ArticlePDF Available

Control Deprivation Motivates Acquisition of Utilitarian Products

April 2017
Journal of Consumer Research 43(6):1031-1047

DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucw068

Project: Control Deprivation Motivates Acquisition of Utilitarian Products

Authors:

Charlene Chen

Nanyang Technological University

Leonard Lee

National University of Singapore

This research investigates how the fundamental desire for control affects product acquisition. The authors propose that consumers compensate for a loss of perceived control by buying utilitarian products (e.g., household cleaning agents) because of these products' association with problem solving, a quality that promotes a sense of control. Study 1 demonstrates this basic effect in a field setting involving real purchases, while studies 2 and 3 show that framing a product as utilitarian (vs. hedonic) moderates the effect of control on purchase intentions. Study 4 shows that a generalized problem-solving tendency mediates the effect of control on eagerness to pursue utilitarian consumption. Given the pervasiveness and ease of using product acquisition as a means to cope with psychological threat, this research has important implications for theory and practice.

STUDY 2: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL AND PRODUCT TYPE ON INTENTION TO PURCHASE SNEAKERS (TOP PANEL) AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY (BOTTOM PANEL)

…

STUDY 3: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL AND PRODUCT TYPE ON INTENTION TO PURCHASE BEVERAGE (TOP PANEL) AND CONSIDERATION OF PROBLEM-SOLVING PROPERTIES IN DECISION (BOTTOM PANEL)

…

STUDY 4: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL AND CONSUMPTION GOAL ON EAGERNESS TO SCHEDULE THE SPA APPOINTMENT

…

Figures - uploaded by Charlene Chen

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Charlene Chen

Content may be subject to copyright.

Control Deprivation Motivates Acquisition

of Utilitarian Products

CHARLENE Y. CHEN

LEONARD LEE

ANDY J. YAP

This research investigates how the fundamental desire for control affects product

acquisition. The authors propose that consumers compensate for a loss of

perceived control by buying utilitarian products (e.g., household cleaning agents)

because of these products’ association with problem solving, a quality that pro-

motes a sense of control. Study 1 demonstrates this basic effect in a ﬁeld setting

involving real purchases, while studies 2 and 3 show that framing a product as

utilitarian (vs. hedonic) moderates the effect of control on purchase intentions.

Study 4 shows that a generalized problem-solving tendency mediates the effect of

control on eagerness to pursue utilitarian consumption. Given the pervasiveness

and ease of using product acquisition as a means to cope with psychological

threat, this research has important implications for theory and practice.

Keywords: control, utilitarian consumption, problem-solving tendency

Human beings have an innate desire for control over

their environment (Langer 1975). We yearn for the

ability to manage the processes and outcomes of events in

our lives. However, the degree of control that we actually

possess over our life events is far from perfect (e.g., recall

the last time you were stuck in a traffic jam, or stranded at

an airport due to a severe snowstorm). In extreme cases, a

prolonged lack of control over one’s environment could

lead to passivity and withdrawal (i.e., learned helplessness;

Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale 1978). Yet under most

circumstances of limited control, we display immense cap-

ability in regulating our sense of control by finding alterna-

tive means to assert control (Thompson 1993,2009).

Given prior theorizing that problem solving enhances one’s

sense of control (Mirowsky and Ross 1989), and that utili-

tarian products tend to be associated with problem solving,

the present research asks the following question: Would

control-deprived individuals be more likely to buy utilitar-

ian products?

In this research, we propose that a perceived loss of con-

trol is an undesirable state that leads consumers to restore

control through product acquisition. Specifically, when in-

dividuals perceive a loss of control over their environment,

we posit that they will prefer to acquire utilitarian products

in order to reinstate their sense of control. By illuminating

how people cope via their consumption decisions when

they experience perceived threat to control in their every-

day lives, the present research contributes toward the grow-

ing literature on the impact of people’s fundamental desire

for control on consumer behavior (Cutright 2012;

Charlene Y. Chen (cyjchen@ntu.edu.sg) is an assistant professor of

marketing and international business, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore 639798, and research fellow of the Institute on Asian

Consumer Insight. Leonard Lee (leonard.lee@nus.edu.sg) is an associate

professor of marketing and Dean’s Chair, National University of

Singapore, Singapore 119245, and research fellow of the Institute on

Asian Consumer Insight. Andy J. Yap (andy.yap@insead.edu) is an assist-

ant professor of organizational behavior, INSEAD, Singapore 138676.

The authors acknowledge the helpful feedback of the editors, associate

editor, and reviewers. In addition, the authors thank the members of the

Research in Emotion and Decisions (RED) Lab at Columbia University

for their input. The research was supported by an internal grant from

Nanyang Technological University to the first author, internal grants from

Columbia University and National University of Singapore to the second

author, and an internal grant from INSEAD to the third author.

