Do we value goods constructed and customized by us more? A study of IKEA, effort justification and customization effect
Author: Mantas Gudelevicius
Student number: 11374241
Qualification: MSc Business Administration – Marketing track
Supervisor: Joris Demmers
Date of submission: 23rd of June, 2017
Word count: 12591
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Mantas Gudelevicius who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of
completion of the work, not for the contents.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 2
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... 5 Abstract ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Literature review: ...... 11 2.1. Literature review ...... 11 2.2. Customer participation in co-production within SD-logic ...... 11 2.3. The Ikea Effect ...... 13 2.4. Effort justification paradigm ...... 15 2.5. The customization effect ...... 16 2.6. Elaboration of conceptual model ...... 18 3. Methodology ...... 19 3.1. Research strategy ...... 19 3.2. Sample and measurements ...... 20 3.3. Variables ...... 22 3.3.1. Independent variable: customization...... 22 3.3.2. Independent variable: construction ...... 23 3.3.3. Dependent variable: Valuation of origami ...... 23 3.4. Statistical procedure ...... 23 4. Results ...... 24 4.1. Pre-analysis ...... 24 4.1.1. Age ...... 24 4.1.2. Gender ...... 25 4.1.3. Conclusion of pre-analysis ...... 26 4.2. Analysis ...... 26 4.3. Post Hoc tests ...... 29 5. Discussion ...... 31 5.1. General discussion ...... 32 5.1.1. Customization effect ...... 33 5.1.2. Effort justification and IKEA effects ...... 34 5.1.3. Interaction effect ...... 35 5.2. Theoretical contributions ...... 36 5.3 Managerial implications ...... 37 5.4. Limitations and future research ...... 38 References ...... 40 Appendix A: Pre-built origami pelican ...... 47 UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 3
Appendix B: Instructions that builders received on how to construct origami...... 48 Appendix C: The Schedule of the experiment ...... 49 Appendix D: Questionnaires provided to participants of the experiment: ...... 49
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Conceptual model ...... 18 Figure 2: Plot of the results ...... 31 Figure 3: The mean values of evaluation between different conditions...... 35
Table 1: 4 different conditions of the experiment ...... 20 Table 2: Age effect on different conditions ...... 25 Table 3: Chi square test ...... 26 Table 4: Results of the experiment ...... 28 Table 5: Summary of hypothesis results...... 28 Table 6: Post Hoc test for builder’s condition ...... 30 Table 7: Post Hoc test for interaction condition ...... 30
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 4
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor Joris Demmers, for his constant help and advice. It was a tough half-year and I am very happy that I was able to learn from such a great academic. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the lecturers and staff of the University of Amsterdam Business School, who have contributed towards my studies. I am grateful to all of them, for making my Master’s studies interesting and useful in professional life outside the university. Last but not the least, I would like thank my friend Andy Fekete, for his help and support during the final phase of this paper.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 5
Abstract
Nowadays, when consumers became extremely spoilt, marketer’s lack of new ideas of how to stimulate consumption and surprise their customers. If customers would place great value on the end product it would be easier to manipulate consumption (Caulkins et. al., 2006). Research of the IKEA and effort justification effects suggest that the more work one invests when constructing something, the more he/she will value it. The literature on customization effect also suggests that people would evaluate a product more if their preferences would be taken into the account during the production process. Literature, however, does not provide a clear view regarding the interaction of all of these effects on the evaluation of a product.
Consequently, the research question: ‘To what extent do customization, effort justification and their interaction affect consumer’s evaluations of self-made goods?’ is answered to address this research gap. The present study has demonstrated that effort justification and interaction effects can positively affect the evaluation of a product. No significant effect was found on the influence of customization on the evaluation of a product. These results imply that marketers, still have some room to surprise the consumer of today’s world. To do so, they must innovate ways to approach production. Furthermore, new applications of the IKEA, effort justification and customization effects, could become the gold standard for marketers. However, more research is needed in order to further clarify the effects of customization, IKEA and effort justification on the evaluation of the final good.
Key words: IKEA effect, customization effect, effort justification effect, consumer behaviour, service-dominant logic.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 6
1. Introduction
A new trend of network economy is developing within today’s information-based society. In this network economy, customers becoming key contributors to production and value creation
(Lusch and Vargo, 2004). Customers not only promote particular products and brands through eWOM (Gruen et. al., 2006), but are also involved in co-creation of production itself via the suggestion of improvements and design solutions (Füller, 2010). Co-creation is a dynamic social collaborative and innovative process which exists between companies and their consumers which is directed towards value creation (Piller et. al., 2010). Rapidly increasing use of mass customization, co-design and crowd-sourcing illustrate how important co-creation has become. According to Piller and colleagues (2010) there are two stages in which co-creation can occur:
1. Design of the product: Consumers can suggest their own design or suggest
improvements for the current one.
2. Product distribution/ manufacturing: Consumers can construct products themselves and
may even be able to distribute them.
One of the most compelling examples of co-creation is illustrated by LEGO, which has managed to turn their own customers into employees. People who buy LEGO are able to construct and create new ideas and designs and, if accepted by the community, they are rewarded by receiving a share of their product’s sales. In recent years, there have even been success stories where people have quit their jobs, with the hope of earning money, by accomplishing their ideas building LEGO’s (Wagner, Pasola and Helmchen, 2017). Another great example is vinted.com, which allows customers to trade and sell clothes which they no longer wear. In both of these examples, the historical difference between a company and the customer has vanished. Lush and Vargo (2004) argue, that marketing is more efficient when
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 7
customers are perceived as partners or as “co-creators of value”, which is the basis of service- dominant logic. This is consistent with the recent shift in marketing from ‘good-dominant’ (G-
D) logic, to ‘service-dominant’ (S-D). In the service-dominant approach, suppliers offer value proposition to the customer. If customer accepts the value proposition and engages in creating value it turns into value-in-use (Ballantyne & Varey 2006).
In order to investigate the principles of S-D logic, this study will research the underlying mechanisms which are active when customers participate in co-creation of value. This paper will research the evaluations of the product, when consumers have a chance to customize it and/or when they physically participated in the creation of it. It has been proven that people value goods differently (Dean & Biswas, 2001). Additional value of the product might be created through many different processes; by an object, which is believed to bring luck or security, something that reminds us of important events or perhaps a precious gift from loved ones.
As time passes, human nature may remain constant, yet the goods will change (Atkinson, et. al., 1996). Additional value might be added as a result of many reasons, but why do people overvalue goods? What are the main factors which affect the evaluation? If a consumer is given a complete liberty to choose and construct a product according to his/her preferences, and later constructs it successfully, would he/she then value this good the most? The phenomenon of the
IKEA effect may offer answers to these questions. The IKEA effect has many different names in scientific literature (also known as the handmade or trophy winner effect), however, the definition is consistent: When consumers design and construct products themselves, they tend to overestimate the product’s value (Buhren and Plebner, 2014).
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 8
Previous literature suggests that the underlying mechanism under the IKEA effect is effort justification paradigm, which in turn creates higher evaluations for the goods that we spent time and effort constructing (Mochon, et. al., 2012).
Researchers present conflicting evidence of how a consumer’s evaluation changes over time and which factors play role in the evaluation process (De Groot, Wilson, Boumans, 2002). That is why this study will look deeper into the process of evaluation and identify the factors which affect the estimated value of a product. Given that the applications of the IKEA effect are very diverse, more and more researchers and practitioners are becoming interested in it. Yet, some aspects of this phenomenon retain unclear and need be tested further. (Norton, Mochon and
Ariely, 2011). Norton and colleagues suggested investigating the IKEA effect further, and manipulate additional variables in order to see if evaluation will change.
