You are on page 1of 67

MSc IB Strategic Marketing Master Thesis

The Effect of Option Attachment On Undesirable Services

Consequences of Elaboration and Personal Involvement The

Maastricht University School of Business and Economics Maastricht, January, 2011 Nigel Venrooij (i6012425) MSc. International Business, Strategic Marketing Supervisor: Prof. dr. Ko de Ruyter

Preface
This Master Thesis served as the final graduation requirement for obtaining the Master of Science International Business Strategic Marketing Degree. The study replicates and extends the theory of option attachment, which argues that choosing can feel like losing This theory . of consumer behavior is extensively discussed during the MSc course Customer Analysis and was of great personal interest for me. The current study was conducted during July 2010 to January 2011 at the University of Maastricht, Netherlands.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my leading supervisor Prof. Dr. Ko de Ruyter. Without his advise and unique support this thesis would never had become of great quality.

Finally, I wish to express my greatest thanks to my family, friends and fellow students, who have supported and helped me during the execution of this Master Thesis. Special thanks go out to my parents Paul & Leny and my girlfriend Stfanie for their patience and understanding of their son and boyfriend long and late working. s s

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Venrooij
January 2011

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................5 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................7 1.1 The Practical Phenomenon ............................................................................................7 1.2 Theoretical Contribution ...............................................................................................7 1.3 Objective and Problem Statement ..................................................................................8 1.3.1 Research Question & Sub-Questions .......................................................................9 1.4 Structure of the Thesis ...................................................................................................9 2. Literature Review ...........................................................................................................11 2.1 Option Attachment ......................................................................................................11 2.1.1 Prominent Psychological Theories ........................................................................11 2.1.2 The Theory of Option Attachment ........................................................................13 2.2 Services, Personal Involvement & Undesirable Options ..............................................16 2.2.1 Services (vs. products) ..........................................................................................16 2.2.2 Personal Involvement ...........................................................................................17 2.2.3 Undesirable Options (vs. desirable options) ..........................................................18 2.3 Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................19 2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................20 3. Research Design .............................................................................................................. 22 3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................22 3.1.1 Design and Procedure ...........................................................................................22 3.1.2 Scenarios ..............................................................................................................23 3.1.3 Manipulation Check ..............................................................................................25 3.1.4 Pre-Test ................................................................................................................25 3.2 Sample ........................................................................................................................26 4. Results ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.1 Pre-Test.......................................................................................................................27 4.2 Manipulation Check ....................................................................................................28 4.3 Research Results .........................................................................................................29
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

4.3.1 Results of the Overall Study..................................................................................29 4.3.2 Results of the Individual Scenarios .......................................................................31 4.3.3 The Interaction Effect ...........................................................................................33 5. Discussion & Conclusion ................................................................................................35 5.1 General Discussion & Comparison Carmon et al. (2003) .............................................35 5.2 The Measurement Method ...........................................................................................37 5.3 Before and After Attractiveness...................................................................................37 5.4 Size of Loss.................................................................................................................38 5.4 The Role of Personal Involvement...............................................................................39 5.5 Alternative explanations ..............................................................................................40 5.5.1 Elaboration Effects on Attractiveness....................................................................40 5.5.2 Inferred Decision Difficulty ..................................................................................40 5.5.3 Experimental Demand Effects...............................................................................40 5.6 Study Conclusion ........................................................................................................41 5.6.1 Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................42 5.6.2 Managerial Implications .......................................................................................43 5.6.3 Limitations & Further Research ............................................................................44 References ........................................................................................................................... 46 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix I Appendix II The Option Attachment Process .................................................................50 References Listing Unique Characteristics of Services ...............................51

Appendix III Questionnaire ............................................................................................52 Appendix IV Statistical Tests Manipulation Check .........................................................56 Appendix V Statistical Tests Overall Results .................................................................58 Appendix VI Statistical Tests of the Individual Scenarios ...............................................60 Appendix VII Statistical Tests for the Interaction Effect ...................................................66

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

Executive Summary
Introduction. Have you ever experienced that choosing felt like losing? Our common sense tells us to consider options closely when buying a product. Nevertheless, we all experienced feelings of discomfort as soon as we have chosen one alternative over others. This effect is called option attachment: by extensively elaborating on different options, consumers will be less satisfied with their chosen option afterwards. Carmon et al. (2003) extensively investigated the theory of option attachment. Their current theory of option attachment on desirable product options, is stable and solid. However, they did not investigated undesirable options and services, and did not take the role of personal involvement into account. Therefore, the current research replied and examined the effect of option attachment on services, in an undesirable context and took the role of personal involvement into account. Literature review. The analyzed literature on this phenomenon showed that there is a major contradiction in the literature about the effect of option attachment. Traditional psychological theories neglect the effect of option attachment and state that when a consumer extensively elaborates on different options, her or she will be satisfied with the choice. However, Carmon et al. (2003) showed that option attachment does occur when elaborating on products: the consumer feels worse after choosing because of extensively elaboration on the different options. Pre-factual ownership is the main underlying theory of option attachment to occur. Because of extensively elaborating on options, the consumer will get attached to these. As a result, an increase in value of the non-chosen option after making a choice. Furthermore, by choosing one option, the other is given op: loss aversion occurs. Therefore, the feeling of the consumer after choosing and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option are examined in order to detect option attachment. Furthermore, a distinction is made between personal involvement and non personal involvement, which could interact the effect of option attachment. The literature showed no direct information about the effect of option attachment in a service and/or undesirable context. Concluded, the gap whether option attachment will occur on services still remains. Therefore, the current research is executed in order to solve this phenomenon. Research Design. The methodology used in this research follows the design used by Carmon et al. (2003). The design is based on scenarios. The study included two services scenarios. One scenario described a target that is personally involved and the other where the
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

target is not personally involved. Each scenario describes the choice of an undesirable service. In both scenarios, option attachment is manipulated within subjects (target vs. non-target and personal involved vs. not-personal involved). The target within the scenario faces circumstances that should induce greater option attachment, whereas the non-target faces circumstances that should induce less attachment. The subjects of this study were asked to imagine how the target and non target would feel in the described scenario and how attractive the non-chosen option was after choosing. A 2x2 within-subjects research design was used, 83 respondents participated in the study. Results. First of all, the pre-test and manipulation check were positive. The research results of the overall study showed that the respondents, as expected, ascribed a worse feeling towards the target about not having selected the non-chosen option. In addition, the respondents also found the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice for the target than for the non-target. The target elaborated extensively on the different options before choosing, therefore, the respondents ascribed Mr. A to feel worse and the non-chosen option to be more appealing. This means that option attachment does occur when dealing with an undesirable services context. Within the different scenarios (personal involvement and nonpersonal involvement), option attachment also occurred, no significant results between the different scenarios were found. Therefore, it can be concluded that personal involvement does not play a direct role in affecting option attachment. Additionally, personal involvement showed no interaction effect with elaboration. Discussion & Conclusion. The effect of option attachment occurred with desirable products and undesirable services. However, this could be due to pre-factual ownership or alternative explanations, e.g. the measurement method and the before and after attractiveness. The obtained results strengthen the theory of option attachment, found by Carmon et al. (2003). Contrary, the results weaken the credibility of the traditional theories that state that consumers are (always) satisfied with their choice (after elaborating extensively). Additionally, to control for option attachment, managers could offer satisfaction guarantees and product tests. Nevertheless, much more research needs to be done in the field of undesirable services to make the results more robust and reliable. For instance, the role of personal involvement needs further research and the question remains whether the results still hold when subjects participate in a task where they have to make real decisions with real consequences, instead of evaluating and reading hypothetical scenarios.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

1. Introduction
1.1 The Practical Phenomenon Close your eyes. Imagine you are at a fancy car dealer. You are there to buy a car, but you do not know which one to buy, in a series of cars you like. They all have options you like or dislike, so, you elaborate extensively. A BMW or Mercedes? A red or blue one? Convertible or not? Eventually you make a choice and buy a car. But then, you a struck by a feeling of doubt and by a sense that the other car was more practical, more beautiful or even better than seemed before. Sounds logic or even familiar? Our common sense tells us to consider options closely when buying a product. This theory is even supported by several psychological theories, stating that a less preferred option becomes less attractive when evaluated in a choice context (Festinger, 1957 & Russo et al., 1998). Nevertheless, we all experienced feelings of discomfort as soon as we have chosen one alternative over others (choosing feels like losing). The small product example in the beginning showed that if consumers become attached to the choice options during the deliberation process before choosing among them, they experience post-choice discomfort and find non-chosen options more attractive after the choice than they did before. However, there is a difference in marketing services and products, what if we extensively elaborate on services? In addition, what is the role of undesirable options and personal involvement? As we are students, professors or other people with an academic background, we are also consumers. This research will also make us, as consumers, more aware of the decisions we make and the psychological theories that underlie our behavior. As a marketer, it is desirable to take these findings into account when marketing services. The main practical findings will be the understanding whether or not consumers are better off if they think carefully about their decision for an undesirable service. Additionally, the managerial implication of this research is the understanding whether marketers should act different when marketing products or services.

1.2 Theoretical Contribution Generally, the current research will contribute more to academic work than practical understanding. This research focuses on the psychological behavior of consumers and the understanding of these. In practice, these psychological theories will be less used by

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

marketers. However, they are important when marketing products and, in this case, services. The phenomenon mentioned in paragraph 1.1 is called Option Attachment. This theory is investigated extensively by Carmon, Wertenbroch and Zeelenberg (2003) and seems to conflict with the findings of the previous mentioned psychological theories. They showed that a less preferred option, in a series of several closely considered options, can become more attractive immediately after choosing. This effect occurs because of prefactual ownership (feelings of possession as result of close consideration). However, there is not much research done in the field of option attachment. Therefore, this research could provided more evidence for option attachment and harden this theory. As well as these psychological theories, this research also contributes to two other main subjects within the field of decision making: the endowment effect and consumer regret. The endowment effect states that consumers value a good more when they give it up than when acquiring one, which is in line with the option attachment theory. As a result, consumer regret occurs. This theory and findings of Carmon et al. (2003) will serve as a guide line throughout this research: the current study will build upon this theory. However, their study showed some limitations. Firstly, Carmon et al. (2003) indicated that their study only focused on desirable options, i.e. products you are willing to have or buy. They neglect undesirable options, e.g. the choice between medical treatments. Another limitation, not explicitly pointed out by Carmon et al. (2003), is the fact that their study mainly focused on products and not so much on services, where traditional marketing literature point out that there is a difference between products and services in the way they are experienced. Consumption of a service is much more variable, which makes it more difficult for consumers to asses. This causes the level of dissatisfaction to be likely higher (Assael, 2004). In addition, what is the role of personal involvement when choosing between services? The main academic contribution of the current research is the understanding of the effect of option attachment on services (undesirable). In addition, the current research will also confirm (or contradict) the prior (psychological) research on option attachment (e.g. Carmon et al., 2003) and choosing in general. The previous mentioned theories of prefactual ownership and post-choice discomfort are cognitive theories. The current research will provide more inside and a significant contribution to these and other cognitive theories in marketing, e.g. the endowment effect.