Ann McGill and Darren Dahl served as editors and Jaideep Sengupta

served as associate editor for this article.

Advance Access publication December 20, 2016

CThe Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucw068

1031

Hamerman and Johar 2013), while highlighting a potential

psychological role of utilitarian products: control

restoration.

SEEKING CONTROL OVER THE

ENVIRONMENT

Control refers to the ability to influence outcomes in

one’s environment (Skinner 1996). Social scientists have

long recognized human beings’ innate desire for control

and the evolutionary role it has played in ensuring the sur-

vival of our species (Averill 1973;Geary 1998). This de-

sire for control manifests as early as infancy when children

attend strongly to the effects their actions have on the en-

vironment (Piaget 1952), and continues to be evident in

adulthood as people attempt to create favorable outcomes

and prevent unfavorable outcomes in their lives. As noted

earlier, we do not always possess complete control over

our environment. Various situations in life, such as being

laid off by one’s employer, weaken our perceptions of con-

trol over the environment and accentuate our desire for

control. An unmet need for control creates discomfort that

in turn prompts people to augment perceived control

(Brehm 1966). When the source of control deprivation is

nonamenable to control, individuals are likely to bolster

perceived control in other domains (Thompson 1993,

2009).

Compensatory Control Theory

According to compensatory control theory (CCT),

control-deprived individuals may resort to different strat-

egies to restore personal control, and importantly, these

strategies do not have to be directed at the source of control

deprivation (Landau, Kay, and Whitson 2015). For in-

stance, individuals may affirm structured interpretations of

the world when their perceived control is low. In research

by Whitson and Galinsky (2008), participants who recalled

past situations in which they had experienced a loss of con-

trol were more likely to perceive in a subsequent unrelated

task illusory patterns among stimuli that were completely

random and not meaningfully related (e.g., images of ob-

jects in visual noise). Doing so enabled the control-

deprived participants to return order and structure to the

world, a world in which “performing certain actions would

reliably produce expected outcomes,” thus restoring par-

ticipants’ perceived control (Kay et al. 2009;Landau et al.

2015, 696). Other studies have similarly demonstrated gen-

eral structure-seeking tendencies (e.g., endorsement of

hierarchy and preference for order-providing theories)

among control-deprived individuals in domains unrelated

to the source of control deprivation (Friesen et al. 2014;

Rutjens et al. 2013).

More pertinent to the current research, CCT posits that

people may also restore personal control by strengthening

their belief that they have the ability to affect outcomes in

their environment (e.g., forming illusory beliefs about

one’s influence over random events; Langer 1975), or that

they have access to an external agent who possesses such

an ability (Landau et al. 2015). In a study by Kay et al.

(2008), participants who recalled low-control situations ex-

pressed stronger beliefs in God. This relationship emerged

only when God was described as a controller of events in

the world rather than a creator of the universe. In another

study, the same authors showed that individuals with low

perceived control tended to be more supportive of govern-

mental control, particularly when they lived in countries

with a benevolent (vs. corrupt) government. Taken to-

gether, this work suggests that control-deprived individuals

may compensate for lowered perceived control by bolster-

ing their beliefs that they have an external agent who is

able to influence outcomes on their behalf. We propose

that they may also compensate by problem solving to re-

affirm their belief that they themselves can control their

environment.

Generalized Problem-Solving Tendency

A problem exists when people want to go from a current

situation to a desired situation but the way to do so is not

immediately obvious (Robertson 2001). Resolving the

problem may involve some difficulty and thus require

some thinking to devise the solution (Duncker and Lees

1945). In fact, developmental studies have shown that chil-

dren who possess stronger control motivation find working

on puzzles with some level of difficulty more gratifying

than working on easily attainable goals (Harter 1974,

1975). In general, the action to be taken to solve the prob-

lem (i.e., the solution) must meet two requirements: 1) the

problem solver must be able to perform the action in his or

her current situation, and 2) the desired end state must be

contingent upon the action (Duncker and Lees 1945). It is

therefore apparent from these definitions that problem-

solving behaviors in themselves represent attempts to con-

trol the environment.

In line with CCT, we posit that when people experience

threat to their sense of control, they are motivated to en-

gage in problem solving because such behaviors reinforce

their belief in their ability to produce desired outcomes in

their environment. Supporting our theorizing, research has

suggested that problem solving can enhance people’s sense

of control (Mirowsky 1995;Mirowsky and Ross 1989). In

particular, individuals who receive problem-solving train-

ing tend to report greater perceived control during post-

training and follow-up evaluations (Nezu and Perri 1989).