The mission of this research is to explore on effects which together with the IKEA effect, may better explain the evaluation of goods. Mainly, we are interested in effort justification and customization effects. In previous studies, all of the effects were studied as a standalone phenomena’s (Norton, Mochon and Ariely, 2001; Egan, Santos and Bloom, 2007; Tsai & Hsiao,
2004), but no one tried to find a connection between them or manipulate them together. That is where research gap occurs. We are determined to find if evaluation can be affected the most, when all of these effects are manipulated. There are plenty of literature about the effort justification effect, however there is a lack of literature about the IKEA and customization effects, mainly it is because the last two are quite new phenomena’s and requires a more detailed study. We would like to compare these effects and provide clear evidence as to which of them has the biggest impact on evaluation. Secondly, we will investigate the willingness to pay for the finished product. In contrast to previous studies which paid closer attention to satisfaction
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Frey, Luechinger and Stutzer, 2004) or likeness (Kotturu, 2014) of the final outcome. Thirdly, the current literature is still missing a study of how these effects
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 9
interact, and what impact they would have if manipulated together before the evaluation of the final good. While this has been suggested by previous studies (Norton, Mochon, Ariely, 2011;
Dahl, Moreau, 2007), no detailed research has been done to study the interaction effect.
Therefore, the research question of this study is: ‘To what extent do customization, effort justification and their interaction affect consumer’s evaluations of self-made goods?’
In order to investigate the evaluation of the good (an origami pelican), a consumer experiment will be conducted. This will provide insight not only into the variables which affect the evaluation of the goods, but also the size of these effects. The empirical findings of this paper will enrich the theoretical knowledge of consumer behaviour and the S-D logic framework. We do believe that our study will serve as an incentive, to study these interesting phenomena further in the future. Moreover, we believe that this study will enrich the theory, that both effort justification and customization effects contribute significantly towards the evaluation of the good, but the strongest effect could be reached by integrating them together. The results should also provide managerial implications for marketers to consider in order to increase profitability, effectiveness and efficiency. Our study will contribute to the success of businesses by providing the framework of how businesses should present the goods they sell. In other words, if they should adopt the IKEA, customization and effort justification effects in their production. In considering the present study, managers will better understand the factors which influence the concept of value to create a better fit between customer’s needs and preferences. Furthermore, we will provide some strategies which may increase the effectiveness of sales.
The paper is written as follows: The literature review provides the theoretical background, main definitions and elaboration of the hypothesis, leading to the conceptual framework.
Further paragraph of research method will explain how the research is set-up, conducted and analysed. Than the results will be presented, following by conclusion, limitations of our study and further research paragraphs.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 10
2. Literature review:
2.1. Literature review In this paragraph of the literature review the definitions and effects mentioned in this paper are explained. Moreover, the existing literature about customer participation in co-production,
Ikea, customization and effort justification effects is reviewed. Furthermore, hypotheses are introduced after the relevant theory is mentioned. After reviewing the relevant literature, this section concludes with conceptual model of this study.
2.2. Customer participation in co-production within SD-logic
Service-dominant logic is mainly market driven and customer-centric (Lusch and Vargo
2004). In the S-D approach, companies create value through value proposition. In order for the value to be created, customer participation is mandatory. The main difference between good- dominant and service-dominant logic is that the former focuses on value-in-exchange, while the latter focuses on value-in-use. In the original paper of service-dominant logic Vargo and
Lusch (2004), presented seven major principles. However, three of them are underlying principles which are important to the co-production dimension of S-D logic. The first principle is: ‘the customer is always the co-creator of value’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). The idea of this principle is that value creation is an interactional process; it requires the active participation of both the supplier and the customer. The second major principle is: ‘the supplier cannot create value itself, only offer value propositions’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). That is to say that companies can offer resources, but value is only created once the customer uses them. In other words, value is not simply delivered to the customer through the exchange as it is in G-D logic. The third principle; ‘value is uniquely established by the recipient’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), suggests that the entity receiving the benefits will develop the value derived from it based on their experience and particular needs. All these principles are crucial for co-production, and that is why they
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 11
have been taken into account in designing the experiment and collecting the required theoretical knowledge.
Etgar (2008) presented the relationship between customization and co-production. He provided a model in which co-production is described as a process with five different stages which customers are involved in. Etgar’s model consist of: circumstances (internal and external) prior to the customer’s participation, the reason for participation, the evaluation of customer’s cost-benefit decision if one should participate, the participation and finally the evaluation and results of participation. This research is most interested in the fifth stage: results and evaluation of customer’s participation, since this is the focus of the present study. For further research Etgar (2008) suggested the examination of all stages in more detail and under different conditions, for example by manipulating the level of effort used. Co-creation allows businesses to deliver more personalised and customised offers, due to the feedback collected during the interaction with the customer in the value creation process. Terblanche (2014) argues, that co-production is ingenuously connected to customisation and contains different kinds of partnerships between the supplier and the customer. Therefore, co-production is a major ingredient of co-creation and it should not be used interchangeably. Components of co- creation must be studied in a great detail in order to prevent confusion. Bendapudi & Leone
(2003) focused on the economic inference of customer participation by arguing that when the customer is engaged in production, the supplier must guarantee that the process of production is of high quality and involving. This process should provide benefits to the consumer which could be in the form of accomplishment, enjoyment or self-confidence. Moreover, when firms leave assembly work to customers, they can save some cost, which in turn reduces the end price and leaves the consumer better off in economically. In order to examine effects which affects the evaluation of the good, we will go into more depth and isolate three of them, which might be underlying mechanisms under the higher/ lower evaluation of the final good.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 12
2.3. The Ikea Effect
According to Mochon, the IKEA effect is defined as consumers' willingness to pay more for self-created goods than for equivalent goods made by others (Mochon et. Al. 2012). The experiments done by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School, Dan Ariely of Duke
University and Daniel Mochon of Yale University, proved that self-made goods affect the evaluation of a product. The results of these studies showed, that when people invest their own resources into the production of a particular good (even if it’s not according to the highest standards), they will value the end result more than if they had not put any effort into its creation. Additional research has shown that labour leads to higher valuation only when the labour is fruitful. When participants failed to complete a task requiring their own labour, the
IKEA effect dissipated (Norton et. al, 2011). In other words, labour leads to love only when that labour is successful. The authors of the most prominent literature concerning the IKEA effect also suggested investigating the effect further and with more expensive items because perception of value between cheap and expensive goods differs.
The other researchers, who contributed a lot to IKEA effect were Dahl and Moreau, who suggested that placing some constraints on the amount of creativity that consumers can express leads them to be more satisfied with their eventual creations (Dahl and Moreau, 2007). They also proposed further research aimed at identifying the boundary conditions and enhancing the proposed theoretical framework by testing different characteristics and combinations of these outcome and process constraints. It is very important to present clear instructions to people on how to engage with self-service technologies. Unclear guidelines may cause consumers to fail in achieving their desired outcomes, leading to more negative evaluations of the end product
(Meuter et. Al, 2005). Additional research could extend the study of coproduction beyond
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 13
technology to other contexts. This area would benefit from studies in multiple contexts to determine what relevant antecedents increase consumer readiness.