1.3 Objective and Problem Statement The main problem and discovered gap, are the limitations described and found in the theory of Carmon et al. (2003). Their current theory of option attachment on desirable product
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

options, is stable and solid. However, they did not investigated undesirable options and services, and did not take the role of personal involvement into account. Research showed (Assael, 2004) that undesirable options often occur more in a service context than when making a choice for a product, making it important to examine. Due to the limitations, the option attachment theory is currently not complete and optimal. These limitations will be overcome by the current research, completing the option attachment theory and extending the consumer behavior theory within this subject. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to reply and examine the effect of option attachment on services, in an undesirable context and taken the role of personal involvement into account. Further on, this problem statement will be formulated as a research question, with several underlying sub-questions.

1.3.1 Research Question & Sub-Questions Derived from preliminary research, the next research question is formulated:

Will the effect of option attachment occur in a services context with undesirable options?

To investigate and answer this formulated research question, several underlying sub-questions will be examined. These sub-questions are derived from the research question.

1. Will extensively elaborating on different service options cause option attachment to occur?

2. What is the effect of personal involvement on option attachment?

1.4 Structure of the Thesis This master research thesis will follow the traditional outline of a thesis. The next chapter is chapter 2, the literature review. This literature review is a summary and own interpretation of the current literature and knowledge available on the option attachment topic. The formulated sub-questions will be tried to answer. Additionally, a model is formed to summarize and visualize the relationships of the hypotheses to be investigated. After the literature review, chapter 3 is next: the research design. This chapter is a blueprint, roadmap, of the research to be executed. The methodology will be described, even as the sample choice. Furthermore, the research will be executed.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

Naturally, after the execution of the research, the results will be covered in chapter 4. The hypotheses will be tested, using statistical tests. The discussion of these results will follow in chapter 5. The results obtained in chapter 4 will be interpreted here. Lastly, chapter 5 also addresses the conclusion and the theoretical and managerial implications (recommendations), even as the limitations and suggestions for further research. After this last chapter, the reference list and appendices can be found. Enjoy reading!

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

10

2. Literature Review
Based on secondary resources, the literature review is presented. This literature review aims to review the current knowledge on option attachment and tries to answer the research question and underlying sub-questions. In comparison with the study of Carmon et al. (2003), the main differences are the fact that this study focuses on services and, in addition, undesirable options. Therefore, this literature review first aims on the current theory of option attachment (and underlying theories) of Carmon et al. (2003) in general and it will be used to discover and explain the effect of option attachment on services and undesirable options: the research question(s). In addition, the characteristics of services (vs. products), personal involvement and undesirable options (vs. desirable options) will be discussed. Lastly, a conclusion will be drawn.

2.1 Option Attachment The main theory of this study is the option attachment effect. The effect was presented and explained by Carmon, Wertenbroch and Zeelenberg in 2003. This paragraph attempts to describe the option attachment effect by looking at the underlying theories and traditional prominent psychological theories, and applies them to services marketing.

2.1.1 Prominent Psychological Theories Commons sense suggest that consumers make more satisfying decisions as they consider their choice options more closely (Carmon et al., 2003). This statement is the main conclusion discovered and presented by authors and psychologists in several (traditional) studies. Even consumers their selves presume that elaborating heavily on the different options at hand, take a closer look or just thinking about the options, will lead them to making more satisfied options. As said, prominent psychological theories predict that choice leads to a spread in the attractiveness of options. Festinger (1957) introduced a theory of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance, in general, is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions (Festinger, 1957). Festinger (1957) suggests that inconsistency among beliefs and behaviors will cause an
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

11

uncomfortable psychological tension. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around. Therefore, when consumers elaborate on several options and make a choice, they will be satisfied with this choice since they psychologically (try to) close the gap between their behavior and beliefs. Within services marketing, this theory could also hold, since consumers try to justify their decisions. Additionally, Russo et al. (1998) revealed, in a more recent study, a theory of distortion of product information that is in line with the findings of Festinger (1957). It is stated that when consumers are presented with (equal) information about two brands on an attribute (for instance, brand A and B when choosing a car), information about the second brand in evaluation is distorted. The information of the second brand (or option) is distorted to create some sort of preference. Information of the latter option is not relevant anymore, consumers already have chosen their preferred option. Therefore, when consumers have made a choice, they will be satisfied about it since they chose their (own) preferred brand or option. This distortion occurs when people have a preexisting preference, in the absence of any prior brand preference and even when no choice is required (Russo et al., 1998). The theory is called pre-decisional information distortion and is in some ways the opposite of postdecisional information distortion, which is caused by cognitive dissonance. In services marketing, this theory could be applied. However, it depends on the type of service. When dealing with medical treatments, for instance, patients are often informed extensively about the treatments, and since a treatment could save their lives, patients are more willing to make a rational choice. Moreover, Tversky et al. (1988) demonstrated that preference for an option can be inferred from direct choice between options or from a matching procedure in which the decision maker adjust one option to match another. Direct choices imply that a consumer evaluate each option separate and decides for each option whether he or she should go for that option (e.g. should I buy this car for this price?). The matching procedure suggests that the options are evaluated as a whole, where each separate option is evaluated in reference to the other. The several studies of Tversky et al. (1988) between two options showed that choices are made more direct than matched. In other words, consumers evaluate their options directly and separate and not in relation to the other option. Therefore, consumers will be satisfied with the chosen option and since they were not evaluated in relation to the other option, consumers do not know what they are missing This theory seems applicable to services . marketing. Services are often presented separately and not on the same moment, where a consumer can evaluate them simultaneously. Therefore, it is likely that consumers evaluate the offered service immediately, separate from the other option.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

12

In general, these traditional theories predict the same: consumers make more satisfying decisions as they consider their choice options more closely, suggesting that a less preferred option will automatically become less attractive when evaluated in a choice context (Carmon et al., 2003). In addition, these theories could all apply to services marketing. However, this is still to find out. First, the theory (and underlying theories) of option attachment will be discussed in relation to services marketing.

2.1.2 The Theory of Option Attachment Option attachment implies that consumers may experience a sense of loss after choosing, even when the non-chosen option was not theirs Carmon et al. (2003). The theory of option , attachment suggests that when consumers extensively elaborate on several options, they will be less satisfied with the, eventually, chosen option, since they became attached to all the options. In other words, close consideration of choice options may lead consumers to become attached to these options. This phenomenon was also discovered by Hoch and Loewenstein (1991). They showed that the attractiveness of an option has to do with desire. Hedonic (emotions) factors can cause an consumer to become attached to an option, by elaborating on that option. Such a sudden increase in desire is explained by a lack of self-control, a struggle between desire and willpower. This increase in desire caused by hedonic and emotional factors is supported by Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000). They suggest that, by elaborating on an option, consumer develop an emotional relationship with that option, and therefore, get attached to it. This is especially the case when dealing with hedonic options. In general, services are more hedonic than utilitarian, since people are involved. Especially when, for instance, an undesirable option is evaluated. As well as these emotional aspects of a choice, other factors influence the increase in desire for an option. Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) indicated that the physical exposure to the different options plays an important role. The physical exposure to the options can activate an affective response to these options, causing an emotional relationship. Consumers tend to become more attached to the options when they are presented in a real way, then when symbolic. Since services are intangible, they can not explicitly be seen in realor symbolic However, the degree of elaborating (e.g. a consult or a brochure) can also induce . the difference in attractiveness and desire, causing attachment to an option. Another important influencing factor is past ownership. Strahilevitz and Loewenstein (1998) stated that the history of past ownership can affect the object/option evaluation. Because of this effect, consumers tend to become more attracted to options they already posses or even once
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

13

possessed. Having once owned an item may increase the value attached to attaining it (Strahilevitz and Loewenstein, 1998). This effect is also moderated by the duration of ownership. The longer a consumer owned an item, the more he or she will become attracted to that option when choosing. Moreover, this preference for an option is dependent on expectations, developed by previous ownership. Since quality in services highly depends on expectations (Parasuraman, 1988), this variable could have a strong moderating effect when dealing with option attachment in services. More generally, also based on the previous, option attachment is likely to occur when the context of the choice being in, lead the decision maker to imagine, remember and simulate the several options in question. Consumers thus develop anticipatory feelings of possession of the choice options during the deliberation period (Carmon et al., 2003). When analyzing this statement and the previous research, the conclusion can be drawn that consumers develop a feeling of pre-factual ownership, as result of getting attached to the options in consideration. The consequence of option attachment is that consumers get a feeling of discomfort when have choosing an option, out of a set of options. This feeling is a result of pre-factual ownership. Simply put: consumers elaborate on several options in a set, by doing this they get attached to all the options in consideration. Then, when eventually a choice is made, consumers experience a feeling of loss and feel worse, even though the non-chosen options were not theirs. Though, the lost options felt theirs because of pre-factual ownership. By making a choice, consumers feel they must let go of the non-chosen options, striking them with a feeling of dissatisfaction. As a result, the non-chosen option becomes more attractive after a choice is made: an increase in the post-choice attractiveness of the forgone option (Carmon et al., 2003). Based on this literature information, the following research hypotheses are presented:

H1a: When extensively elaborated, the target feels significantly worse than the non-target about not having selected the non-chosen option. H1b: When extensively elaborated, the subjects ascribe a greater tendency to the target than to the non-target to find the non-chosen option more (not less) attractive after the choice than before.

Several mechanisms underlie this effect. The theory that describes this phenomenon the best is loss aversion, investigated by Tversky and Kahneman (1990, 1991). The central conclusion of their study is that losses and disadvantages have a greater impact on preferences
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

14

than gains and advantages. Therefore, when making a choice, the lost options have a greater impact on a consumer than the gained option, even in services. However, the question remains whether this statement also holds with undesirable options, since they are of course undesirable and unintended. Options that will be given up intended are not seen as losses (Novemsky and Kahneman, 2005). Loss aversion is in line with the earlier investigated endowment effect, described by Kahneman et al. (1990, 1991). The endowment effect implies that an individual assigns more value to an object when he or she owns the object. However, there is a major difference between the presented endowment effect and the effect of option attachment: the endowment effect in option attachment arises pre-factual. In other words, before even owning an object, consumers place a high value on it, only by elaborating on it. Therefore, making choosing feel like losing. This view extends the borders of the endowment effect. This is also called the mere-possession effect, stating the effect that consumer can develop a feeling of ownership and a preference for goods they not actually poses (Sen et al., 1997). Not only does a loss have more impact than a gain, people also tend to focus more on a loss then a gain. Carmon and Ariely (2000) stress the fact that consumers tend to focus more on what they lose than on what they gain. As a result, in agreement with the effect of loss aversion, placing more value on the forgone option. Such a focus on the forgone suggests to consumers that their discomfort arose because the forgone option was better than they had thought initially (Carmon et al., 2003). This appearance also highly depends on the feelings of the consumer. Consumers tend to use their feelings and emotions as information when evaluating decisions (Schwarz, 2001). The feelings of discomfort are used as information: the consumer actually starts thinking the non-chosen options could have been more satisfying, as result of a focus on the forgone. Once again, the emotional band plays an important role, before the choice but also after the choice. The discussed theories and mechanisms of option attachment have one thing in common: they focus on the increased value of the lost options, instead of a decrease in value of the chosen option. The presented theories do not provide any reason to assume the opposite, unlike the traditional psychological theories, presented in the beginning. In repetition of the study of Carmon et al. (2003) and the presented theories, the focus lies with the effects of option attachment on undesirable services concerning the lost (forgone) options. An illustrative overview of the discussed theories (flowchart) can be found in Appendix I.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