More imperatively, some empirical evidence suggests that

control deprivation elicits a tendency to engage in problem

solving (Roth and Bootzin 1974;Tennen and Eller 1977).

Roth and Kubal (1975) found that participants exposed to

an uncontrollable task expended more effort and solved

1032 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

more problems in a separate cognitive task. These authors

proposed that increased engagement in problem solving

constituted attempts to restore and exert control over the

environment. Likewise, Inesi et al. (2011) showed that par-

ticipants deprived of power and/or choice, both of which

are sources of control, persisted for a longer period of time

on an unsolvable anagrams task than participants who had

at least one source of control.

As a conceptual replication of these findings, we ran-

domly assigned 72 students (23 male) aged 18–40 (M¼

22.19, SD ¼4.64) from a northeastern university in the

United States to write about either a personal incident in

which they had experienced a loss of control over their en-

vironment (low-control condition; Whitson and Galinsky

2008) or a typical weekday in their life over the previous

few weeks (baseline condition). After completing this re-

call task, participants from both conditions were given un-

solvable anagrams to solve. In this ostensibly unrelated

task on “language assessment,” participants were presented

anagrams one at a time and could choose to quit the task at

any point or continue to solve a new anagram.

Corroborating past research, t-test analyses revealed that

compared to participants in the baseline condition, those in

the low-control condition attempted more anagrams (M

low

¼8.62, SD ¼2.09; M

baseline

¼7.31, SD ¼2.51; t(70) ¼

2.41, p<.05) and spent more time trying to solve the un-

solvable anagrams (M

low

¼256.19 sec, SD ¼196.36 sec;

baseline

¼173.27 sec, SD ¼107.04 sec; t(70) ¼2.21, p<

.05). In sum, these results, together with findings from ear-

lier work, provide supporting evidence that increased con-

trol motivation could trigger a generalized problem-solving

tendency.

In the current work, we postulate that control-deprived

individuals would engage in greater problem solving to

strengthen their belief that they have the ability to achieve

desired outcomes. Based on CCT, these resultant problem-

solving behaviors do not have to be targeted at the source

of control threat; rather, problem solving, in and of itself,

would boost perceptions of control over the environment.

Therefore, we predict that products that are typically asso-

ciated with problem solving would be perceived as more

attractive to control-deprived individuals. Acquiring such

products equips people with the means to solve certain

everyday problems or preempt such problems from arising,

thereby affording them a sense of control (Beggan 1991).

PRODUCT ACQUISITION AS A

COMPENSATORY STRATEGY FOR

PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS

Accumulating evidence suggests that consumers who

experience specific psychological needs tend to consume

products that offer benefits that alleviate those particular

needs (Mandel, et al. 2016). For instance, people who

experience threat to a certain dimension of their self-

concept (e.g., believing that they are unexciting) are

inclined to choose products that restore their confidence in

that particular self-view (e.g., brands with exciting person-

alities; Gao, Wheeler, and Shiv 2008). As a second ex-

ample, the enhanced need for belongingness following

social exclusion drives people to consume products that

help them strengthen social ties (Mead et al. 2011).

More pertinent to the current research, consumers have

been found to use compensatory consumption as a means

to satisfy basic needs that are related to control motivation

(e.g., power and autonomy; Inesi et al. 2011;Skinner

1996). In particular, people who feel powerless tend to pre-

fer products that signal high social status (e.g., a silk tie;

Rucker and Galinsky 2008), while people whose autonomy

is threatened tend to seek varied and unique product op-

tions (Levav and Zhu 2009). Although power and auton-

omy are closely intertwined with control, there are

important conceptual distinctions among the three con-

structs. Control is a broader construct that refers to the abil-

ity to determine outcomes in one’s environment, whereas

power is specifically an interpersonal construct that refers

to the ability to influence other people’s outcomes through

the asymmetric possession of resources (Inesi et al. 2011;

Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson 2003;Thibaut and

Kelley 1959). Control also involves experiencing the con-

tingency between one’s own actions and the achieved out-

comes, whereas the need for autonomy is the desire to

experience oneself as the sole initiator of one’s own actions

(Brehm 1966;Deci and Ryan 1985). People with low per-

ceived control feel ineffective in producing certain out-

comes, while people with low perceived autonomy feel

denied of their freedom to act according to their own will

and thus are likely to experience reactance (Brehm 1966).

Together, these findings suggest that people are likely to

employ compensatory consumption to meet their need for

control, albeit using other forms of consumption.

Recent research has begun to shed some light on the ef-

fects of control motivation on consumption behaviors.