According to White and Dolan (2009) people tend to rate their jobs as the least pleasurable activities, however they rate these activities as the most rewarding. This link between unpleasant work and their rewarding properties was studied by academics for more than half a century. Festinger, famous for his studies of cognitive processes and the theory of cognitive dissonance, defined the relationship as the effort justification effect. Festingers (1957) findings demonstrated that the more effort people put into something, the more they value it, even if the effort does not create any satisfaction. That is why we expect that participants who will be given a chance to construct the good themselves will evaluate it higher. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: If participants are allowed to construct the good, then their evaluation of the value of the good should be higher (than those who do not construct the good).
Effort justification effect was found not only in human behaviour, but in the behaviour of animals (Kacelnik and Marsh, 2002). This effect may explain many different events and activities that we can observe daily. For example, when a person looks for a job, he/she knows that most of the time there will be quite a few stages that he/she needs to pass in order to get the job. Recruiters also know that if they make the recruitment process harder and more challenging, the new employee will value his/her work more. The same logic can be applied to clubs and fraternities where applicants need to pass challenging tasks in order to become members. Norton and colleagues (2011) suggested that the same psychological processes are at work in both the IKEA and effort justification effects. The effort justification effect can therefore be described as the underlying mechanism under the IKEA effect.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 14
2.4. Effort justification paradigm
Effort justification paradigm, states that people value things made by themselves more than things made by others (Egan, Santos and Bloom, 2007). In other words, people add value to the good if they put time and effort into its creation. For example, why is it that every parent thinks that their child is the best and the nicest kid in the world? Effort justification paradigm might explain that; from the day the child is born, parents spend a lot of time with it and invest a lot of resources towards its growth into a smart and good human being. Time spent with a child also nurtures a relationship and creates biases which affect cognitive processes. The effort justification phenomenon is frequently explained in terms of cognitive dissonance (Festinger &
Carlsmith, 1959). Cooper (2012) argues that cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual perceives that his/her cognitions are inconsistent with his/her behaviour. For example, when individual performs a behaviour which contradicts to his beliefs he will feel a discomfort, and according to theory he will strive to make these cognitions consistent with his behaviour.
Festinger did not suggest why cognitive dissonance produces discomfort and changes in behaviour and/or cognition. The action-based model of dissonance does introduce a fundamental incentive (Jones and Jones, 2015). Effort justification is the tendency to establish a higher value (higher than the unbiased value) to an outcome, into effort was invested. Lydall argues that one way to investigate whether complex cognitive processing is required for effort justification is to determine whether this effect occurs in animals. Lydall (2010) found that similar to humans, rats place more value on the things they work hardest for. ‘Although appealing to such a theory to account for rat’s behaviour is possible, one of the guiding principles of comparative psychology is to interpret an animal's behaviour in the simplest possible terms’ (Lydall, 2010, page 45). Axsom studied the effort justification affect in the weight loss experiments. In these studies Axsom (1983) found that the notion of effort justification predicts weight loss for participants who engaged in a high degree of effort and
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 15
who perceived their freedom to participate to be high. Since an overwhelming proportion of subjects perceived their freedom to be high, the effects found for the effort variable are consistent with the effort justification approach (Axsom, 1983). Axsom also proposed studying effort justification over time, because perceptions of how people allocate effort might change.
As we can see, effort justification paradigm received a lot of attention from previous literature and indeed it is the most studied effect out of all that our study has researched. Effort justification paradigm can be explained through cognitive dissonance theory. The effects of this paradigm can be detected even between animals, hence effort justification paradigm, can be adapted in different disciplines.
2.5. The customization effect
Customization effect is mainly used in mass markets, where retailers have observed the phenomenom, that consumers like a good more when they can customize (Franke, Scheier and
Kaiser, 2009). Even though most of the time self-customization cost more, it is becoming a popular trend, especially among millennials, who tend to look for a way to stand out from the crowd. The customization effect may also influence how people evaluate goods. The more customization people can use, the more they should like the good, and hence value it (Tsai &
Hsiao, 2004). With this and adding the findings about the IKEA and effort justification effects of previous literature in mind (Norton et. al. 2011; Egan, Santos and Bloom, 2007) we expect that the valuation of the good should be the highest when people can customize and participate in production (construct the good). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: If participants are allowed to do both construct and customize the good, then the evaluation of the good should be the highest and most significant towards the evaluation of the good.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 16
By allowing customers to customize goods, companies attempt to develop a unique value to their customers (Gilmore, Pine, 1997). Customization can therefore be used as a tool to create a good according to individual preferences. For example, when one buys a new car, he/she can customize the car the way he likes it. In the example of a car, a buyer can customize anything, from colour to the suspension and engine. However, these types of customization also add additional costs, yet consumers, particularly millennials, are willing to pay these costs in order to stand out from the crowd. Turkay and Adinolf (2015) argues, that customization presents people with decision-making authority over the product, letting them manipulate and develop their own experiences, based on their needs and desires. The opportunity to take part in the creation and control the outcome of a product establish an emotional connection, which leads to psychological ownership, or the feeling that something belongs to oneself even without valid ownership (Margalit, 2014). According to Stump (2002) product customization has become an important feature of business-to-business marketing. In technology-based industrial markets, the rapid pace of technological change has increased the demand for customized products.
Buyers find customized products advantageous not only because they more precisely meet their idiosyncratic needs, but also because customized products often incorporate the latest technologies, which can be an important source of competitive advantage. Stump (2002) also suggests that future research should focus on simultaneously measuring sellers as well as buyers perceptions of how various activities moderate the impact of product customization on satisfaction and the subsequent expectations of continuity. According to Franke and colleagues
(2009), self-designed products generate a significantly higher willingness to pay. Therefore, we expect that participants who will be able to customize the good, will value it more. This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: If participants are allowed to customize the good, then their evaluation of the value of the good should be higher (than those who do not customize the good).
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 17
Customization effect is mediated by feelings of accomplishment and moderated by the outcome of the process as well as the individual's perceived contribution to the self-design process. Wang and colleagues (2010) argue, that it is unclear how efforts to customize production would affect customer satisfaction and suggest researching this in the future.
Furthermore, Hedge and colleagues (2005) argue that the mechanisms of enhanced customization performance should be studied in a more detail. Moreover, Paiva and Teixeira
(2007) add, that although there are a number of studies about customization, there is little empirical evidence about this effect’s effectiveness. They therefore suggest that future research should examine customer trade-offs in evaluating customized services and goods. This will be tested in this research.
2.6. Elaboration of conceptual model An illustration of the hypothesized relationships between customization and customer creation of production towards evaluation of the final good is presented in the conceptual model in figure
1.
Customization: Y/N H2
Evaluation of the H3 final good
Customer creation of production: Y/N H1
Figure 1: Conceptual model
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 18
3. Methodology
The following chapter presents the research design and the way data was collected in order to examine the hypothesis. Moreover, variables of the conceptual model are described and the sample is summarized. Lastly, the statistical procedure of quantitative data analysis is presented, which was used to test the hypothesis and answer the research question.
3.1. Research strategy
In this study, a 2(constructing the origami (builders) versus inspecting it (non-builders)) x 2
(customizing the colour of origami versus get pre-selected colour) between subject, factorial design is used. The experimental approach was selected in order to establish different groups which would allow participants to build and/or customise the good. Participants were randomly divided into four condition groups (see table1). In the first condition, participants were asked to construct the origami and they were given a chance to choose between three different colours of origami paper; this condition tested both customization and customer participation in production effects. In the second condition, participants were asked to construct origami, but they could not choose the colour of it. In order to prevent individual attitudes towards a particular colour, green colour paper was selected and presented to all of the participants. In the third condition, people were given pre-built origami, and they could choose between three different colours (Green, blue and yellow). The fourth and last condition, was a control condition, in which participants were given pre-built, green origami in order to estimate value to it. After participants constructed/ inspected origami pelican, they were asked to fill in questionnaires (See appendix). Two different versions of questionnaires were used, one for builders and another for non-builders. In order to ensure internal validity, all questions were based on upon previously validated experimental tests. All of the questions were scored on 10
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 19
point Likert scale with the exception of one open-ended question which asked participants to write the evaluation of origami. Norman (2010) argues that it is common practise to use Likert scales as an interval scale, and since it was used many times in practise Likert scales were used as interval scale in the questionnaires too.
