchanges as “an act of social (LittleFreePantry, n.d.). The aim of this current paper is to focus on policy undertaken by the civil society itself” (Bikos & Papadimi- emerging ways of gifting unknowns, using the example of public triou, 2017, p. 32). They argue that public bookcases contribute to bookcases, to discover the motives behind utilizing this practice of society providing access to educational material for those unable to giving and also to take a deeper look at the beneficiaries (recipients) afford it. Therefore, public bookcases may not only serve as a way of this new form of consumption. to distribute good readings for booklovers, but also foster education, self-education, lifelong learning and intellectual learning to people THEORETICAL BACKGROUND who lack these benefits. It is against this background, that our second Public bookcases are boxes or some similar sort of bookcase research question focuses on the recipients of books placed in public that is publicly accessible allowing the placement and exchange of bookcases shedding light on if such initiatives of anonymous giving books, and providing a free, anonymous manner to give away, share can reach the socio-economic poor and thus bear a charitable notion and obtain access to books. In recent years, public bookcases have of gift-giving as described above. been widely implemented throughout Europe and especially in Ger- RQ 2: Who are the recipients of anonymous gift-giving and man speaking countries. For example, according to the website open- does their socio-economic status differ from the givers? bookcase.org a total number of 4,228 public bookcases worldwide have been reported (OpenBookCase.org, n.d.). In Vienna, Austria, METHODS approximately 60 public bookcases and other public book sharing possibilities can be found. While the bookcases are mostly provided Sample by associations, private initiatives or the city administration, it is This current research builds on intensive field work on public upon private citizens to place, exchange and take books from the book cases in Vienna, Austria. The research project used a mixture bookcase. of methods, including observations and photographical documenta- Regarding the process of using a public bookcase the well-re- tion of three public book cases (for a period of two weeks with seven searched motivations for gift-giving fall short here. The process of observations per bookcase per day, resulting in a total of 294 obser- gift-giving requires a giver and a recipient (Mick & DeMoss, 1990). vations), as well as a representative questionnaire. For the latter, a However, in the case of public bookcases the recipient is anonymous. representative sample from Vienna, Austria was drawn for an online Therefore, in this instance, gift-giving does not fulfill the function survey. The survey link was opened by 1,206 visitors, out of which of establishing and maintaining a relationship as proposed by Belk 105 participants aborted the survey. Overall, 1,101 participants com- (1976). Also, the motivation behind giving cannot include neither pleted the survey; out of all the participants, 179 reported to have the sending of signals about future investments in a relationship (Ca- neither having heard of nor seen a public bookcase and therefore merer, 1988), nor a symbolic act of communication (Sherry, 1983). excluded from the final analysis. Of the remaining sample, 421 par- Furthermore, the usage of offers like public bookcases does not fit ticipants reported never having used a public bookcase and thus also the definition of charitable donations. A charitable act is undertaken excluded. One participant did not provide demographic data and was to help people, who are in need of special resources or assistance therefore also excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted of 500 par- Advances in Consumer Research 94 Volume 48, ©2020 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 48) / 95 Table 1: Descriptive and statistical values regarding the ANOVAs testing of differences in the three groups. Recipients (R) Givers (G) Sharer (S) n = 84 n = 120 n = 296 M Mdn M Mdn M Mdn 2 F p η (SD) (IQR) (SD) (IQR) (SD) (IQR) p 39.00 43.13 44.31 Age 4.70 <.01 .02 (14.16) (13.00) (14.42) 4.00 5.00 5.00 Books owned 3.30 <.05 .01 (3.00-6.00) (3.00-6.00) (4.00-6.00) 3.00 3.00 4.00 Books read in 2018 7.36 <.01 .03 (2.00-4.00) (2.00-4.00) (3.00-5.00) 6.24 6.48 6.74 Universalism 7.81 <.001 .03 (1.29) (1.20) (0.95) 6.53 6.54 6.81 Self-direction 3.88 <.05 .02 (1.15) (1.22) (0.95) ticipants (48.4% men, Mage = 43.13 years, SDage = 14.15, Rangeage = ries in a total of 611 given reasons. The most common reason was 18-69) for further analyses. the benefit for others (25.53%, e.g. “So that others can also read a good book for free”), followed by the motive of merely discarding Procedure books (21.93%, e.g. “because I already read a book and don’t need First, we asked participants how many books they placed in or it anymore”). The third most often stated reason was to use a public took from the bookcase in the last year and how many they place or bookcase as an alternative to throwing books away (20.62 %, e.g.