When people experience a loss of control, they tend to pre-

fer structured consumption (e.g., products with borders and

organized retail environments; Cutright 2012), suggesting

that people compensate for their loss of control by uphold-

ing beliefs that the world is ordered and structured. These

individuals may also prefer products that require high ef-

fort to feel empowered (Cutright and Samper 2014). The

current research adds to this modest body of research that

underscores the importance of understanding how products

can be used to restore one’s psychological sense of control.

Specifically, it extends this literature on the effects of con-

trol loss on consumption preferences by investigating a

hitherto unexamined phenomenon: consumers compensate

for their loss of control by strategically acquiring products

that are typically associated with problem solving—that is,

utilitarian products.

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1033

UTILITARIAN PRODUCTS AS A SOURCE

OF CONTROL

By definition, utilitarian products are consumer goods

that are primarily consumed or used for instrumental pur-

poses (e.g., stationery and household cleaning agents;

Khan, Dhar, and Wertenbroch 2005;Strahilevitz and

Myers 1998). They are often contrasted with hedonic prod-

ucts—consumer goods that are primarily consumed for

sensory pleasure and enjoyment (e.g., chocolates and mas-

sage chairs; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). Whereas the

experience of consuming hedonic products constitutes the

end state that consumers seek when they acquire such

products, utilitarian products are typically purchased as

means to achieving tangible and objective outcomes in the

environment (Batra and Ahtola 1990).

We propose that utilitarian products tend to be seen as

solutions to various daily problems. For instance, a screw-

driver is used to affix screws in order to hold objects to-

gether and prevent the objects from falling apart. In the

same vein, consumers asked to generate adjectives for both

hedonic and utilitarian products tend to describe utilitarian

but not hedonic products as problem-solving (Voss,

Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003).

As a pilot test, we asked 77 Mechanical Turk partici-

pants (41 male) aged 19–72 (M¼39.62, SD ¼12.71) to

rate the consumption or use of various hedonic products

(e.g., chocolates, video games, and art pieces) and utilitar-

ian products (e.g., vacuum cleaner, flash drive, and laundry

detergent). We selected a variety of products that con-

sumers commonly consume or use and that are likely

deemed to be unambiguously hedonic or utilitarian.

Participants rated these products on two seven-point scales

(1 ¼not problem-solving and 7 ¼problem-solving; 1 ¼

does not give a sense of control and 7 ¼gives a sense of

control). Their ratings of the utilitarian products were aver-

aged, as were their ratings of the hedonic products. Paired

t-tests revealed that participants were more likely to rate

the consumption of utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products as

problem-solving (M

utilitarian

¼6.30, SD ¼.84; M

hedonic

3.30, SD ¼1.35; t(76) ¼18.17, p<.001) and providing a

greater sense of control (M

utilitarian

¼5.54, SD ¼1.20;

hedonic

¼3.87, SD ¼1.44; t(76) ¼8.42, p<.001).

Together, these findings suggest that utilitarian products

are more strongly associated with problem solving and

achieving control than hedonic products.

Accordingly, if utilitarian products are generally per-

ceived as means or tools that people use to solve problems

in their environment, then when consumers experience a

loss of perceived control, they should exhibit greater pref-

erence for utilitarian products. Acquiring such products

would signal to these consumers the possibility of attaining

desirable outcomes and pre-empting problematic situations

from occurring, and thus satisfy consumers’ desire for con-

trol. More formally,

H1: Consumers who perceive a loss of control would be

more likely to acquire utilitarian products than consumers

who do not perceive threat to their sense of control; how-

ever, the same tendency would not be observed for hedonic

products.

H2: A generalized problem-solving tendency mediates the

effect of perceived control loss on consumers’ preference

for utilitarian products.

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT STUDIES

The first three studies examined the impact of control

motivation on preference for utilitarian products (hypoth-

esis 1). In study 1, we manipulated shoppers’ perceived

control before they began shopping and measured their ac-

tual purchase of utilitarian products at a supermarket. In

studies 2 and 3, we investigated whether control depriv-

ation would increase people’s intention to purchase prod-

ucts (i.e., a pair of sneakers in study 2 and juice in study 3)

framed as utilitarian (vs. hedonic). Finally, study 4 exam-

ined the underlying mechanism by testing whether the rela-

tionship between control deprivation and eagerness to

pursue utilitarian consumption would be mediated by a

generalized problem-solving tendency (hypothesis 2).

STUDY 1: PERCEIVED CONTROL IN THE

FIELD

Study 1 examined the purchase behavior of low-control

versus high-control shoppers at a midsize supermarket

(about 5,000 square feet) located in a northeastern city in

the United States. If low control indeed elicits a compensa-

tory response, then we should observe greater desire for

products typically associated with problem solving, which

would be manifested in an increased purchase of utilitarian

products. In comparison, hedonic products are not typically

associated with problem solving; therefore, shoppers who

perceived a loss of control should not have an increased de-

sire for these products.