Participants are allowed to Participants are not allowed choose the colour of to choose colour of origami. origami. Participants allowed to construct the origami. Condition 1 Condition 2
Participants cannot construct the origami. Condition 3 Condition 4
Table 1: 4 different conditions of the experiment
3.2. Sample and measurements
Probability sampling was used in this research since sample has a known probability of being selected (Gallup & Newport, 2009). In other words, when a prospective participant was approached, he or she had a chance to refuse to participate in the experiment (and it happened quite often). It can be explained by the fact that some people were working on their own projects and did not want to be bothered by something else. In order to collect the required amount of participants, I followed the design of Simmons and colleagues (2011) who recommended at least 20 participants per condition. In total 128 trials were conducted, resulting in 32 per condition. The sample was gained during period of two weeks (for location and dates see appendix). In order to prevent subject error, which might affect the final results, the locations
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 20
and times were changed daily (Saunders, et. al., 2012). Subjects were recruited by approaching students directly and asking them to participate in the experiment.
This method of recruitment, however, potentially threatens the internal validity, of the experiment. The biggest potential threat comes from the so-called observer effect – which occurs when participant is influenced by the physical presence of the researcher (a participant might pay more attention to the experiment, because there is a researcher next to him).
According to Saunders and colleagues (2012) this could also lead to subject biases, or in other words, participants might oppose their own beliefs and reasoning. To prevent these possible threats, I tried to dress non-formally and keep a warm and friendly dialogue (both verbally and non-verbally).
Data was collected at three different campuses of the University of Amsterdam. Participants were asked to either build an origami pelican or inspect it. After doing it, they were asked to complete a short questionnaire. I followed the same procedure used by Norton, Mochon and
Ariely (2011) in their original IKEA effect experiment, only with a different object and with monetary conditions. In exchange for participating in my research a participant earned 1 euro.
However before evaluating the origami pelican, participants were informed that they can bid this one euro on it and if successful they might win it. This was done intentionally in order to prevent the endowment effect which suggests that people tend to value an object more once they take ownership of it (Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler, 1991). This is also why we emphasized that participants do not own the origami and why they were asked to place their bid from 0 to 100 in monetary terms (for example, if a participant wrote 70, we would assume he is bidding 70 cents for the pelican). If the participants bidding price was higher than the random number (a random number from 0 to 100) which the researcher had drawn, the participant could keep the origami pelican. If however, the random number was higher, the participant would not get to keep the origami. It should be mentioned, that the random number was drawn by the
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 21
mobile application ‘Random UX’. Moreover, at the end of the experiment, after participants signed the participation agreement, they were given 1 euro anyway, so all of them received either one euro or one euro and an origami pelican.
In total, 128 subjects participated in this study, however not all the questionnaires were completed correctly. As a result, 5 questionnaires were discarded resulting in a total of 123 data samples in this study. The age of participants ranged from 19 to 43 years old (M=23.78,
SD=3.85). 58% of participants were women, while the remaining 42% were men.
3.3. Variables
As was already shown in the conceptual model, three variables were tested. The following part describes each of the variables in more detail.
3.3.1. Independent variable: customization
The first variable, which was manipulated was customization. This variable was measured by the price that participants bid on origami pelican. In their primary work concerning the IKEA effect, Norton, Mochon and Ariely (2011) focused only on customer participation in production. They did however mention that customization might affect the final outcome of the good; ‘’some labour allows for product customization (making a bear with one’s alma mater’s logo) – which might increase valuation’’ (Norton et. al., 2011, P. 3). That is why participants were able to choose either the colour of the origami themselves, or inspect an origami pelican made with pre-selected colour; hence they were allowed to customize the origami or they were not. As it was stated earlier, previous literature has presumed that a higher evaluation of a good should result from allowing participants to indicate their preferences.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 22
3.3.2. Independent variable: construction
The second variable, which was manipulated in order to measure dependent variable was construction or the condition in which participants were asked to put effort into constructing the origami. As was stated in the previous literature written by Norton, Mochon and Ariely
(2011, page 3) ‘When people imbue products with their own labour, their effort can increase their valuations’. On the basis of this argument, participants were asked to actually build the origami themselves (builders), or inspect pre-built origami pelican (non-builders). Literature presumes, that the effort justification effect might play a role here. People who build the origami should evaluate it higher than the ones who only had a chance to inspect it. This variable, similar to customization, was measured by the price which participants bid on the origami pelican.
3.3.3. Dependent variable: Valuation of origami
Evaluation of the final good (origami pelican) was the variable which we wanted to measure.
The evaluation varied from 0 to 100 in monetary terms, where 100 was 1 euro and 0 was 0 cents. In order to measure dependent variable, both independent variables were manipulated separately, as well as together in interaction condition. Some interesting results occurred, but we will go deeper with them in results section.
3.4. Statistical procedure
Raw data from the questionnaires was entered into IBM SPSS (ver.22) statistical software.
Due to unreadable or incomplete questionnaires 5 of them were discarded (6% of total data collected). In order to ensure consistency among the items, a reliability check of measures was
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 23
done. To test the hypothesis, a regression analysis was conducted. Presentation of the results as well as an analysis used by the SPSS are discussed in the Results section below.
4. Results
This chapter starts with a pre-analysis, where we tried to find possible biases which may occurred when we allocated participants to different conditions. After that main results will be presented following by overview of the hypothesis and follow up tests in order to strengthen our findings.
4.1. Pre-analysis
Several preliminary analyses were conducted in order to check for biases when allocated participants into different conditions. We wanted to examine if there were any significant differences in age and gender between four conditions. Tests taken to test it and results are provided below.
4.1.1. Age
A one way ANOVA was conducted to check for significant differences in age between the four conditions. (Table 2). Apparently, age varied significantly between the condition groups and this might caused differences between them. Age was significantly higher in the builder condition as compared to the non-builder condition. F(1, 119)=9.822, p=.002 (Significant).
However, it had not differ significantly in customization condition F(1, 119)=1.904, p=.170
(Not significant) and interaction between the conditions F(1, 119)=.308, p=.580 (Not significant). The results indicate that in one out of four of conditions, age was significantly different than it the others and it might created biases. The most plausible explanation is that
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 24
this happened by chance. However, this result suggests that age should be included as a control variable in the main analyses.
Source Df MSE F P Builder 1 136.159 9.822 .002 Customization 1 26.395 1.904 .170 Builder*Customization 1 4.265 .308 .580 Error 119 13.863 Total 123 Table 2: Age effect on different conditions
4.1.2. Gender
A second control variable which we tested was gender. We wanted to examine if there was a significant difference in the number of females and males between four conditions. To do so, a
Chi square test was used. Chi square test can be used when nominal and ordinal variables are presented and one want to see if there is any association between them. (Nominal - where data has no meaningful rank or order). Moreover, the sample should be randomly drawn from the population and must be mutually exclusive. The results of this test are presented in table 3. The was no significance in relationship between these variables, x2 = 22.169, df=32, p=.903. This means there was no significant difference in the number of males and females in different condition groups. Moreover, the likelihood ratio approves this statement: X=28.723, df=32, p=.633.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 25
Table 3: Chi square test
Source X Df P Pearson Chi-square 22.169a 32 .903 Likelihood ratio 28.723 32 .633 Linear-by-Linear .938 1 Association N of valid cases 123 a. 60 cells (90.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .42.