15

2.2 Services, Personal Involvement & Undesirable Options In comparison with the study of Carmon et al. (2003), the main differences are the fact that this study focuses on services and, in addition, undesirable options. Additionally, the effect of personal involvement is discussed. The characteristics of services (vs. products), personal involvement and undesirable (vs. desirable) options will be addressed briefly. 2.2.1 Services (vs. products) As Assael (2004) already pointed out, consumption of a service is much more variable, which makes it more difficult for consumers to asses. Services are often difficult to assess since they are produced and consumed at the same time. In contrast with products, which are produced, purchased and, after that, consumed. Additionally, services often mean direct interaction with the provider (Assael, 2004). Because of that, the consumption experience is much more variable for services that products. Such variability makes it more difficult for consumers to assess services than products, and the level of dissatisfaction is likely to be higher because prior expectations are not as likely to be met (Assael, 2004). Furthermore, undesirable options are often to occur more in a service context, since in general only desirable (and no undesirable) products are bought. Therefore, making it important to investigate undesirable options in relation to services. The discrepancy between services and products can have an effect on the manner how option attachment is experienced. Concrete expectations likely induce some form of option attachment (Shiv et al., 1999 and Strahilevitz et al., 1998). This could imply that option attachment is more likely to occur when dealing with services. A more academic approach of a clear and specific description of services is provided by Zeithaml et al. (1985). A literature study on more than twenty-five articles revealed a list of unique characteristics of services (see Appendix II): Intangibility is the difference (with products) cited by all the authors. Intangibility means that services cannot be seen, felt or tasted. They cannot be touched, in comparison with products. Intangibility is the critical goods-services distinction from which all other difference emerge (Bateson, 1979). Heterogeneity concerns the potential for high variability in the performance of services (Zeithaml, 1985). The quality of services varies. The quality can vary between firms but also between consumers. It even differs per day. In other words, the provided service and quality is never the same, it fluctuates. Inseparability of production and consumption involves the simultaneous production and consumption which characterizes most services (Zeithaml et al., 1985). It can be stated
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

16

that, in agreement with Assael (2005), services are first sold, then produced and consumed simultaneously, where products are first produced, then sold and then consumed (Regan, 1963). Perishability means that services cannot be saved (Bessom and Jackson, 1975 quoted in Zeithaml, 1985). Services cannot be produced and stored for later use. They will be produced and consumed at the same moment. Even though many authors describe these four characteristics as the definition of services, they still may not always be used to generalize across firms. Zeithaml et al. (1985 ) state that there exist important differences among service firms and not just between service firms and goods firms. The customer of the firm plays an important role. Customers of a bank, for instance, are differently approached than other customers. These firms are more apt to contact customers after purchase to ensure satisfaction, to choose carefully the personnel who interact with customers, and to regularly collect information about customer needs (Zeithaml et al., 1985), which all could induce the option attachment effect less to happen. This once again indicates that services are very variable and constantly different. Service firms all present and deliver their services differently, influencing the prior expectations of consumers. Overall, services are different than products in several ways. It can be stated that services are very instable and variable, in a way that they are never the same, even across firms with the same services. These (uncertain) characteristics of services can effect prior expectations and eventually a bigger chance of option attachment to occur. However, this statement is yet to be investigated and examined when dealing with the specific theories of option attachment, later in this literature review and the research itself.

2.2.2 Personal Involvement Personal involvement has received little attention in approaches to decision making (Ford et al., 1989). However, how services are experienced and evaluated is also influenced by personal involvement (relevance) (Ranyard et al., 1997). Personal involvement of an issue is a determinant of persuasion (Goldman et al., 1981). This indicates that personal relevance (involvement) also determines persuasion and, therefore, the choice for an option when elaborating on different options. Before the stage of persuasion, personal involvement is important in the stage of looking for alternatives and describing relevant attributes to the options at hand (Ranyard et al., 1997). Thus, the choice for an option could also depend on personal involvement, as well as the degree of elaboration. Personal involvement could influence the feelings of the consumer after choosing and the attractiveness of the non-chosen
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

17

option after the choice, since the choice depended on persuasion and is evaluated in a context of personal involvement. In addition to the degree of elaboration, the influence of personal involvement on pre-factual ownership (and option attachment) should be investigated. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H2a: When the target is personally involved, the target feels significantly worse than the nontarget about not having selected the non-chosen option (in comparison to being not personally involved). H2b: When the target is personally involved, the subjects ascribe a greater tendency to the target than to the non-target to find the non-chosen option more (not less) attractive after the choice than before (in comparison to being not personally involved).

Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2004) and Billings and Scherer (1988) showed that people search more and longer for information when they are personally involved, especially when a problem (dilemma) needs to be solved. Additionally, personal involved consumers tend to be more accurate (Harkness et al., 1985). Therefore, when a customer is personally involved with a certain service, it is possible that he or she will elaborate more extensively on different service options than customers who are less personal involved. This could induce option attachment more likely to happen. Thus, personal involvement could interact with the degree of elaboration (H1a and H1b). For instance, if a consultant of a financial institution is looking for a mortgage, he or she is more likely to elaborate more on the different options since he or she is personal involved (working background), inducing option attachment more likely to happen. This discussion of personal involvement and interaction lead to the following additional hypothesis to be investigated:

H3: An interaction effect exists between the type of involvement and the degree of elaboration.

2.2.3 Undesirable Options (vs. desirable options) Carmon et al. (2003) only examined the effect of option attachment on desirable options, for instance the purchase of a CD, and neglect undesirable options. However, there is a major difference in how desirable and undesirable options are experienced, especially in a service context where undesirable options are often to occur then in a product context. Therefore,

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

18

investigating the role of undesirable options in services addresses a more practical phenomenon. Research in the field of services has demonstrated that when presented with all desirable options consumers are more satisfied with self-chosen alternatives than with alternatives that have been externally dictated, but that the opposite is true when the options are all undesirable (Botti and McGill, 2006). The choosersgreater engagement in the decision task causes their affective experience with the choice outcome to be more extreme than that of non-choosers (Botti and Iyengar, 2004). In other words, when a consumer has to choose between all undesirable options, the less satisfied he or she will be. This could imply that when a consumer itself chooses between undesirable options he or she will be dissatisfied, and since dissatisfaction could be a condition for option attachment to occur, inducing option attachment. This could bias the study. However, Botti and McGill (2006) demonstrated that when a consumer is provided with a few options, no difference in satisfaction occurs among desirable and undesirable options. When having the choice between several options, choosers develop a greater sense of ownership, which leads to greater selfcrediting for an attractive outcome and self-blaming for an unattractive outcome (Botti and McGill, 2006). Only when a consumer has to choose between several undesirable options, he or she will be less satisfied. Therefore, only two options will be described within the two undesirable option scenarios within this study. The findings of Botti and McGill (2006) are in contradiction with the findings of Zeelenberg et al. (2002). Previous research, including Botti and McGill (2006), showed that decisions to act (i.e., actions) produce more regret than s decisions not to act (i.e., inactions). However, Zeelenberg et al. (2002) showed that more regret, and therefore dissatisfaction, was occurred by inaction. This is called the inaction effect. Nevertheless, to keep the study less biased as possible, the reactions of the subjects in this study will be examined, not the actual responses. Such an approach is common in research on related phenomena (Carmon et al., 2003).

2.3 Conceptual Model Derived from the literature review, several hypotheses were presented in order to answer the main research question. Based on these hypotheses, the conceptual model is presented. This model serves as a guideline and illustrative overview of the current study. As discussed, the degree of elaboration influences the feeling of the consumer and the attractiveness of the nonchosen option after choosing, due to pre-factual ownership. Additionally, whether a consumer

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

19

is personally involved or not, also influences the feeling of the consumer and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after choosing.

Independent Variables

Dependent Variables

Degree of elaboration

H1a & H1b Feeling & Attractiveness

H3

Personal involvement

H2a & H2b

Figure 1: The Study Model

2.4 Conclusion The main question remains whether option attachment will occur when a consumer elaborates of different service options, in an undesirable context. No (academic) preliminary research has been conducted to answer this question. Based on the current research and knowledge, we see a major contradiction. Where traditional theories neglect the effect option attachment to occur, Carmon et al. (2003) showed that option attachment does occur when elaborating on products. However, this contradiction makes it not certain if option attachment will occur in services. Pre-factual ownership is the main underlying theory of option attachment to occur. Because of extensively elaborating on options, the consumer will get attached to these. As a result, an increase in value of the non-chosen option after making a choice. However, since services are intangible and less easy to elaborate on, pre-factual ownership and, therefore, option attachment is likely not to occur. On the other hand, services can evoke emotions, just like products. Therefore, even a small degree of elaborating (e.g. a consult or a brochure) can also induce attractiveness and desire, causing attachment to an option and making the consumer dissatisfied with their choice.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

20

Research in the field of services revealed that services are less easier to asses since they are produced and consumed at the same time. Additionally, prior expectations make a consumer often less satisfied when elaborating on services. This discrepancy between services and products can have an effect on the manner how option attachment is experienced. Since personal involvement can affect option attachment to occur, a distinction is made between low and high personal involvement services/scenarios. The literature review also addressed the difference between undesirable vs. desirable, but showed no major insights at forehand. Elaboration on a lot of undesirable options could automatically induce dissatisfaction, biasing this research. Nevertheless, this problem is tackled by only examining two undesirable options (see the Research Design). Concluded, the gap whether option attachment will occur on services still remains. The main research question could not (yet) be answered, due to, for instance, a contradiction in theories of consumer behavior and the lack of research available on this topic. Therefore, the current research will be executed in order to solve this phenomenon. The next chapter will describe the research design and method in order to tackle the above described problem.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

21

3. Research Design
This chapter describes the methodology of this research. First, the methodology will be explained. The design and procedure and the scenarios that will be used in order to test option attachment on services will be presented. Lastly, the sample is described.

3.1 Methodology The methodology will follow the design as used by Carmon et al. (2003). Using the same design makes it easier to compare the findings and make these comparisons less biased. Additionally, Carmon et al. (2003) showed that this design is robust against a demand effect, meaning that the respondents did not guess the prediction. Even a follow up study showed significant results, indicating a robust design.

3.1.1 Design and Procedure The design used is based on scenarios. The study will include two services scenarios. One scenario will describe a target that is personally involved and the other where the target is not personally involved. Each scenario describes the choice of an undesirable service: the same undesirable service options are used in both scenarios to make comparisons between personal and not personal involved possible. In both scenarios, option attachment is manipulated within subjects (target vs. non-target and personal involved vs. not-personal involved). It is tested whether this leads to post-choice discomfort and, therefore, different evaluations of the non-chosen options. The scenarios are described below (3.1.2). Each subject will read these scenarios in which two people, a target (called Mr. A.) and a non-target (Called Mr. B.), were described as independently making identical choices between the same two options. The target faces circumstances that should induce greater option attachment, whereas the non-target faces circumstances that should induce less attachment (Carmon et al., 2003). Subjects are asked to imagine how the target and non-target would feel in the situation described. There were two questions asking how Mr. A and, separately, Mr. B felt: 1. How does X feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option? Rated on a 10-point scale: 1 = feels good and 10 = feels bad. 2. the non-chosen option more or less attractive to X after the choice (compared Is to how attractive it was before the choice)? Rated on a 10-point scale: 1 = less attractive right after the choice and 10 = more attractive right after the choice.