Participants and Procedure

A research assistant invited shoppers entering the super-

market to participate in a short study for a $2 coupon.

Shoppers who agreed to participate were randomly as-

signed to either a low- or high-control condition. We

manipulated control using an autobiographical recall task

adapted from Whitson and Galinsky (2008). Participants in

the low-control (high-control) condition were asked to

write a short essay of about 75–100 words concerning a

personal incident in which they had experienced a loss of

control (heightened sense of control) over their

1034 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

environment. They were instructed to describe the incident

as vividly and in as much detail as possible. An example of

a low-control incident was a technical failure during an im-

portant presentation, while an example of a high-control in-

cident was being able to answer all the questions in a

difficult exam.

Upon completing the autobiographical recall task, all

participants commenced shopping. After shopping, they

handed their receipt to another research assistant at the

checkout area to redeem their coupon. Based on the re-

ceipts, we recorded information about the products shop-

pers purchased, whether these products were on promotion,

and the monetary amount shoppers spent. Ten shoppers (6

from the low-control condition, 4 from the high-control

condition) did not redeem their coupon and were excluded

from the sample. The final sample comprised 134 shoppers

(58 male) aged 16–85 (M¼31.33, SD ¼14.34).

Results and Discussion

Eight participants (5 from the low-control condition, 3

from the high-control condition) were excluded from the

sample because they misread or failed to follow the in-

structions in the control manipulation task (e.g., they stated

that they did not have any incidents to report) and gave ir-

relevant accounts (e.g., their general philosophies about

control), leaving a sample of 126 participants.

Manipulation Check. Two raters (blind to the assigned

conditions) independently scored participants’ writings for

level of perceived control on a scale from –5 (large amount

of loss of control) to þ5 (large amount of gain in control)

(r¼.98). High-control shoppers scored significantly

higher on this measure (M¼4.05, SD ¼.85) than low-

control shoppers (M¼–3.80, SD ¼1.52; t(124) ¼35.84, p

<.001), indicating that the control manipulation was

successful.

Main Analyses. Two other independent raters classified

each product participants purchased as “utilitarian,” “he-

donic,” or “undetermined” (Kappa ¼.72; disagreements

were resolved through discussion). They classified these

products according to definitions of hedonic and utilitarian

consumption by Strahilevitz (1999, 219–220): hedonic

products are those that are consumed “for sensual pleasure,

fantasy, and fun” (e.g., chocolates, soda), whereas utilitar-

ian products are those that are consumed “to fill a basic

need or accomplish a functional task” (e.g., skim milk,

painkillers). Ambiguous products that may be consumed

for both pleasure and functional need were classified as

“undetermined” (e.g., unspecified grocery items).

A 2 (perceived control: low vs. high) 3 (product type:

hedonic vs. utilitarian vs. undetermined) mixed ANOVA

revealed a significant main effect of perceived control such

that low-control participants bought more products

(M¼3.89, SD ¼3.80) than high-control participants

(M¼2.56, SD ¼1.49; F(1, 124) ¼6.17, p<.05), and a

significant main effect of product type (F(1, 124) ¼18.43,

p<.001) such that participants bought fewer undeter-

mined products (M¼.40, SD ¼.74) than hedonic

(M¼1.18, SD ¼1.24; F(1, 124) ¼30.08, p<.001) and

utilitarian products (M¼1.60, SD ¼2.43; F(1, 124) ¼

37.92, p<.001). Participants bought marginally signifi-

cantly more utilitarian products than hedonic products

(F(1, 124) ¼3.09, p¼.08). These two main effects were

qualified by a significant interaction between perceived

control and product type (F(2, 248) ¼3.65, p<.05).

Specifically, consistent with our prediction, low-control

participants bought more utilitarian products (M¼2.11,

SD ¼3.07) than high-control participants (M¼1.09,

SD ¼1.43; F(1, 124) ¼5.75, p<.05). By contrast, low-

and high-control participants did not differ significantly in

the number of hedonic products (M

low

¼1.32, SD ¼1.43

vs. M

high

¼1.05, SD ¼1.00; F(1, 124) ¼1.58, p¼.21) or

the number of undetermined products (M

low

¼.39, SD ¼

.71 vs. M

high

¼.42, SD ¼.77; F(1, 124) ¼.07, p¼.79)

they bought.