4.1.3. Conclusion of pre-analysis
It can be concluded, that some biases were found in the allocation of the participants across different condition groups. This suggest that randomization was not 100% successful in all four conditions. While gender seems to have no significance between the conditions, age appears to have some significance on builders who were not allowed to customize condition. Most probably this happened by the coincidence, therefore the age should be controlled for as a potential confounding variable.
4.2. Analysis
A two-way factorial ANOVA was performed to examine the effect of customer participation in production and customization on the evaluation of the good (See table 4). The outcome variable was found to be normally distributed and equal variances are assumed based upon results of Levene’s test (F (119) = 3.171, p=.127). There was found to be statistically non- significant interaction between the effects of customer participation in production and customization on evaluation of the good, F(1, 123) = 2,801, p=.097, η²=.023. However, since the level of significance in interaction between the independent variables groups is below 0.010
(p=.097) and our study goes in correspondence of previously findings in the literature, we UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 26
assume these results to be marginally significant. Even though, this practise is being criticized by literature, it is still being used by many researchers (Pritchet et. al., 2016).
Hypothesis 3 proposed that if participants are allowed to do both construct and customize the good, then the evaluation of the good should be the highest and most significant towards the evaluation of the good. Results indicate that interaction condition does not significantly affect the evaluation, however a marginal level of significance was reached (p=.097). Furthermore, the evaluation in interaction condition was indeed highest between all of the conditions
(M=.6452, SD=.24219). As a result, hypothesis 3 is partially supported.
The customization effect was not found to be statistically significant towards the evaluation of the good, F(1, 123) = 2,453, p=.120, η²=.021. Hypothesis 2 proposed that if participants are allowed to customize the good, then their evaluation of the value of the good should be higher
(than those who do not customize the good). Results indicate, that even though there was no statistically significant effect of customization on evaluation of the good, the final outcome was valued more compared to the control group. In customization with no construction condition evaluation was higher (M=.5160, SD=.18097) compared to control group (M=.5043,
SD=.28668). Even bigger difference occurred in customization and construction condition, where evaluation was higher (M=.6452, SD=.24219) compared to control group (M=.5043,
SD=.28668). Considering these findings, hypothesis 2 is partially supported.
Customer participation in production outcome showed no significance towards the evaluation of origami, F(1, 123) = 2,792, p=.0.97, η²=.023. Unfortunately, there were no simple main effects found. However, since the level of significance between the independent variables groups is below 0.010 (p=.097) we assume this output to be marginally significant. Hypothesis
1 proposed that if participants are allowed to construct the good, then their evaluation of the value of the good should be higher (than those who do not construct the good). Results indicate,
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 27
that a marginal level of significance was reached, however the evaluations between builders who did not customize (M=.4887, SD=.25146) was lower than the evaluations of the control group (M=.5043, SD=.28668). The evaluation of builders who were able to customize the origami (M=.6452, SD=.24219) was higher than the evaluations of control condition. As a result hypothesis 1 is partially supported.
For interaction and builders condition a post hoc analysis will be done in order to do a follow up for marginally significant effect.
Table 4: Results of the experiment
Source SS Df MS F P η² Corrected Model .640a 5 .128 2.168 .062 .085 Intercept 1.486 1 1.486 25.180 .000 .177 Age .126 1 .126 2.129 .147 .018 Gender .016 1 .016 .266 .607 .002 Builder .165 1 .165 2.792 .097 .023 Customization .145 1 .145 2.453 .120 .021 Builder*Customization .165 1 .165 2.801 .097 .023 Error 6.903 117 .059 Total 43.561 123 Corrected Total 7.543 122 a. R squared = .085 (Adjusted R squared = .046).
Table 5: Summary of hypothesis results.
Hypothesis Verdict If participants are allowed to construct the good, then their Partially H1 evaluation of the value of the good should be higher (than those supported who do not construct the good). If participants are allowed to customize the good, then their Partially H2 evaluation of the value of the good should be higher (than those supported who do not customize the good). If participants are allowed to do both construct and customize the Partially H3 good, then the evaluation of the good should be the highest and supported most significant towards the evaluation of the good.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 28
4.3. Post Hoc tests
According to Norusis (2006) Post hoc tests are created for cases in which the researcher has already achieved a significant omnibus F-test. Post Hoc tests will be done to better understand the marginally significant effect of builders and interaction (builders*customization) terms. The results of this tests is provided in plot and tables below. In builders condition a post hoc test revealed that the difference in evaluation of the origami was statistically significant between builders who customized the origami themselves and builders which were presented a pre- selected colour of origami (p=.023). Builders who customized (M=.6452, SD=.24219) valued origami more, than builders who did not customize (M=.4887, SD=.25146). Moreover, there was no evidence of statistical significance of difference between non builders who customized the origami and non-builders who did not customize the origami (p=.965). Non-builders who customized (M=.5160, SD=.18097) valued origami pelican less than non-builders, who did not customized (M= 5043, SD=.28668).
In the interaction condition outcome showed similar results. The evaluation of the origami pelican was statistically significant between people who customized the origami and were allowed to construct it versus the ones who were allowed only to inspect it. (p=.019).
Participants who customized and constructed origami (M =.6452, SD=24219) evaluated it more than participants who customized but did not construct the origami (M=.5160, SD=.18097).
Participants who were asked to only inspect the origami showed no statistically significant difference in evaluation, compared to participants who were asked to construct origami but no customization were allowed. (p=.968). Non-builders, who did not customize (M=.5043,
SD=28668) evaluated origami more, than builders who did not customize (M=.4887,
SD=.25146). This is an interesting outcome, since people who actually put effort and
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 29
constructed the origami evaluated it less than people who did not put any effort into constructing the origami, customization effect remaining constant in both of the conditions. As we can see from the follow up tests, the results do follow the consistency predicted by literature reviewed in the beginning of the paper. We found a marginally significant effects in customer participation in production (IKEA) and interaction effects towards the evaluation of the origami pelican.
Table 6: Post Hoc test for builder’s condition
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Customization: (I) Builder (J) Builder (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b Lower Upper bound bound No Non builders Builders -.003 .064 .968 -.129 .124 Customization Builders Non builders .003 .064 .968 -.124 .129 Customization Non builders Builders -.150* .063 .019 -.275 -.025 Builders Non builders .150 .063 .019 .025 .275 * . The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Table 7: Post Hoc test for interaction condition
95% Interval for differenceb Builder (I) Customization (J) Customization (I-J) Std. Sig.b Lower Upper Error bound Bound Non No customization Customization .003 .063 .965 -.123 129 builders Customization No customization -.003 .063 .965 -.129 .123 Builders No Customization Customization -.145* .063 .023 -.269 -.020 Customization No customization .145 .063 .023 .020 .269 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least significant difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 30
Figure 2: Plot of the results
5. Discussion
In order to answer the research question of this study the findings of our study will be discussed in this chapter. First the results will be discussed about how different effects affects the evaluation of the good. Furthermore, the outcome of this research will be compared to the existing literature. Subsequently, theoretical and managerial implications will be presented, following by limitations and a number of suggestions for future research.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 31
5.1. General discussion
The purpose of this paper was to contribute to existing literature about the effect of customer customization and participation in production on the evaluation of the good. This study about the evaluation of the good is part of growing trend in academia where researchers are paying devoting increased attention to the psychology underlying consumer involvement. This direction has become popular as a result of more and more businesses shifted from viewing customers as recipients of the product, to that of a co-founders of its value (Vargo & Lusch,
2004; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000). Previous literature has considered all of the effects separately, however, the combination of customization effect and customer involvement in production together has not yet been studied.