These questions will serve as indicators whether option attachment occurred or not. These questions are the dependent variables, measured on a metric scale (Likert). The circumstances (target/non-target) and the personal involvement (yes/no) will serve as two independent variables. Both are measured on a nominal scale. Note that the reactions of the subjects will be examined, not the actual responses. Such an approach is common in research on related phenomena (Carmon et al., 2003). Furthermore, to test for significant differences between the circumstances, paired sample t-test will be used. Additionally, an ANOVA is issued to test the effect of both independent variables on the dependent variables.

3.1.2 Scenarios As mentioned, the possible effect of option attachment on services will be tested throughout different scenarios. Two scenarios will be used for this test with undesirable options. Next, the scenarios will be illustrated. The choice for the scenario is based on the information gathered within the articles on (un)desirable options and the researches insight. These scenarios will be provided to the respondents of the study. After reading each scenario, the respondents will answer the questions as mentioned in 3.1.1 Design and Procedure. An example of the questionnaire used in this research can be found in Appendix III.

Funeral Insurance (personal involved) The funeral insurance can be described as an undesirable service, since consumers often do not want to think about such insurance, but it is necessary for the future. Consumers do not want to think about such insurance. However, a funeral insurance is needed to cover the funeral costs in the future; a choice for such an insurance has to be made. Therefore, the funeral insurance is seen as an undesirable service. Furthermore, this scenario is manipulated in a way that both Mr. A and Mr. B are personal involved with funeral insurances. By using information from the firm Monuta (2010), what provides such insurances, the context of personal involvement is shaped. Monuta (2010) provides funeral insurances by using cocreation. Consumers of Monuta (2010) can shape and create their own funeral. They can choose the music, the flowers, the colors, the mourning text, the location, the catering etc. Consumers who choose and create such insurance are personal involved with their future funeral and the insurance. Contrary, consumers that chose a standard insurance and do not want to think about their future funeral, are not personal involved. The personal involved scenario:

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

23

Two normal healthy people, Mr. A and Mr. B, who do not know one another, want to close a funeral insurance, so the costs of their future funeral will be covered. Closing such insurance is of course a tedious thing to do, but it has to be done. Both decide to close the insurance at a firm that customizes funerals and insurances. There they can completely create their own funeral that will be covered by the insurance. They can choose the music, flowers, colors, catering etc. to be used at their future funeral. Mr. A and Mr. B are really co-creating their future funeral. Mr. A and Mr. B can then choose between two options: paying the insurance monthly or yearly. When deciding which one to choose that suits them best Mr. A searches the internet and finds information about the two options. Additionally, Mr. A talks to a consultant of the firm about the options. He also informs with his friends what they should do, or even did. Mr. B only reads about options in a brochure , and bases his choice on the information given in the text. Both Mr. A and Mr. B independently consider which option to choose. Eventually, both Mr. A and Mr. B decide to choose for a monthly payment.

Funeral Insurance (not personal involved) As mentioned, this scenario also describes the funeral insurance as an undesirable service. However, this time both Mr. A and Mr. B are not personally involved. They do not want to think about such insurance, but since it has to be done, they just chose a standard funeral insurance. The not personal involved scenario:

Two normal healthy people, Mr. A and Mr. B, who do not know one another, want to close a funeral insurance, so the costs of their future funeral will be covered. Closing such insurance is of course a tedious thing to do, but it has to be done. Both decide to close the insurance at a simple insurance company, since both Mr. A and Mr. B do not want to think about their future funeral and are satisfied with a standard insurance, just to get over with it. The chosen company only provides standard insurances. Mr. A and Mr. B can then choose between two options: paying the insurance monthly or yearly. When deciding which one to choose that suits them best Mr. A searches the internet and finds information about the two options. Additionally, Mr. A talks to a consultant of the firm about the options. He also informs with his friends what they should do, or even did.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

24

Mr. B only reads about options in a brochure , and bases his choice on the information given in the text.

Both Mr. A and Mr. B independently consider which option to choose. Eventually, both Mr. A and Mr. B decide to choose for a monthly payment.

3.1.3 Manipulation Check The manipulation check will follow the same design as the one used by Carmon et al. (2003). After reading the scenarios, the subjects will be asked how psychologically attachedMr. A and, separately, Mr. B was to the non-chosen option as he was choosing. This question will be asked before the other two questions about the feelings and attractiveness of the non-chosen option. This question will be rated on a 10-point scale, one for Mr. A and one for Mr. B (1 = not attached at all, 10 = very much attached). By asking this question, it will be possible to see whether the target was rated as significantly more attached to the non-chosen alternative that the non-target. This will be calculated by using a paired sample t-test. When the results show a significant difference, in favour of the target, the manipulation check is successful.

3.1.4 Pre-Test By executing a pre-test, the researcher can extract whether the message of the questionnaire (scenarios and questions) was understood correctly, whether the message came across and what the effect is of the questionnaire on the subjects. The questionnaire will be presented to a small amount of respondents (N=10). These subjects will then evaluate the questionnaire in a qualitative way. Several pre-specified criteria will be discussed in an interview to assess the effect of the questionnaire. The following criteria, that are commonly used when pre-testing, will be addressed (ToolkitInformation, 2010): 1. Intelligibility: is the message clear? Is the explanation clear? 2. Relevancy: do the respondents think the subject is suitable for them? 3. Conspicuousness: is the questionnaire attractive? 4. Memory: do the respondents memorize the message of the questionnaire? (Manipulation check) 5. Credibility: do the respondents trust the message and the researcher? 6. Acceptance: does the questionnaire suit the values of the respondents? 7. Attractiveness: do the respondents read the questionnaire clearly? Do they read it thoroughly?

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

25

3.2 Sample The overall research field of the study is consumer behavior. Option attachment is a theory that attempts to describe how consumers behave in a certain context. Therefore, the subjects will exist out of consumers. Consumers are any individuals that consume goods, or in this case, services. Generally, all people are consumers in some way. The chosen respondents are consumers in the environment of the researcher, and exist out of students (male/female), people that just started working and (elderly) adults. These respondents are chosen by a nonprobability convenience sampling method. The selection of sampling units is left primarily to the researcher. This technique makes the sampling units easy to measure, accessible and cooperative (Malhotra, 2010). A 2x2 research design is used with four cells (personal involvement x elaboration). The within-subjects allowed the researcher to reduce the number of subjects needed. Normally, the sample size had to exist out of a minimum of 120 respondents (4 cells x 30 subjects). However, each respondent is asked to participate and evaluate both scenarios and rate both Mr. A and Mr. B. Therefore, only 30 respondents are actually needed. Nevertheless, to make the results more reliable and generalisable, 83 respondents participated in the study.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

26

4. Results
This chapter addresses the results, derived from the obtained questionnaire data. First, the results of the pre-test will be discussed. Second, the manipulation check will be presented. Both show whether the respondents understood the questionnaire correctly, the first in a qualitative way and the second by using a statistical test (quantative). Lastly, the overall research results of the questionnaire will be discussed, in order to discover the effect of elaboration on undesirable services and the role of personal involvement.

4.1 Pre-Test This paragraph addresses the results of the pre-test. A small group of ten respondents (consumers), randomly chosen by the researcher, evaluated the questionnaire in a qualitative way. The selected respondents assessed the questionnaire on seven pre-specified criteria (see paragraph 3.1.4). The overall results of the pre-test were very positive. All the respondents indicated that they experienced the questionnaire as very clear, meaning that they immediately understood the role of personal involvement between the scenarios. Additionally, the continuous difference in elaboration between Mr. A and Mr. B was also clear. When interviewing, the respondents assigned Mr. A to be more psychologically attached. Given these results, it can be stated that the main message of the questionnaire is clear (the role of personal involvement and elaboration). Furthermore, the questionnaire was easily written and easy to understand, even for Dutch respondents. The structure of the questionnaire was also clear and correct, also because the questions are highlighted by a grey box. The respondents indicated that the described subject within the scenarios (the funeral insurance) is not a very hard subject. Nevertheless, some respondents had real-life experience with these kind of scenarios and, therefore, made them very realistic. Respondents with such experiences could empathize much more in the scenarios, making the results of the questionnaire more valid. It can be concluded that the message, structure and subject of the questionnaire is very clear and correct. However, the respondents indicated an important note, namely the attractiveness of reading. Since the scenarios and questions do look similar, the respondents must take their time and really read the questionnaire thoroughly. This way, bias of the results by reading mistakes will be limited. Asking the questions after each scenario, instead of

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

27

summing them up in the end, already contributes to more valid and reliable results. Since the pre-test showed positive results, the questionnaire will be hand over to all the respondents. After receiving all the necessary data, the manipulation check will be executed in the next paragraph.

4.2 Manipulation Check The manipulation check tests whether the respondents of the study rated the target as significantly more attached to the non-chosen alternative that the non-target. When the results show a significant difference, in favor of the target, the manipulation check is successful.. This means that the message of the scenarios is clear and the respondents understood that Mr. A should be more psychologically attached to the non-chosen option than Mr. B, which is a condition for option attachment to occur. The overall results (across the whole study) of the manipulation check showed a mean of 7,22 for Mr. A and a mean of 3,82 for Mr. B. This already shows a higher level of attachment for Mr. A, indicating a successful manipulation check, as expected. However, to test whether this difference is significant, a paired sample t-test is executed. The mean difference between Mr. A and Mr. B, which is 3,4, is tested. The test showed a significant result (P < 0,0001), indicating that the manipulation check is successful. Concluded, overall the study, the subjects ascribed a higher level of psychological attachment towards Mr. A than Mr. B. This means that the respondents understood the reasoning and message of the scenarios. Additionally, the manipulation check is executed separately for both the scenarios. First, the manipulation check is conducted for the personal involvement scenario. The results showed a mean of 7,33 for Mr. A and a mean of 3,58 for Mr. B, once again indicating a successful manipulation check. To test whether the mean difference of 3,74 is significant, a paired sample t-test is conducted. The outcome showed a significant result (P < 0,0001), meaning that, within the personal involvement scenario, the respondents ascribed Mr. A to be more psychological attached to the non-chosen option than Mr. B. Concluded, even for the personal involvement separately, the manipulation check was successful throughout. Lastly, the manipulation check is executed for the non-personal involvement scenario. This scenario shows a mean of 7,12 for Mr. A and a mean of 4,06 for Mr. B, indicating a successful check once again. The mean difference of 3,06 is tested by using a paired sample ttest. In addition to the previous manipulation checks, also this test showed a significant result

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

28

(P < 0,0001). Within the non-personal involvement scenario, the respondents also ascribed Mr. A to be more psychological attached to the non-chosen option. Summarized, all manipulation checks showed a significant result. This indicates that the respondents ascribed a higher level of psychological attachment to Mr. A than to Mr. B, for the non-chosen option as he was choosing. Overall the study and within the scenarios, the respondents understood the message and reasoning of the questionnaire and scenarios. These outcomes make the study valid, in addition to the pre-test. Table 1 provides a clear overview of the manipulation checks conducted, and their outcomes. The outputs of the statistical tests can be found in Appendix IV.