In addition, t-test analyses revealed that low-control par-

ticipants spent more money than high-control participants

low

¼$11.08, SD ¼$9.88; M

high

¼$7.56, SD ¼$5.25;

t(124) ¼2.51, p<.05). Importantly, this difference in ex-

penditure was driven mainly by participants’ expenditure

on utilitarian products: low-control participants spent more

money on utilitarian products than high-control partici-

pants (M

low

¼$5.91, SD ¼$8.18 vs. M

high

¼$3.00, SD ¼

$4.08; t(121) ¼2.49, p<.05); there were no significant

differences across conditions in the amounts spent on he-

donic and undetermined products (p’s >.16). Lastly, there

was no difference between low- and high-control partici-

pants in the number of promotional items they purchased

low

¼.06, SD ¼.25 vs. M

high

¼.14, SD ¼.56; t(124) ¼

–1.00, p¼.32).

Together, these results provided initial evidence for hy-

pothesis 1 that control motivation leads people to buy more

utilitarian products but not more hedonic products. By test-

ing our hypothesis in a real-world shopping context, we

demonstrated the external validity of this effect.

Nonetheless, it is plausible that it was the high-control

shoppers, not the low-control shoppers, who were driving

the observed effects. Furthermore, the utilitarian and he-

donic products in this study might have varied in other sys-

tematic ways (e.g., compared to the utilitarian products, the

hedonic products comprised a larger proportion of edible

products than inedible products); hence, other product dif-

ferences might have been responsible for the observed ef-

fects. Study 2 addressed these limitations by manipulating

three levels of control—low-, high- and baseline control—

and testing whether framing the same product as utilitarian

versus hedonic would lead to similar results.

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1035

STUDY 2: PURCHASING SNEAKERS

To ensure that other systematic differences beyond the

hedonic-utilitarian distinction were not driving the

hypothesized effects, participants in study 2 were presented

with the same product (i.e., a pair of sneakers) that was

framed as either utilitarian or hedonic, and were asked to

indicate their intention to purchase the product. We chose

sneakers as the product stimulus because they could be

worn primarily for their style (more characteristic of he-

donic consumption) or functionality (more characteristic of

utilitarian consumption). Another goal of this study was to

validate that the hypothesized effect is driven by control

deprivation and not a high sense of control. To this end, we

compared the low-control condition to both the baseline

and high-control conditions. We predicted that control-

deprived participants would exhibit a greater intention to

purchase the utilitarian (but not hedonic) pair of sneakers

than participants in the other two conditions (hypothesis 1).

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred fifty-nine US participants (106 male),

aged 18–73 (M¼35.39, SD ¼13.17), were recruited

through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. A 3 (perceived con-

trol: low vs. high vs. baseline) 2 (product type: utilitarian

vs. hedonic) between-subjects design was employed to test

our prediction. Participants were randomly assigned to one

of the six conditions. To manipulate participants’ perceived

control, we employed an autobiographical recall task simi-

lar to the one we used in study 1. Participants in the low-

control and high-control conditions were given the same

instructions as in study 1. Participants in the baseline con-

dition, however, wrote about a typical weekday in their life

over the past few weeks.

After completing the recall task, participants answered a

product evaluation survey about sneakers that was osten-

sibly unrelated to the recall task. They were presented with

a description of either a pair of hedonic sneakers or a pair

of utilitarian sneakers from label X. In the hedonic condi-

tion, the stylistic aspects of the sneakers were emphasized.

By contrast, in the utilitarian condition, the functional as-

pects of the sneakers were emphasized (see appendix A).

Participants first rated how likely (1 ¼very unlikely, 7

¼very likely) and interested (1 ¼not at all interested, 7 ¼

very interested) they were to buy the given pair of sneakers

from label X, and stated how much they were willing to

pay for this pair of sneakers. Adopting Strahilevitz’s

(1999) definitions of hedonic and utilitarian consumption,

we then asked participants to indicate on seven-point scales

(1 ¼not at all, 7 ¼extremely) how much they perceived

buying this pair of sneakers to be representative of

pleasure-oriented consumption (i.e., something fun or ex-

periential) and goal-oriented consumption (i.e., something

one buys to carry out a necessary function or task in one’s

life). Finally, to ensure that participants were taking the

survey seriously, we inserted an attention check question

that instructed them to ignore the response format of the

question, and instead enter a specific response to this ques-

tion (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009). (We

included an attention check in all the subsequent studies as

well.)

Results and Discussion

Twenty-three participants (6 from the baseline/hedonic

condition, 6 from the high-control/hedonic condition, 4

from the high-control/utilitarian condition, 3 from the low-

control/utilitarian condition, 2 from the low-control/he-

donic condition, and 2 from the baseline/utilitarian condi-

tion) were excluded from the sample because they misread

or failed to follow the instructions in the control manipula-

tion task and gave irrelevant accounts (n¼8), or failed the

attention check (n¼15), leaving a sample of 236

participants.