This research was done by observing, how people would evaluate the goods differently when all of the effects were used separately and together. The highest evaluation of the origami pelican was hypothesized under the interaction (customization*building) condition, however results indicated only a marginal significance which lends only marginal support to the hypothesis. Furthermore, higher evaluations of the good were hypothesised in the conditions where participants had the opportunity to only construct or only customize the good. The data collected in the customization condition did not prove to be significant, while data from the customer participation in product condition did. Furthermore, evaluations varied between the conditions, resulting in partial support of the hypotheses. A more detailed overview of each of the variables can be seen below.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 32
5.1.1. Customization effect
Even though, the results of present experiment (N=123) did not show the required level of significance in order to state that we found significantly main effect, we observed a higher evaluation of origami which was customized. This means, that findings are in part consistent with those previously obtained in the literature, stating that customization should increase the actual evaluation of the good (e.g. Tsai and Hsiao, 2014; Turkay and Adinolof, 2015; Hedge et al., 2005). Participants who were able to customize, valued the origami pelican higher versus participants who were not able to do so (M= 58,3 vs. M=49,6). As you can see in the table below, these results partially support the thought that people who can customize the good, will value it more. This can be explained by the idea that individual’s idiosyncratic needs are met and that therefore they would value the good more (Stump, 2002). Moreover, we have a clear difference between the two conditions of customization and no customization, providing us insights of importance of customization when creating the good. According to Ostrom and
Iacobucci (1995) customization may be valued more because it may show high quality or an accepted fit for ones preferences. That is the main reason why it should be allowed for customers to customize the good prior to their purchase. Customization does not only increases customer’s satisfaction and evaluation of the production, but also allows customers to express themselves, and quite often for this possibility, customers are ready to pay extra (Svensson &
Jensen, 2003).
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 33
5.1.2. Effort justification and IKEA effects
Builder’s conditions (who were testing customer participation in production and IKEA effects) showed marginal statistical significance towards the evaluation of the good. Our results partially go in line with the outcome predicted by previous literature which stated that people tend to value goods more, when they add effort and time into constructing something (Norton et al., 2011, Dahl and Moreau, 2007). In interpreting the data, an additional interesting result appeared. Builders who did not customize evaluated the origami pelican less, than participants who were able only to inspect it (M=48,8 vs M=50,4). This might happened, because labour leads to love only when the good is made succesful, because otherwise IKEA effect dissapear
(Norton et al., 2011). This finding is in line with the findings of Savitsky, Medvec and Gilovich
(1997) which argue that failing to complete tasks (in this case completion of origami pelican) has unfavourable consiquences. Indeed, during the experiment, we noticed, that some people were disappointed of the final outcome of the origami and that is why they valued it less. A fail to build nice origami created mistrust and dissapointment in ones work, resulting in low evaluations. One more explanation could be, that participants who were asked to construct the origami, did not spend enough time to attach to their creation. The average time to build the origami was around 10 minutes, which is not enough to tie up to your creation. We assume, that a longer time interval of construction would have different results. For example, when people try to asembly original IKEA furniture, they tend to work for at least a few hours, which leds them to attach to their creation more. Eventhough our effort to show the importance and effectiveness of customer participation in production and IKEA effects was unsuccesful, we do believe that a different setup of the study would bring different results. We will elaborate on this in the future research section.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 34
Figure 3: The mean values of evaluation between different conditions.
5.1.3. Interaction effect
As it was in the builder’s condition, the interaction condition showed marginal significant effect towards the evaluation of the good. It comes in line with literature, which presumes that the evaluation of good which is constructed and customized by the individual himself, should be valued the most (Norton et al., 2011). Since previous literature had never studied these effects in an interaction condition, but solely hypothesised that evaluation in the interaction should be the highest, we decided to research this. Indeed, the mean value of interaction effect was the highest, but unfortunately not high enough to reach the main level of significance
(M=64.5 compared to M=50.4). Since we discussed our findings, we are now able to answer our research question: To what extent do customization, effort justification and their interaction affect consumer’s evaluations of self-made goods? The answer is that customization effect and customer participation in production do effect evaluations of self-made goods and in our experiment they increased the evaluation. However only customer participation in production and interaction conditions resulted in marginally significant effect towards the evaluation, while customization did not. The only discrepancy in our study was in building/ non customization
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 35
condition where valuation was the lowest, but according to previous literature it supposed to be at least higher than the evaluations in the control group (Mochon et. al. 2012). We assume this happened due to unsuccessful labour, when people did not manage to reach the wanted result and depreciated their own work. Most of the findings of our study go in line with previous literature and promote the use of customization and customer participation in the production/
IKEA effects in practise.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
The results of the research have some theoretical implications. The study contributes to literature about effort justification, customization and IKEA effects, as well as how differently they do affect the evaluation of the good. Having in mind, that research on the interaction effect of customization and effort justification effects is rare, this study is one of the first in researching this and its affect towards the evaluation of the good. Furthermore, this study contributes to research about S-D logic and most importantly to co-production. Given the fact that S-D logic is becoming the very important in marketing studies, there is still not enough up to date research on this topic. This paper enriches current literature with a few findings.
Firstly, the highest evaluation of the final good can be reached when the effects that we examined are manipulated together. This has not been studied before, and should add new ideas to academia and marketing science. Secondly, we found that effort justification/ IKEA effect not always guarantees a higher willingness to pay. If construction of the product is unsuccessful, the IKEA and effort justification effects disappear leading to lower evaluations. This idea goes in line with findings by (Norton et. al., 2011) that customers tend to value their creations only when their labour is successful. Thirdly, our results imply, that when compared between themselves. Effort justification effect is more significant towards the evaluation of the final good, than customization effect, implying that effort justification has a higher impact on
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 36
people’s psychology than customization effect. However if used unsuccessfully, effort justification may lead to worsen results, while it is not the case where customization is used, since participants externalize their preferences.
5.3 Managerial implications
Companies need to learn how to be more flexible and reactive in their reaction to customers in order to co-create value with them. This calls for a change in firm’s structure and strategies
(Leavy 2012). Managerially, results of this research are important, because they do help to identify levers, which if manipulated correctly, may increase the effectiveness of business. We would like to update the findings by Ostri and Iacobucci (2015) that managers who seek satisfaction should make sure they excel at customization. As our results indicate, customization increases the value of the final good too, hence the willingness to pay increases (as well the willingness to pay extra). That is why, customization of goods can be a smart strategy, which would results in happier customers, who will spend more. As it was with the IKEA paradox and its underlying mechanism, the effort justification effect, we would suggest to use the production method, where people could put their own effort into constructing something and by that, get attached to their creations. This is a useful strategy because of two reasons. Firstly, self-made goods may signal that a person is competent enough to build something by himself. It would make a person proud of himself and it also shows to others what he is capable of (Spence, 1973).
Secondly, goods that require some assembly are in many cases a little bit cheaper than already pre built ones. This is because the costs of production are decreased. Buying these cheaper goods may lead to a more positive feeling, since the customer can associate himself as being a
‘smart shopper’. (Schindler, 1998). However as we observed, businesses should create the tasks which are not too hard to carry out and they also should provide clear instructions, because as
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 37
it was stated by Norton and colleagues (2011) labour only leads to love when it is successful.