How psychologically attached is Mr. X to the non-chosen option (when he was choosing)? Manipulation check Overall the study Personal involvement scenario Non-personal involvement scenario Mean difference 3,40 3,74 T-value 16,49 11,00 P< 0,0001 0,0001

3,06

13,36

0,0001

Table 1: Mean difference scores of the manipulation checks

4.3 Research Results This paragraph describes the results of the obtained data. First, the results of Mr. A and Mr. B overall study will be discussed. Second, the influence and role of personal involvement will be tested by testing the differences between Mr. A and Mr. B within the different scenarios. Third and last, the presumed interaction effect between elaboration and personal involvement will be tested. Additionally, the size of the effect of elaboration and personal involvement will be discussed.

4.3.1 Results of the Overall Study To test whether the effect of option attachment has taken place within the undesirable service context described in this study, hypotheses H1a and H1b will be tested. There will be tested whether the target, Mr. A, feels significantly worse than the non-target, Mr. B, about not having selected the non-chosen option. In addition, there will be tested whether the subjects ascribed a greater tendency to the target than the non-target to find the non-chosen option
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

29

more attractive after the choice than before. To do so, the paired sample t-test is used. This statistical test tests the mean differences between the target and non-target ratings for the two dependent measures. First, the ratings of the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B about not having selected the nonchosen option are tested. The results showed a mean of 6,53 for Mr. A, indicating a bad feeling of not having selected the non-chosen option (regret). A mean of 4,34 for Mr. B was noted, indicating a better feeling than Mr. A about not having selected the non-chosen option. This is in line with the prediction of H1a. The mean difference of 2,19 between Mr. A and Mr. B is tested for significance. The output showed a positive significant result (P < 0,0001), with a very large effect size of 0,33. Therefore, we can accept H1a. This means that the respondents ascribed a worse feeling towards Mr. A more than to Mr. B, about not having selected the non-chosen option. A feeling of regret is assigned to Mr. A by the respondents. In addition to the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B, the attractiveness of the non-chosen option is tested (compared to how attractive it was before the choice). The mean of the attractiveness of the non-chosen option for Mr. A is 6,60. This means that the respondents ascribe the non-chosen option to be attractive for Mr. A, right after choosing. The mean of Mr. B is 4,35. This is once again in line with the hypothesis that Mr. A finds the non-chosen option more attractive right after choosing than Mr. B does, according to the respondents. The mean difference of 2,25 between Mr. A and Mr. B is tested. The results indicate a significant result (P < 0,0001) and a very large effect size of 0,38. The subjects ascribed a greater tendency to the target than the non-target to find the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice than before, therefore, we can accept H1b. Table 2 reports the findings of this paragraph in a clear overview. Furthermore, the outputs of the two executed statistical tests in this paragraph can be found in Appendix V. It can be concluded that the respondents, as expected, ascribe a worse feeling towards Mr. A about not having selected the non-chosen option. In addition, the respondents also found the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice for Mr. A than for Mr. B. Mr. A (the target) elaborated extensively on the different options before choosing, therefore, the respondents ascribed Mr. A to feel worse and the non-chosen option to be more appealing. This means that option attachment does occur when dealing with an undesirable services context. However, this could be due to extensive elaboration or due personal involvement. To test the role of personal involvement, the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option will be analyzed for the individual scenarios in the next paragraph.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

30

4.3.2 Results of the Individual Scenarios This paragraph repeats the statistical tests executed in the previous paragraph. However, the tests are repeated individually for both of the scenarios. This way, the role of personal involvement can be assessed. There will be tested whether the target is ascribed to feel significantly worse than the non target about not having selected the non-chosen option, when the target is personally involved. Furthermore, there will be examined whether the target feels significantly worse than the non-target about not having selected the non-chosen option (when the target is personally involved). First, there be assessed whether option attachment occurred for both scenarios separately. Later, the differences of the feelings and attractiveness between the different scenarios will be discussed.

Personal Involvement Scenario The results showed a mean of 6,60 for the feeling of Mr. A in the personal involvement scenario, indicating an ascribed worse feeling. A mean of 4,11 was showed for Mr. B. This once more indicates a better feeling than Mr. A about not having selected the non-chosen option within the personal involvement scenario, as expected in H2a. The mean difference of 2,49 was indicated to be significant (P < 0,0001) with a very large effect size of 0,40. Therefore, H2a can be accepted, meaning that the respondents ascribed Mr. A to feel significantly worse than Mr. B, within a personal involvement context. When looking at the attractiveness of the non-chosen option, Mr. A resulted in a mean of 6,47, where Mr. B resulted in a mean of 4,37. These results are in line with H2b, Mr. A (the target) is ascribed to find the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice than before, in comparison with Mr. B. The mean difference of 2,09 between Mr. A and Mr. B indicated a significant result (P < 0,0001) and a very large effect size of 0,35. The subjects ascribed a greater tendency to the target than the non-target to find the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice than before in a personal involvement context, therefore, we can accept H2b. The results showed that the effect of option attachment occurred within the personal involvement scenario. The respondents ascribed a worse feeling to Mr. A in comparison to Mr. B, and the non-chosen option seemed more attractive after the choice for Mr. A than for Mr. B. The results of the tests can be found in a clear overview in table 2. The output of the tests can be found in Appendix VI.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

31

Non-Personal Involvement Scenario The results of the non-involvement scenario showed a mean of 6,46 for the feeling of Mr. A. Mr. B showed a mean of 4,5. Even in the non-personal involvement scenario, Mr. A is ascribed to feel worse than Mr. B about not having selected the non-chosen option. The mean difference of 1,89 between Mr. A and Mr. B showed to be significant (P > 0,0001)., with a large effect size of 0,26. Once again, the respondents ascribed a worse feeling towards Mr. A more than to Mr. B, about not having selected the non-chosen option. The results of the attractiveness of the non-chosen option showed a mean of 6,73 for Mr. A and a mean of 4,33 for Mr. B, indicating that the respondents ascribed the non-chosen option to be more attractive for Mr. A than for Mr. B. The mean difference of 2,41 is tested and showed to be significant (P < 0,0001) with a very large effect size of 0.41. Therefore, it can be stated that respondents found the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice for Mr. A than for Mr. B, in a non-personal involvement context. The results of the tests can be found in a clear overview in table 2. The output of the tests can be found in Appendix VI. The results of the non-personal involvement scenario also showed the effect of option attachment to occur. However, the question is whether the size of the effect is the same as when being not personally involved. Therefore, the results of both of the scenarios will be compared. How does X feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option? Mean difference 2,19 Tvalue 9,03 Effect size 0,33 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to X after the choice (compared to how attractive it was before the choice)? Mean Effect TP< difference value size 2,25 10,20 0,0001 0,38

Scenario Overall the study Personal involvement scenario Nonpersonal involvement scenario

P<

0,0001

2,49

7,45

0,0001

0,40

2,09

6,76

0,0001

0,35

1,89

5,39

0,0001

0,26

2,41

7,63

0,0001

0,41

Table 2: Mean difference scores overall the study and for the individual scenarios

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

32

The Comparison Both scenarios showed the effect of option attachment. In both the scenarios Mr. A (the target) was ascribed to feel worse and find the non-chosen option to be more attractive after the choice, in comparison to Mr. B. Therefore, it can be concluded that personal involvement does not play a direct role in affecting the feeling of Mr. A and Mr. B and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option, since in both of the scenarios the effect of option attachment occurred. However, to assess the differences between the scenarios and to properly accept or reject H2a and H2b, a statistical test needs to be executed. When looking at the feeling of having selected the non-chosen option, it can be seen that the differences within the personal involvement scenario are bigger than the non-personal involvement scenario. On the other hand, the differences in attractiveness of the non-chosen option are bigger within the non-personal involvement scenario. The same counts for the different effect sizes. To test whether the mean differences of the personal involvement scenario differ significantly from the mean differences in the non-personal involvement scenario, two statistical tests are executed. The results of the tests revealed that there is no significant difference between the scenarios in the mean difference of the ascribed feeling and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option (see Appendix VI). Therefore, H2a and H2b can be rejected, meaning that the effect of option attachment does not occur specifically when being personal involved, neither that the effect of option attachment is larger or smaller when being personal involved. It can be concluded that personal involvement does not have a direct (singular) effect on the feeling of not selected the non-chosen option and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option. However, the question still remains whether personal involvement interacts with elaboration. In other words, whether personal involvement enhances or decreases elaboration, and therefore, the effect of option attachment.

4.3.3 The Interaction Effect This paragraph attempts to examine the interaction effect of personal involvement and elaboration (H3). To do so, a two-way ANOVA test is conducted. The two nominal independent variables, personal involvement and elaboration, are taken into account as the fixed factors. The feeling of not having selected the non-chosen option and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option are (separately) taken into account as the dependent variables. The output of the two two-way ANOVA can be found in Appendix VII. s,

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

33

First the influence on the feeling of not having selected the non-chosen option is examined. The two-way ANOVA test tests the influence of both of the independent variables separately including the interaction effect. The results showed that elaboration is highly significant in influencing the feeling of not having selected the non-chosen option (P < 0,0001). Furthermore, the output provides some other valuable information, namely that the personal involvement variable is not significant. This is in line with the previous findings that personal involvement does not have a direct influence on the feeling (see 4.3.2). The interaction effect between personal involvement and elaboration is also not significant. This indicates that there exists no interaction effect between these two variables. Specifically, personal involvement does not interact with elaboration, meaning that personal involvement does not enhances or decreases elaboration. Therefore, H3 can be rejected. It can be concluded that only elaboration influences the feeling of not having selected the non-chosen option. However, the variance explained by elaboration is only 21,32%. This means that still almost 79% of the variance is not explained. Further research could examine this. The results of the two-way ANOVA conducted with the attractiveness of the nonchosen option as dependent variable replicates the results of above. Elaboration is again highly significant (P < 0,0001). Personal involvement is also not significant when the attractiveness of the non-chosen option is the dependent variable, meaning that personal involvement also does not influence the attractiveness of the non-chosen option. Furthermore, the interaction effect does neither exists (reject H3). So likewise for the attractiveness of the non-chosen option, the interaction effect and personal involvement do not influence significantly. The only influencer here is once again elaboration, which explains 22,98% of the variance. Yet, almost 77% is still left to be investigated. The objective interpretation of the results, discussed in this chapter, showed that option attachment occurred, in an undesirable service context. The subjects ascribed a worse feeling towards the target and found the forgone option more attractive to the target after choosing than to the non-target. Within this context, personal involvement does not have any influence. Option attachment occurs due to elaboration on the different options at hand. Even more, personal involvement does not interact with elaboration. The next chapter will discuss a subjective interpretation of the results obtained in this chapter.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

34

5. Discussion & Conclusion


This chapter discusses the results described in the previous chapter. First, a general discussion of the results is presented. Even more, several factors that could have influenced or caused the results, are discussed. These factors are the way of measurement, the change in attractiveness, the size of loss and the role of personal involvement. In addition, alternative explanations of the results are given and a comparison is made with the results obtained by Carmon et al. (2003) in their study. Furthermore, the conclusion of the study is presented. The theoretical and managerial implications will be discussed and, lastly, the limitations and directions for further research will be given.