Product-Type Manipulation Check. To test whether the

product-type manipulation was successful, participants’

ratings of how much buying the given pair of sneakers was

representative of goal-oriented consumption were submit-

ted to a two-way ANOVA (perceived control product

type). As intended, there was a significant main effect of

the product-type manipulation such that participants who

were presented with the utilitarian pair of sneakers per-

ceived buying them as more representative of goal-

oriented consumption (M¼5.13, SD ¼1.48) than those

who were presented with the hedonic product (M¼3.27,

SD ¼1.68; F(1, 230) ¼88.66, p<.001). There was also a

significant main effect of perceived control (F(1, 230) ¼

4.62, p<.05) such that low-control participants rated the

given pair of sneakers as more representative of goal-

oriented consumption (M¼4.62, SD ¼1.76) than baseline

(M¼4.14, SD ¼1.81) and high-control participants (M¼

4.03, SD ¼1.88; p<.005). Baseline participants’ ratings

did not differ significantly from high-control participants’

ratings (p¼.48). However, the interaction between control

and product type was not significant (p¼.32).

Participants’ ratings of how much buying the given pair

of sneakers was representative of pleasure-oriented con-

sumption were also submitted to the same two-way

ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of the

product-type manipulation such that participants perceived

buying the hedonic pair of sneakers to be more representa-

tive of pleasure-oriented consumption (M¼5.07,

SD ¼1.52) than buying the utilitarian pair of sneakers (M

¼3.89, SD ¼1.55; F(1, 230) ¼33.69, p<.001). Neither

the main effect of control nor the interaction between con-

trol and product type was significant (p’s >.51). Together,

these results showed that the product-type manipulation

worked as intended.

1036 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Main Analyses. Participants’ ratings of how likely and

interested they would be to buy the pair of sneakers were

averaged to form a purchase-intention index (r¼.87). We

hypothesized that low-control participants would have a

stronger intention to purchase the pair of utilitarian

sneakers than high-control and baseline participants, while

intention to purchase the pair of hedonic sneakers would

not be significantly different among the three conditions

(hypothesis 1). To test this hypothesis, we ran a two-way

ANOVA on purchase intentions with perceived control and

product type as independent factors. There was a signifi-

cant main effect of product type such that participants ex-

pressed a greater intention to buy the utilitarian sneakers

(M¼4.44, SD ¼1.52) than the hedonic sneakers (M¼

3.92, SD ¼1.41; F(1, 230) ¼8.93, p<.005). More im-

portantly, this main effect was qualified by a significant

interaction between perceived control and product type

(F(1, 230) ¼3.61, p<.05; see figure 1, top panel). As pre-

dicted, a follow-up contrast analysis showed that low-

control participants were more likely to buy the utilitarian

pair of sneakers (M¼5.08, SD ¼1.49) than high-control

participants (M¼4.27, SD ¼1.43) and baseline partici-

pants (M¼4.14, SD ¼1.52; F(2, 230) ¼4.46, p<.05).

Pairwise comparisons indicated that intentions to buy the

utilitarian pair of sneakers were significantly stronger for

low-control participants than high-control (p<.05) and

baseline participants (p<.01). However, low-control par-

ticipants were not more likely to buy the hedonic sneakers

(M¼3.78, SD ¼1.25) than high-control participants (M¼

4.19, SD ¼1.43) and baseline participants (M¼3.82,

SD ¼1.52; F(2, 230) ¼.93, p¼.40). There was no signifi-

cant main effect of control (p¼.16).

The same two-way ANOVA with perceived control and

product type as independent factors was performed on the

amount participants were willing to pay for the given pair

of sneakers. Again, a significant interaction between per-

ceived control and product type emerged (F(1, 230) ¼

5.48, p<.01; see figure 1, bottom panel). A follow-up

contrast analysis revealed that low-control participants

were willing to pay more for the utilitarian pair of sneakers

(M¼$53.60, SD ¼$23.37) than high-control participants

(M¼$40.59, SD ¼$20.10) and baseline participants (M

¼$43.65, SD ¼$20.25; F(2, 230) ¼3.57, p<.05).

Pairwise comparisons indicated that the amount was sig-

nificantly higher for low-control participants than for both

high-control (p<.05) and baseline participants (p<.05).

Interestingly, perceived control also had a marginally sig-

nificant simple main effect on the amount participants

were willing to pay for the hedonic pair of sneakers (F(2,

230) ¼2.43, p¼.09). High-control participants were will-

ing to pay significantly more for the hedonic pair of

sneakers (M¼$49.33, SD ¼$25.53) than low-control par-

ticipants (M¼$38.61, SD ¼$18.66; p<.05) but not base-

line participants (M¼$41.02, SD ¼$22.70; p<.10). The

main effects of control and product type were nonsignifi-

cant (p’s >.30).