Managers should try to create tasks that creates highest value while remaining inside the scope of the majority of consumers abilities. Even though we did not reached the significant effect level in all conditions, the results of this study do follow the previous literature and interpret results as such that the value of the goods increases when customer gets involved in the production process and is allowed to customize the product. To conclude, by letting customers to customize and assembly the good, businesses may not only save some costs, but also are able to charge premium prices and in the end, customers will be happier and more satisfied. That is why it is recommended to use customization and encourage to let customers participate in the production of goods.
5.4. Limitations and future research
The first limitation of this study is the sample used for collection and analysis of data. The results are based on evaluations of origami pelicans only created by students of the University of Amsterdam. This limits the generalization for other groups of people. The feasibility in approaching this group of people is the central reason to collect data from this sample, however some potential bias may have appeared. The second limitation is our method of data collection.
We ran our experiment and data collection in a short time interval, limiting the possible analysis of changes that may occur in the participants or environment. Additionally, there is a lack of control in the field experiment and again additional biases may occur. Third limitation that may have affected the final output was the range of evaluation of the origami that participants used in our experiment. We used a range between 0 and 100 in monetary terms (0 as a minimum and
1 euro as a maximum). A range between 0 and 500 (0 to five euro) might change the output,
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 38
since participants had much more options to choose from and a greater differences might be observed.
Future research should include items which are more expensive and require more time to assembly. Moreover it would be interesting to see how people evaluate the goods which they have no possibility to obtain, compared to the goods that people are confident of receiving. In other words, it would be interesting to see the endowment effect role in similar design study as ours. Finally, more research should be done on the unsuccessful labour or on instructions that leads to challenging construction work. It would be very interesting to see the evaluations, when people would be asked to evaluate their work in the middle phase of construction (for example until it was still successful) and then in the end of the construction if the work was not successful. We suggest that evaluation in the mid phase would be higher than in the end phase, however this should be further researched. Last suggestion for future research would be to allow people to customize the good the way they like, and not to limit them with possibility to choose out of just a few colours. When customizing people could choose shape, ornaments and full design of the good. We suggest that a full consideration of individual preferences would distinctly increase the evaluation of the final good.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 39
References
Alvesson, M., Sandberg, J., (2011). Generating Research Questions through Problematization.
Academy of management. Vol. 36 no. 2. Pp. 247-27.
Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., Hoeksema, S. N. (1996). Hilgard's
Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt College Publishers. Thirteen edition. Pp. – 462-468.
Axsom, D, Cooper, J, (1985). Cognitive Dissonance and Psychotherapy: The Role of Effort
Justification in Inducing Weight Loss. Journal of experimental social psychology, 21,
149-160.
Ballantyne, D.,Varey, R.J., (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing interactions: The
exchange logic of relating, communicating, and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp.
335–348. doi:org/10.1177/1470593106066795
Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R.P. (2003), ‘Psychological implications of customer participation in
co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), pp. 14–28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592
Buhren, C, Plebner, M, (2014), The Trophy Effect. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making,
Volume 27, pp. 363–377.
Caulkins, J. P., Feichtinger, G., Haunschmied, J., Trangler, G. (2006). Quality Cycles and the
Strategic Manipulation of Value. Operations, Research, Vol. 54. Issue. 4. Pp.- 665-667.
Cooper, J. (2012). Cognitive dissonance theory. The handbook of theories of social
psychology, Vol. 2. Pp. 377-398.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 40
Darren W. Dahl and C. Page Moreau (2007) Thinking inside the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy
Constrained Creative Experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.
357-369.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological
economics, Volume 41, Issue 3. Pp. – 393-408.
Dean, D. H., Biswas, A. (2001). Third-Party Organization Endorsement of Products: An
Advertising Cue Affecting Consumer Pre purchase Evaluation of Goods and Services.
Journal of advertising, Volume 30, Issue 4. Pp. 41-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2001.10673650
Dhar, R. (2012). The Irrational Consumer: Four Secrets to Engaging Shoppers. The
Huffington post. Accessed 30/01/2017.
Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., Bloom, P. (2007). The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance. Evidence
from Children and Monkeys. Psychological science.
Etgar, M., (2008). A descriptive model of the customer co-production process. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 97–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11747-
007-0061-1
Festinger, L, Carlsmith, J, (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203−211.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CS: Stanford University
Press.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. Sage
publications ltd. Pp. 442-460.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 41
Franke, N, Schreier, M, Kaiser, U, (2009). The “I Designed It Myself” Effect in Mass
Customization. Journal of management science, Vol. 56, 125-140.
Frey, B. S., Luechinger, S., Stutzer, A. (2004). Valuing Public Goods: The Life Satisfaction
Approach. CESifo working papers series, No. 1158.
Füller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective. California
management review. Vol 52, Issue 2. Pp. 14-28.
Gallup, A. M., Newport, M. (2009). The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion. Pp. 4-6.
Gilmore, J. H., Pine, J. B. (1997). The Four Faces of Mass Customization. Harvard business
review, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp. 23-39.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., Czaplewski, A. J., (2006). eWOM: The impact of customer-
to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of
Business Research, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp. 449-456.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G, R. (1976), Motivation through Design of Work: Test of a
Theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16 (2), pp. 250 – 279.
Hedge, V. G., Kekre, S., Rajiv, S., Tadikamalla, P., (2005). Customization: Impact on Product
and Process Performance. Tepper school of business.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., Kennedy, C. (2014). Peak Waste: When Is It Likely to
Occur? Journal of Industrial Ecology. Page 7.
Johnson, B, R, Onwuegbuzie, R, (2004), Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, Vol 33, Issue 7.
Jones, E. H., Jones, H. C., (2015). Cognitive Dissonance Theory after 50 Years of
Development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, pp. 7-16.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 42
Kacelnik, A., Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal behaviour,
63. Pp. 245-250.
Kivets, R, Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of
Customer Preferences toward Frequency Program Rewards. Journal of marketing
research, 39, 155-170.
Kohneman, D. Knetch, L. Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss
Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
193-206.
Kotturu, P., (2014). Does perceived effort impact users' engagement in a virtual
environment?. Texas A&M University – Commerce.
Leavy, B. (2012). Collaborative innovation as the new imperative – design thinking, value co‐
creation and the power of “pull”. Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 40. No 2. Pp. 25-31.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L. (2009). Service-Dominant Logic: A Guiding Framework for
Inbound Marketing. Marketing Review St. Gallen.
Lydall, E, Gilmour G, Dwyer, D, (2010). Rats place greater value on rewards produced by
high effort: An animal analogue of the “effort justification” effect. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1134–1137.
Malhotra, M. K., Grover, V., An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to
theory. Journal of Operations Management, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp. 407-425.
Margalit, L. (2014). The Psychology of Online Customization. Crunch network.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 43
Mochon, D, Norton, I, Ariely, D. (2012). Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via
the IKEA effect. International Journal of research in marketing, Volume 29, Issue 4. Pp.
363–369.
Montgomery, D, C. (2017). Design and Analysis of experiments. Wiley. Douglas state
university. 9th edition. Pp. 2-17.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics.
Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), pp. 625–632.
Norton, M, I, Ariely, D, Mochon D, (2011). The ‘IKEA effect’ when labour leads to love.
Harward business school marketing unit working paper, No.11-091, pp. 453-460.
Norusis, M., J., (2006). SPSS 14.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall. Pp. 442-457.