5.1 General Discussion & Comparison Carmon et al. (2003) Carmon et al. (2003) presented in their study the effect of option attachment. They showed that when a consumer closely elaborates on different options, he or she is struck with a feeling of discomfort right after choosing. This due to pre-factual ownership occurred when extensively elaborating on different options. This indicates that choosing feels like losing and the forgone option increases in attractiveness. The current study revealed the same effect of option attachment in an undesirable service context. But are both studies comparable? First of all, both studies showed the effect of option attachment to occur. Carmon et al. (2003) addressed the option attachment effect mostly with desirable products, where the current study addressed undesirable services. However, there is a difference. The study of Carmon et al. (2003) provided evidence for the effect of option attachment by executing a series of four different experiments (including real choices). The current study only replicated the first experiment of Carmon et al. (2003), where subjects rated the feeling and attractiveness of the target and non-target (described in a scenario). Therefore, the results of Carmon et al. (2003) are more robust and generalisable. However, the current study used a lager sample than Carmon et al. (2003), which makes the current study more reliable than the first experiment of Carmon et al. (2003). In the current study, the proposed theory by Carmon et al. (2003) of option attachment was tested in an undesirable service context. In addition to the manipulated variable elaboration, another variable was included, namely personal involvement. It was expected
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

35

that, when extensively elaborating on different undesirable service options, the target would feel significantly worse than the non-target about not having selected the non-chosen option. Furthermore, when extensively elaborating on different undesirable service options, the target would be ascribed a greater tendency than the non-target to find the non-chosen option more (not less) attractive after the choice than before. The results supported these expectations, meaning that option attachment did occur. The subjects in the study ascribed (unconscious) pre-factual ownership to occur, instead of the traditional psychological theories that one is happy with their choice (also see appendix I). Since the targets elaborated on several options, they were attached to all the options in consideration. When eventually the choice was made, the targets experienced a feeling of loss and feel worse, even though the non-chosen options were not theirs. By making a choice, the targets felt they must let go of the non-chosen options, striking them with a feeling of dissatisfaction. As a result, the non-chosen option became more attractive after the choice. This is how it is expected that the subjects in the study evaluated the target and the non-target. Furthermore, it was expected that when the target is personally involved, the target feels significantly worse than the non-target about not having selected the non-chosen option (in comparison to being not personally involved) and that when the target is personally involved, the subjects ascribe a greater tendency to the target than to the non-target to find the non-chosen option more (not less) attractive after the choice than before (in comparison to being not personally involved). The obtained results did not support these expectations. The results showed that personal involvement does not influence the feeling of the target after the choice and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice. The subjects did not ascribe a larger feeling of dissatisfaction or higher attractiveness of the non-chosen option towards the target in the personal involvement scenario than to the target in the non-personal involvement scenario. It can be concluded, that personal involvement did not have any influence in pre-fase of persuasion, namely the description of relevant attributes towards the option that could make choosing easier. Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2004) and Billings and Scherer (1988) showed that people search more and longer for information when they are personally involved, especially when a problem (dilemma) needs to be solved. Therefore, it was expected that an interaction effect could exist between personal involvement and elaboration. However, the results did not support this expectation. Personal involvement does not enhance or decrease the influence of elaboration on the feeling after the choice and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

36

So far, the obtained results are described in relation to the (ideal) theories that were discussed in the literature review. However, there could be other factors that influenced of even caused the results as obtained. These factors will now be discussed in the next paragraphs.

5.2 The Measurement Method Subjects were asked to rate two people, Mr. A and Mr. B, on two different aspects (feeling and attractiveness) after reading two different scenarios. The reactions of the subjects were measured, not the actual responses of the targets and non-targets in the scenarios. This kind of measurement is common when examining psychological theories (Carmon et al., 2003). However, the question remains whether the results, as obtained, still hold when subjects participate in a task where they have to make real decisions with real consequences, instead of evaluating and reading hypothetical scenarios. Thus, the subjects of the current study would become the targets and non-targets themselves. Even though the pre-test and manipulation check showed that the subjects understood the message, it could be that they evaluated differently than when they were elaborating or personal involved themselves. Nordgren et al. (2007) already stressed that people tend to judge other people differently than they do themselves, especially when a choice is made based on an impulse. Therefore, it needs to be examined whether the results can be replicated in realistic circumstances, where objective data can be collected. A follow-up study could research option attachment in an undesirable service context by using subjects as the target and non-target. The conclusion that option attachment does occur in an undesirable service context, could be made more (or less) robust when the same (or different) results could be obtained.

5.3 Before and After Attractiveness Two different variables were used to measure option attachment, namely the feeling of the target and non-target after choosing and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice (in comparison with before the choice). This means that the target and non-target should have found the non-chosen option equally attractive before the choice. However, the question is whether the subjects interpreted it also this way. It could have occurred that the subjects already assigned the non-chosen option to be more attractive to the target since he elaborated extensively on both the options, making both options attractive before the choice. Moreover, the question provided to the subjects clearly stated that they should rate the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice in comparison to before the choice.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

37

Thus, even if the subjects found the non-chosen alternative already more attractive to the target before the choice, it can be assumed that they did rate the attractiveness after the choice in comparison to before the choice (rating a change in attractiveness). Since the results showed a higher rating of attractiveness of the non-chosen option for the target, it can be assumed that the subjects rated a change in attractiveness. If the subjects already found the non-chosen option attractive for the target before the choice, the results would have shown low ratings (indicating that the attractiveness did not change and/or stayed the same).

5.4 Size of Loss The option attachment theory suggests that choosing can feel like losing. Due to extensive elaboration, consumers can become attached to the options at hand, thus creating pre-factual ownership (i.e. ownership when the option is not yours yet). Then, if consumers choose for one option, the non-chosen option is being experienced as a loss. The theory that describes this phenomenon is loss aversion, investigated by Tversky and Kahneman (1990, 1991). The central conclusion of their study is that losses and disadvantages have a greater impact on preferences than gains and advantages. Therefore, when making a choice, the lost options have a greater impact on a consumer than the gained option, even in services. Loss aversion is in line with the earlier investigated endowment effect, described by Kahneman et al. (1990, 1991). The endowment effect implies that an individual assigns more value to an object when he or she owns the object. However, there is a major difference between the presented endowment effect and the effect of option attachment: the endowment effect in option attachment arises pre-factual. The results showed that, after elaborating and choosing, the target felt significantly worse than the non-target and found the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice than before. This can be explained by the theory of loss aversion; more value is placed on the forgone option and, therefore, discomfort arose because the forgone option was better than they had thought initially. This can also highly influences the feelings of the consumer. However, it needs to be questioned whether the subjects rated the feelings and attractiveness of the target differently because of the loss the target experienced. A follow-up study could examine this phenomenon by manipulating the size of loss. A way of doing this is by varying the degree of substitutability of the options (Carmon et al., 2003). It is expected that when the options are substitutable, the loss is less bigger than when the options are not substitutable (a choice between two similar options means less to lose). By manipulating the substitutability,

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

38

it can be examined whether the feelings of the target and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option differ significantly from the non-target due to loss aversion. Another question is whether the size of personal involvement and/or the size of elaboration influence the size of loss. And then, how this size of loss does influence the feeling and attractiveness. In this study, only a distinction was made between personal involvement (yes or no) and elaboration (yes or no). A rating of personal involvement and elaboration could examine this effect.

5.4 The Role of Personal Involvement The results showed that personal involvement does not influence the feeling of the consumer after the choice and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice (in comparison to before the choice). In addition, personal involvement does not enhance or decrease the effect of elaboration on the feeling and attractiveness (interaction). This could mean that personal involvement indeed does not have any influence or that the results are biased and personal involvement could have had any influence. The subjects in the pre-test indicated a clear message of the questionnaire, indicating the differences between Mr. A and Mr. B and between personal involved and not-personal involved. However, it could be that the role of personal involvement was diminished. This could be due to three factors. First, the scenarios do look very similar, which could have had the effect that the respondents did not experience any significant differences between the scenarios. Second, the differences between Mr. A and Mr. B are pointed out very directly, the subjects focused mainly on the differences between Mr. A and Mr., which could have cause the differences between personal involvement to diminish. Third, the subjects rated Mr. A and Mr. B in both the scenarios, meaning that the subjects rated two times three questions regarding Mr. A and two times three questions regarding Mr. B. This could have caused a effect similar to the halo effect. The halo effect is the systematic bias that the rater introduces by carrying over a generalized impression of the subject from one rating to another (Blumberg, 2005). More specific in this case, a subject who rates the questions of Mr. A in the first scenario high, is likely to rate the questions of Mr. A in the second scenario also high, causing no differences in scenarios. Therefore, further research needs to be conducted in order to sort out the potential influence of personal involvement on the feeling and attractiveness after choosing between different options in an undesirable service context.

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

39

5.5 Alternative explanations Carmon et al. (2003) discussed several alternative explanations of the results they obtained. This paragraph discusses those alternative explanations in relation to the results obtained in this study.

5.5.1 Elaboration Effects on Attractiveness This alternative explanation stresses the fact that elaboration on different options already enhances the attractiveness of the different options (as also discussed in 5.3). However, this explanation argues that elaboration on different options decreases the advantage in attractiveness of the chosen option. Furthermore, consumers are then dissatisfied because the chosen option is (relatively) not much more attractive than the non-chosen option. This could have also occurred in the current study. As already stressed in 5.3, the options could have already been attractive to the target before the choice, since he elaborates on the options at hand. Specifically, this could mean that the non-chosen became not attractive because the target became attached to it or experienced it as a lost, but because the non-chosen option was already attractive before the choice and is still after the choice (similarity in attractiveness).

5.5.2 Inferred Decision Difficulty This theory, that could be applicable in this study, suggests that the subjects have inferred from the scenarios that the target elaborated more extensively because the target found it more difficult to choose (which was not the message of the scenarios). This means that the subjects rated the attractiveness of the non-chosen option for the target higher than the non-target because the target founded it harder to choose from the options at hand. It has to be clear that the degree of elaboration and the difficulty of choosing are not related in this study. The scenarios did not mention any difficulty of choosing, only that they both choose the same option in the end. The results could be biased if the subjects rated the feeling and attractiveness based on elaboration on the options derived from the difficulty of choosing. If so, option attachment occurred because the target found it more difficult to choose, making him less satisfied with the eventually chosen option.

5.5.3 Experimental Demand Effects The current study used a within-subjects design, meaning that the subjects would rate both scenarios (the personal involvement and non-personal involvement scenario) and both the target and the non-target. The subjects were exposed to all the manipulations. This could have
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

40

cause an experiment demand effect. This effect suggests that the subjects rated the feeling of the target more worse than the non-target and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option higher for the target than the non-target, because the subjects could compare the circumstances that the target and non-target faced. The subjects in the pre-test already indicated that they interpreted the target as being more close to or having thought more about the options than the non-target. However, the subjects did not indicate that they, therefore, thought that the target would find the options more attractive than the non-target. If they had, that might have created greater discomfort and more favorable ratings compared to the nontarget (Carmon et al., 2003). To diminish a potential experimental demand effect in the future, a between-subjects design needs to be used. In this case, different subjects rate the target and non-target separately.