Ostrom, A., Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Paiva, E. L., Teixeira, R. Mass customization effect on customer satisfaction: empirical
evidence from customized services. EnANPAD.
Piller. F. T, Ihl. C., Vossen, A. (2010). A Typology of Customer Co-Creation in the
Innovation Process. SSRN. Pp. 1-14.
Prahalad, C., K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard business
review, 78, pp. 79-87.
Pritschet, L., Powell, D., Horne, Z. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for
hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science. doi:
[http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/14/0956797616645672.abstract]
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 44
Rust, T, R, Gregory, A, T, Carpenter, Kumar, V, and Srivastava, K, V. (2004). Measuring
Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Journal of Marketing.
Vol. 68, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 76-89.
Saunders M., Lewis P. (2012). Doing Research in Business and Management – An essential
guide to planning you project, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow, England.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students,
5th edition, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H., Gilovich, T. (1997). Remembering and regretting: The
Zeigarnik effect and the cognitive availability of regrettable actions and interactions.
Personality and social psychology bulletin, 23, pp.248-257.
Schindler, R. M. (1998). Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for obtaining a
discount: Evidence for smart-shopper feelings. Journal of Consumer psychology, 7, pp.
371-392.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology:
Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as
Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359 -1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signalling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, pp. 355-
374.
Stump, L, R, Athaide, G, R, Joshi, A, W, (2002). Managing seller-buyer new product
development relationships for customized products: a contingency model based on
transaction cost analysis and empirical test. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19, 439–454.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 45
Svensson, C. & Jensen, T. (2003). The Customer at the Final Frontier of Mass Customization.
The Customer Centric Enterprise. Pp. 329-345.
Terblanche, N.S., 2014, ‘Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production of
value by customers’, Acta Commercii 14(2), Art. #237, pp. 1-8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4102/ac.v14i2.237
Tsai, H. C., Hsiao, S. W., (2004). Evaluation of alternatives for product customization using
fuzzy logic. Information sciences. Volume 158, January 2004, Pp. 233-262.
Turkay, S. Adinolf, S. (2015). The effects of customization on motivation in an extended
study with a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game. Cyber psychology: Journal
of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(3), article 2.
Vargo, S, L., Lusch, R, F. (2004). Evolving a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, pp. 1-17.
Wagner, M., Valls-Pasola, J., Helmchen, T. (2017). The Global Management of Creativity.
711 Third avenue, New York. Pp. 24-44.
Wang, G., Wang, J., Ma, X., Qiu, R., (2010). The Effect of Standardization and
Customization on Service Satisfaction. Journal of Service Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 1-23.
White, M. P., Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activities. Psychological
science, 20, pp. 1000-1008.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 46
Appendix A: Pre-built origami pelican
The final outcome of origami pelican that participants constructed or inspected.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 47
Appendix B: Instructions that builders received on how to construct origami.
The instructions, that participants in builder’s conditions received.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 48
Appendix C: The Schedule of the experiment
DATE LOCATION CONDITION 21/042017 Science Park 4,3,4
24/042017 Roeterseiland Campus 3,1,2,1
26/04/2017 Oudemanhuispoort Library 4,1,2,4
3/05/2017 Roeterseiland Campus 3,2,1,2,1
5/05/2017 Oudemanhuispoort Library 1,2
1 condition: Non builders and non-customizing 2 condition: Non builders, but customizing 3 condition: Builders, but not customizing 4 condition: Builders and customizing
The conditions were changed every 45 minutes during the experiment.
Appendix D: Questionnaires provided to participants of the experiment:
Please indicate your gender o Man o Woman
What is your age?
------
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 49
What is your nationality?
------
What is your current education level? o HBO o University
What type of program are you currently enrolled in? o Bachelor program o Premaster program o Master program o Other
What’s the name of your educational programme? (If you don’t know the English name you may answer in Dutch.)
------
In this study, you are going to assemble an origami figure. The experimenter has given you an instruction manual on how to assemble this figure. Please carefully read these instructions now, which are provided on a separate paper.
Please assemble the origami figure now.
*****
Once you are done, continue to the next page.
Thank you for your effort.
Please read the following instructions carefully. If there is anything you do not understand, please ask the research leader.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 50
We will now ask you to place a bid on the do-it-yourself origami figure you assembled.
Next, the researcher will draw a random price. If your bid is equal or above that price your bid wins and you purchase the do-it-yourself origami figure for your bidding price. If you win, you also get to keep the instructions.
Examples:
When you bid €0,70 and the researcher draws the price of €0,85 you do not purchase the origami figure you built.
When you bid €0,90 and the researcher draws the price of €0,20 you purchase the origami figure you built.
Here is a question to check whether you understood the instructions.
You bid €0,50 and the researcher draws the price of €0,45. Do you purchase the origami figure? o Yes o No o I don’t know
You are receiving €1,00 for participating in this study. How much of this €1,00 do you bid on the do-it-yourself origami figure you built? Please write down a price higher than zero.
Please write your answer in € on the line below.
€ ------
Please answer the following questions before handing in your questionnaire with the researcher and collecting your payment. S/he will draw a random number to decide whether your bid wins and whether you purchase the origami figure.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 51
How much do you like the end product you made? Please circle the grade.
Not at all Very much 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How difficult did you find building the figure? Please circle the grade.
Very easy Very difficult 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How enjoyable did you find building the figure? Please circle the grade.
Not at all enjoyable Very enjoyable 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How experienced are you in making origami figures? Please circle the grade.
Not at all experienced Very experienced 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How much affinity would you say you have with Do It Yourself products? Please circle the grade.
No affinity at all A lot of affinity 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 52
Second questionnaire for non-builders:
Please indicate your gender o Man o Woman
What is your age?
------
What is your nationality?
------
What is your current education level? o HBO o University
What type of program are you currently enrolled in? o Bachelor program o Premaster program o Master program o Other
What’s the name of your educational programme? (If you don’t know the English name you may answer in Dutch.)
------
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 53
In this study, you are going to inspect an origami figure. The experimenter has given you a pelican origami figure. Please carefully inspect this origami, and answer questions below.
Please read the following instructions carefully. If there is anything you do not understand, please ask the research leader.
We will now ask you to place a bid on the do-it-yourself origami figure you inspected.
Next, the researcher will draw a random price. If your bid is equal or above that price your bid wins and you purchase origami figure for your bidding price.
Examples:
When you bid €0,75 and the researcher draws the price of €1,00 you do not purchase the origami figure you built.
When you bid €0,85 and the researcher draws the price of €0,50 you purchase the origami figure you built.
Here is a question to check whether you understood the instructions.
You bid €0,60 and the researcher draws the price of €0,47. Do you purchase the origami figure? o Yes o No o I don’t know
You are receiving €1,00 for participating in this study. How much of this €1,00 do you bid on the do-it-yourself origami figure you built? Please write down a price higher than zero.
Please write your answer in € on the line below.
€ ------
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 54
Please answer the following questions before handing in your questionnaire with the researcher and collecting your payment. S/he will draw a random number to decide whether your bid wins and whether you purchase the origami figure.
How much do you like the origami that you inspected? Please circle the grade.
Not at all Very much 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How difficult do you think it was to build the figure? Please circle the grade.
Very easy Very difficult 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How enjoyable did you find inspecting the origami? Please circle the grade.
Not at all enjoyable Very enjoyable 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Do you think, that different colour of pelican would have changed your valuation of it? Please circle the grade.
Do not agree Agree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How familiar you are with constructing origami? Please circle the grade.
No familiar at all Familiar 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 55
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 56