5.6 Study Conclusion The presented study replicated the study of Carmon et al. (2003), who examined the theory of option attachment. However, this study tested the effect of option attachment in an undesirable service context. In addition to the distinction in elaboration, a second variable was included, namely personal involvement. The expectations were that, when extensively elaborating on the different undesirable service options, the target would be ascribed to feel significantly worse about not having selected the non-chosen option. Furthermore, it was expected that the target would find the non-chosen option more attractive after the choice than before. The results supported the expectations: option attachment did occur. The respondents of the study ascribed a feeling of pre-factual ownership towards the target (in comparison with the non-target). The targets became attached to the options in consideration due to extensive elaboration. After making a choice, the targets felt worse about not having selected the non-chosen option. In addition, the targets found the non chosen option more attractive right after the choice than before. Additionally, it was expected that personal involvement would influence the feeling of the target and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option and/or would interact with elaboration. The obtained results did not support these expectations. The results showed that personal involvement does not influence the feeling of the target after the choice and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice. Even more, the results showed that personal involvement does not enhance or decrease the influence of elaboration on the feeling after the choice and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option after the choice.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

41

Concluded, the effect of option attachment occurs with desirable products and undesirable services. However, much more research needs to be done in the field of undesirable services to make the results more robust and reliable. Therefore, it can be stated that the effect of option attachment exists and occurs, even with undesirable services, as proven with some evidence in the current study.

5.6.1 Theoretical Implications In general, the current study contributes more to the field of academic work and academic theories. This study addressed the effect of option attachment. Option attachment is a discussed subject in the field of psychology and consumer behavior. The traditional psychological theories stated that consumers are satisfied with their choice after choosing (e.g. Festinger, 1957, Russo et al., 1998 & Tversky et al. 1988). However, Carmon et al. (2003) showed the opposite. Due to pre-factual ownership (when extensively elaborating on different options) consumers will be less satisfied with their chosen option, and the nonchosen option becomes more attractive after the choice. Carmon et al. (2003) proved their theory, called option attachment, in relation to desirable products. The current study examined the effect of option attachment in an undesirable services context. The results replicated those of Carmon et al. (2003), stating that the effect option attachment does occur in an undesirable service context. It is now known that when consumers elaborate extensively on different undesirables service options, pre-factual ownership occurs and, therefore, option attachment. The consequences are that consumers feel worse about not having selected the non-chosen option and the non-chosen option becomes more attractive after the choice. Thus, consumers are not always better off if they think carefully about their decisions when making a choice for an undesirable service. This result strengthens the theory of option attachment, found by Carmon et al. (2003). Contrary, the results weaken the credibility of the traditional theories that state that consumers are (always) satisfied with their choice (after elaborating extensively). Unlike these theories, it was shown that no appeal of the chosen option but of the non-chosen option occurred. However, Festinger (1957) also indicated that choice induces confliction about the negative aspects of the chosen option and the positive aspects of the non-chosen option, called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance causes reduction in these judgments. Nevertheless, this study showed that this conflict remains when option attachment occurs (no change in judgment about the non-chosen option). In addition to pre-factual ownership, this study also strengthens the other cognitive theories underlying the theory of option attachment,
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

42

namely loss aversion, the endowment effect and mere-possession. For instance, the current study showed that the endowment effect occurred even without real possession of the service. The targets were ascribed to value the service that was given up more than the acquired one. This is called the mental endowment effect(Carmon et al., 2003). Furthermore, the role of personal involvement within the theory of option attachment was examined. The results showed that personal involvement did not play any role (in the current study). Therefore, it can be stated that personal involvement does not influence the feeling of the consumer and the attractiveness of the non-chosen option significantly. However, further research needs to be conducted in order to exclude personal involvement in the theory of option attachment definitely.

5.6.2 Managerial Implications As already mentioned, the current study contributed mostly to the field of consumer behavior. The theories within this field are less used by marketers but are important when marketing products, or in this study, services. Managers should be aware of the fact that consumers will be less satisfied with their choice after extensively elaborating. To prevent dissatisfied customers, managers should let consumers focus only on the important option and abandon the other ones. However, the choice to focus only on the most important one is still the consumers one to make. Furthermore, which option is the most important one is often not clear. Nevertheless, when running back and forth among the things that might be important, consumers forget to spend enough time on what is really important. Managers could respond to the theory of option attachment by offering satisfaction guarantees Large firms (e.g. Decathlon, H&M) already adopted this policy. When a . customer is not satisfied with his or her product (maybe due to option attachment), he or she may return the product. The customer then gets a refund or is allowed to search another product. The satisfaction guaranteeis less suitable for services. Services are intangible and produced and consumed at the same time (Assael, 2004). Therefore, once a service is consumed, it cannot be returned or refunded. In addition, managers often work with service contracts. This makes it impossible for consumers to change their chosen option, which could cause more dissatisfied customers and less profit on the long run. To prevent this from happening, some sort of a satisfaction guarantee could be offered. Additionally, product tests could diminish the effect that the non-chosen option becomes more attractive after choice. Product tests let the consumer try all the options in consideration. This way, the non-chosen option looks less attractive after the choice since the
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

43

consumer had the opportunity to already try the non-chosen option. However, on the long run, the consumer could still feel worse about not having selected the non-chosen option.

5.6.3 Limitations & Further Research First of all the limitations in comparison with Carmon et al. (2003) are discussed. Both studies showed the effect of option attachment to occur. However, the study of Carmon et al. (2003) provided evidence for the effect of option attachment by executing a series of four different experiments (including real choices). The current study only replicated the first experiment of Carmon et al. (2003), where subjects rated the feeling and attractiveness of the target and nontarget (described in a scenario). Therefore, the question remains whether the results, as obtained, still hold when subjects participate in a task where they have to make real decisions with real consequences, instead of evaluating and reading hypothetical scenarios. Thus, it needs to be examined whether the results can be replicated in realistic circumstances, where objective data can be collected. A follow-up study could research option attachment in an undesirable service context by using subjects as the target and non-target. Furthermore, it needs to be questioned whether the subjects rated the feelings and attractiveness of the target differently because of the loss the target experienced (theory of loss aversion). Further research could examine this phenomenon by manipulating the size of loss. A way of doing has already been stressed: manipulating the degree of substitutability of the options (Carmon et al., 2003). Another question is whether the size of personal involvement and/or the size of elaboration influence the size of loss. And then, how does this size of loss influences the feeling and attractiveness. In this study, only a distinction was made between personal involvement (yes or no) and elaboration (yes or no). A rating of personal involvement and elaboration could examine this effect. The results of the study showed that personal involvement had no influence at all. However, it could be that the role of personal involvement was diminished. Therefore, a follow-up study needs to be conducted in order to sort out the potential influence of personal involvement on the feeling and attractiveness after choosing between different options in an undesirable service context. A more extensively distinction needs to be made within personal involvement. Some limitations that were already stressed by Carmon et al. (2003) still hold in the current study and need further investigation. First, Carmon et al. (2003) stressed other explanations for the results as obtained (see paragraph 5.5), which need further investigation
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

44

in order to strengthen the theory of option attachment as described. Second, are some people more affected by post-choice discomfort than others? Does the effect of option attachment vary? And, third, what happens with the effect of option attachment over time? Will it last? Finally, this study examined the effect of personal involvement on option attachment. However, the question is which other factors exist that create or enhance option attachment? Furthermore, more research could examine the boundaries of the cognitive theories used in this study (e.g. the endowment effect).

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

45

References

Assael, H. (2004). Consumer Behavior: A Strategic Approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bateson, J.E.G., (1977). Why We Need Service Marketing Conceptual and Theoretical , Developments in Marketing, O. C. Ferrell, S. W. Brown, and C. W. Lamb, Jr., eds., Chicago: American Mariceting, 131-146. Billings, R.S. and Scherer, L.L. (1988). Effects of Response Mode and Importance on The Decision-Making Strategies Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, . 41, 1-19. Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindles, P. S. (2008). Business Research Methods. (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Botti, S. and McGill, A.L., (2006), When Choosing Is Not Deciding: The Effect of Perceived Responsibility on Choice Outcome Satisfaction Journal of Consumer Research, 33 , (September), 211-219. Botti, Simona and Sheena S. Iyengar (2004), "The Psychological Pleasure and Pain of Choosing: When People Prefer Choosing at the Cost of Subsequent Satisfaction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (3), 312-26. Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K. and Zeelenberg (2003), Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Loosing Journal of Consumer Research, 30 . (June), 15-29. Carmon and Ariely (2000), Focusing on the Foregone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and SellersJournal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360-370. Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60-71. , Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ford, J.K., Schmitt, N., Schechtman, S.L., Hults, B.M. and Doherty, M.L. (1989), Process Tracing Methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, 75-117. Goldman, R., Petty, R.E. and Cacioppe, J.T. (1981). Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 . (5), 847-855.
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

46

Harkness, A. R., DeBono, K.G. and Borgida, E. (1985). Personal Involvement and Strategies for Making Contigency Judgments: A Stake in the Dating Game Makes a Difference . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1), 22-32 Hoch, J. and Loewenstein, G. (1991). Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self Control Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 492-507. , Illies, J.J. and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2004). Effects of Type and Personal Involvement on The Information Search and Problem Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (August), . 1709-17-29. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. and Thaler, R.H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem Journal of Political Economy, 98 (December), 1325, 1348. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. and Thaler, R.H. (1991). Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion The and Status Quo Bias Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (Winter), 193-206. . Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. United Kingdom: Pearson. Monuta. (2010). Homepage Funeral Insurances. Retrieved from www.monuta.nl Nordgren, L.F., Pligt, van der J. and Harreveld, van F. (2007). Evaluating Eve: Visceral States Influence the Evaluation of Impulsive Behavior Journal of Personality and . Social Psychology, 93 (1), 75-84. Novemsky and Kahneman (2005), Boundaries of Loss Aversion Journal of Marketing The . Research, 42 (May), 119-128. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988) "SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality", Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12-40 Ranyard, R., Crozier, W.R. and Svenson, O. (1997). Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations London: Routledge . Regan, W.J., (1963). "The Service Revolution", Journal of Marketing, 47 (July), 57-62. Russo, E.J., Meloy, M.G. and Medvec, V.H. (1998). Predecisional Distortion of Product Information Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (November), 438-452. , Schwarz, N. (2001). Feelings as Information: Implications for Affective Influences on Information Processingin Theories of Mood and Cognition: A User Guidebook, NJ: s Lawrence Erlbaum-Associates, 159-176. Sen, S. and Johnson, E.J. (1997). Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 105-117. ,
The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

47

Shiv, B. and Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making Journal of Consumer Research, 26 . (December), 278-282. Strahilevitz, M.A. and Loewenstein, G. (1998). Effect of Ownership History on the The Valuation of Objects Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 276-289. . ToolkitVoorlichting [ToolkitInformation] (2010). Tips en Trucs om Succesvol the Communiceren over Uw Project[Tips and Tricks for the Successful Communication of Your Project]. Retrieved from: www.toolkitvoorlichting.nl Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (November), 1039-1061. , Tversky, A., Sattath, S. and Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice Psychological Review, 95 (July), 371-384. . Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman and A., Berry, L.L. (1985). Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring), 33-46. ,

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

48

Appendices
Appendix I The Option Attachment Process

Appendix II

References Listing Unique Characteristics of Services

Appendix III Questionnaire

Appendix IV Statistical Tests Manipulation Check

Appendix V Statistical Tests Overall Results

Appendix VI Statistical Tests of the Individual Scenarios

Appendix VII Statistical Tests for the Interaction Effect

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

49

Appendix I

The Option Attachment Process

In advance, in the left lower corner is decided whether the consumer is dealing with desirable or undesirable options. In the current research, the model can be used for both since only a few options will be used, not biasing the differences in desirable and undesirable options at forehand. The first actual step in the model is the elaboration on the different service options by the consumer. The consumer will extensively monitor the different options at play. According the theory, the main underlying theory of option attachment to occur is prefectural ownership. Therefore, the next important step is the question whether prefactual ownership does occur when the consumer elaborates on the different service options. If yes; the consumer makes a choice out of the several service options, however, the theory of option attachment will occur (increase in value of the non-chosen option). This having the result that the consumer will be dissatisfied with their choice and, eventually, regret their choice. If no; the consumer still makes a choice out of the several service options. However, in this case the traditional (psychological) theories will be activated, since prefactual ownership was not the case. In the end, the consumer will be happy with their choice, implying no increase in value of the non-chosen option.
Choice
Yes

Theories Option Attachment

Satisfied? Dissatisfied with choice

Elaborate on service options

Choice for one option

Prefactual ownership ?

Desirable / Undesirable options

Choice for one option


No

Traditional (psych.) theories

Satisfied with choice

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

50

Appendix II References Listing Unique Characteristics of Services The following model was presented by Zeithaml et al. in 1985. The model presents the four characteristics of services, addressed by leading authors in the field.

(Zeithaml et al., 1985)

Appendix III Questionnaire

Questionnaire Master Thesis Strategic Marketing


Nigel Venrooij i6012425

Dear participant,

I am currently writing my Master Thesis in the field of consumer behavior, at the University of Maastricht. In order to successfully finish my Master Thesis and graduate, I am asking you to take some time to read the two scenarios below and answer the short questions. The first three questions of each scenario focus on Mr. A, the last three on Mr. B. Place circle your answer or make it bold and underlined, when filling in digitally. Thank you very much!

Scenario 1 Two normal healthy people, Mr. A and Mr. B, who do not know one another, want to close a funeral insurance, so the costs of their future funeral will be covered. Closing such insurance is of course a tedious thing to do, but it has to be done. Both decide to close the insurance at a firm that customizes funerals and insurances. There they can completely create their own funeral that will be covered by the insurance. They can choose the music, flowers, colors, catering etc. to be used at their future funeral. Mr. A and Mr. B are really co-creating their future funeral. Mr. A and Mr. B can then choose between two options: paying the insurance monthly or yearly. When deciding which one to choose that suits them best Mr. A searches the internet and finds information about the two options. Additionally, Mr. A talks to a consultant of the firm about the options. He also informs with his friends what they should do, or even did. Mr. B only reads about options in a brochure , and bases his choice on the information given in the text. Both Mr. A and Mr. B independently consider which option to choose. Eventually, both Mr. A and Mr. B decide to choose for a monthly payment.

Questions Scenario 1

Mr. A 1. How psychologically attachedwas Mr. A to the non-chosen option as he was choosing?

1 Not attached

10 Very much attached

2. How does Mr. A feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option?

1 Feels good

10 Feels bad

3. Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to Mr. A after the choice (compared to how attractive it was before the choice)?

1 Less attractive

10 More attractive

Mr. B 4. How psychologically attachedwas Mr. B to the non-chosen option as he was choosing?

1 Not attached

10 Very much attached

5. How does Mr. B feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option?

1 Feels good

10 Feels bad

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

53

6. Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to Mr. B after the choice (compared to how attractive it was before the choice)?

1 Less attractive

10 More attractive

Scenario 2 Two normal healthy people, Mr. A and Mr. B, who do not know one another, want to close a funeral insurance, so the costs of their future funeral will be covered. Closing such insurance is of course a tedious thing to do, but it has to be done. Both decide to close the insurance at a simple insurance company, since both Mr. A and Mr. B do not want to think about their future funeral and are satisfied with a standard insurance, just to get over with it. The chosen company only provides standard insurances. Mr. A and Mr. B can then choose between two options: paying the insurance monthly or yearly. When deciding which one to choose that suits them best Mr. A searches the internet and finds information about the two options. Additionally, Mr. A talks to a consultant of the firm about the options. He also informs with his friends what they should do, or even did. Mr. B only reads about options in a brochure , and bases his choice on the information given in the text. Both Mr. A and Mr. B independently consider which option to choose. Eventually, both Mr. A and Mr. B decide to choose for a monthly payment.

Questions Scenario 2

Mr. A 1. How psychologically attachedwas Mr. A to the non-chosen option as he was choosing?

1 Not attached

10 Very much attached

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

54

2. How does Mr. A feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option?

1 Feels good

10 Feels bad

3. Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to Mr. A after the choice (compared to how attractive it was before the choice)?

1 Less attractive

10 More attractive

Mr. B 4. How psychologically attachedwas Mr. B to the non-chosen option as he was choosing?

1 Not attached

10 Very much attached

5. How does Mr. B feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option?

1 Feels good

10 Feels bad

6. Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to Mr. B after the choice (compared to how attractive it was before the choice)?

1 Less attractive

10 More attractive

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

55

Appendix IV Statistical Tests Manipulation Check

Statistical test of the manipulation check across the whole study:


Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 7,22 N 166 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

1,866 ,145

3,82

166

1,810 ,140

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? - How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 3,404 2,658 ,206 2,996 3,811 16,497 165 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

Statistical test of the manipulation check for the personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 7,33 N 83 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

1,835 ,201

3,58

83

1,964 ,216

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

56

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? - How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 3,747 3,103 ,341 3,069 4,425 11,000 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

Statistical test of the manipulation check for the non-personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 7,12 N 83 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

1,902 ,209

4,06

83

1,618 ,178

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How psychologically attached is Mr. A ? - How psychologically attached is Mr. B ? 3,060 2,086 ,229 2,605 3,516 13,368 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

57

Appendix V Statistical Tests Overall Results

Statistical test of the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B about not having selected the non-chosen option:

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 4,34 166 2,119 ,164 6,53 166 2,105 ,163 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 2,193 3,127 ,243 1,714 2,672 9,034 165 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

58

Statistical test for the attractiveness of the non-chosen option for Mr. A and Mr. B:

Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 4,35 166 1,994 ,155 6,60 166 2,140 ,166 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? - Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 2,253 2,845 ,221 1,817 2,689 10,204 165 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

59

Appendix VI Statistical Tests of the Individual Scenarios

Statistical test of the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B about not having selected the non-chosen option, within the personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 4,11 83 1,951 ,214 6,60 83 2,236 ,245 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 2,494 3,050 ,335 1,828 3,160 7,450 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

60

Statistical test for the attractiveness of the non-chosen option for Mr. A and Mr. B within the personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 4,37 83 2,046 ,225 6,47 83 2,238 ,246 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? - Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 2,096 2,822 ,310 1,480 2,713 6,767 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

61

Statistical test of the feelings of Mr. A and Mr. B about not having selected the non-chosen option, within the non-personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 4,57 83 2,264 ,249 6,46 83 1,977 ,217 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 How does A feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? How does B feel about not having chosen the nonchosen option ? 1,892 3,193 ,350 1,194 2,589 5,397 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

62

Statistical test for the attractiveness of the non-chosen option for Mr. A and Mr. B within the non-personal involvement scenario:
Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 4,33 83 1,951 ,214 6,73 83 2,043 ,224 N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Mean Pair 1 Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to A after the choice ? - Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to B after the choice ? 2,410 2,876 ,316 1,782 3,038 7,634 82 ,000 Deviation Std. Error Mean Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

63

Statistical test whether the mean differences of feeling of the personal involvement scenario differ significantly from the mean differences in the non-personal involvement scenario:
Group Statistics Person al involve d scenari o MeanDifferenceFeeling Yes No N 83 83 Mean 2,4940 1,8916 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

3,04988 ,33477 3,19303 ,35048

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Sig. (2F MeanDifferenceFeeling Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 1,243 163,656 ,216 ,60241 ,48467 ,667 ,415 1,243 164 ,216 ,60241 ,48467 Sig. t df Mean Std. Error Interval of the Difference

tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper ,35459

1,55941

,35461

1,55942

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

64

Statistical test whether the mean differences of the attractiveness of the personal involvement scenario differ significantly from the mean differences in the non-personal involvement scenario:

Group Statistics Person al involve d scenari o MeanDifferenceAttractivenes Yes s No N 83 83 Mean 2,0964 2,4096 Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

2,82245 ,30980 2,87562 ,31564

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Sig. (2F MeanDifferenceAttractiveness Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed ,708 163,943 ,480 -,31325 ,44227 1,18654 ,56004 ,101 ,752 Sig. t ,708 df Mean Std. Error Interval of the Difference

tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper 1,18654

164 ,480

-,31325 ,44227

,56003

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

65

Appendix VII

Statistical Tests for the Interaction Effect

ANOVA conducted with the two nominal independent variables personal involvement and elaboration as the fixed factors. The feeling of not having selected the non-chosen as the dependent variable:

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label Personal involved scenario 1 2 Does the subject elaborates 1 on the options 2 Yes No Yes (Mr. A) No (Mr. B) N 166 166 166 166

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:How does X feel about not having chosen the non-chosen option ? Type III Sum of Source Corrected Model Intercept Personalinvolved Elaboration Personalinvolved * Elaboration Error Total Corrected Total Squares 408,651a 9802,458 2,036 399,084 7,530 1462,892 11674,000 1871,542 df 3 1 1 1 1 328 332 331 Mean Square 136,217 9802,458 F Sig.

30,542 ,000 2197,843 ,000 ,500 89,480 ,000 1,688 ,195

2,036 ,457 399,084 7,530 4,460

a. R Squared = ,218 (Adjusted R Squared = ,211)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

66

ANOVA conducted with the two nominal independent variables personal involvement and elaboration as the fixed factors. The attractiveness of the non-chosen option as dependent variable:

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label Personal involved scenario 1 2 Does the subject elaborates 1 on the options 2 Yes No Yes (Mr. A) No (Mr. B) N 166 166 166 166

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:Is the non-chosen option more or less attractive to X after the choice ? Type III Sum of Source Corrected Model Intercept Personalinvolved Elaboration Personalinvolved * Elaboration Error Total Corrected Total ,976 421,313 2,036 1408,482 11788,000 1832,807 Squares 424,325a 9955,193 df 3 1 1 ,976 1 1 328 332 331 421,313 2,036 ,474 4,294 Mean Square 141,442 9955,193 F Sig.

32,938 ,000 2318,314 ,000 ,227 ,634 98,113 ,000 ,492

a. R Squared = ,232 (Adjusted R Squared = ,224)

The Effect of Option Attachment on Undesirable Services

67

You might also like