Results from study 2 demonstrated that framing a prod-

uct that could be consumed for functional or pleasurable

reasons as primarily utilitarian increases people’s prefer-

ence for that product when they experience perceived con-

trol loss. In the next study, we sought to test whether this

framing effect would also emerge with a different product

category.

STUDY 3: PURCHASING SUGARCANE

JUICE

Study 3 aimed to replicate the basic effect of control de-

privation on preference for utilitarian products using

FIGURE 1

STUDY 2: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL

AND PRODUCT TYPE ON INTENTION TO PURCHASE

SNEAKERS (TOP PANEL) AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY

(BOTTOM PANEL)

3.82 3.78

4.19

4.14

5.08

4.27

Baseline Low control High control

Intenon to purchase sneakers

Control condion

Hedonic Ulitarian

41.02 38.61

49.33

43.65

53.60

40.59

Baseline Low control High control

Willingness to pay (US $)

Control condion

Hedonic Ulitarian

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1037

another product category (i.e., a juice beverage). A juice

beverage was chosen as the focal product because juice

could be consumed primarily for its good taste (more char-

acteristic of hedonic consumption) or nutritional benefits

(more characteristic of utilitarian consumption). Similar to

study 2, following the control manipulation, participants

were presented with the same juice beverage that was

advertised as either utilitarian or hedonic, and were asked

to indicate their intention to purchase a regular size cup of

the beverage. We predicted that in accordance with hy-

pothesis 1, when the juice beverage was advertised as a

utilitarian product, low-control participants would exhibit a

greater purchase intention for the beverage than baseline

participants; when the juice beverage was advertised as a

hedonic product instead, there would be no difference in

purchase intentions between the two conditions. We did

not include the high-control condition in this study because

the main focus of our research is to examine the influence

of control deprivation on product preference; moreover,

the previous study revealed that there was no difference be-

tween the high-control and baseline conditions in prefer-

ence for the utilitarian pair of sneakers.

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred one participants (101 male), aged 17–54

(M¼30.89, SD ¼8.76), were recruited at a shopping mall

in a city in Asia. A 2 (perceived control: low vs. baseline)

2 (product type: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-

subjects design was employed to test our prediction.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four

conditions. To manipulate participants’ perceived control,

we employed the autobiographical recall task used in study

2, excluding the high-control condition. After completing

the recall task, participants were asked to complete an os-

tensibly unrelated study about an advertisement for a bev-

erage. They were asked to imagine that they were thinking

of getting a beverage and came across an ad about sugar-

cane juice, a beverage commonly sold in food outlets in

the Asian city. In the utilitarian condition, the ad empha-

sized the nutritional aspects (e.g., rehydrating and fights

common infections) of consuming the juice; by contrast, in

the hedonic condition, the ad emphasized the pleasurable

aspects (e.g., refreshing and tasty) of consuming the juice

(see appendix B).

Participants rated how likely (1 ¼very unlikely, 7 ¼

very likely) and interested (1 ¼not at all interested, 7 ¼

very interested) they were to purchase a regular size cup of

sugarcane juice after seeing the ad. Then, they were asked

to indicate on a seven-point scale (1 ¼not at all, 7 ¼to a

large extent) the extent to which the problem-solving prop-

erties of the sugarcane juice influenced their likelihood of

and interest in purchasing a regular cup of sugarcane juice.

They were also asked to indicate on seven-point scales (1

¼not at all, 7 ¼to a large extent) how much they thought

the ad highlighted how drinking sugarcane juice is repre-

sentative of pleasure-oriented consumption and goal-

oriented consumption, and how much they thought the ad

highlighted how drinking sugarcane juice could help them

solve a particular problem or prevent a particular problem

from happening. Finally, participants were asked to indi-

cate on seven-point scales how much they liked sugarcane

juice in general (1 ¼dislike extremely, 7 ¼like ex-

tremely), as well as how hungry and thirsty they were dur-

ing the study (1 ¼not at all thirsty/hungry, 7 ¼extremely

thirsty/hungry).

Results and Discussion

Twenty-six participants (10 from the low-control/

utilitarian condition, 6 from the baseline/utilitarian condi-

tion, 6 from the low-control/hedonic condition, 4 from the

baseline/hedonic condition) were excluded from the sam-

ple because they misread or failed to follow the instruc-

tions in the control manipulation task and gave irrelevant

accounts (n¼19), or failed the attention check (n¼7),

leaving a sample of 175 participants.

Product-Type Manipulation Check. To test whether the

product-type manipulation was successful, participants’

ratings of how much they thought the ad highlighted how

drinking sugarcane juice was representative of goal-

oriented consumption, pleasure-oriented consumption, and

problem solving were submitted to a two-way ANOVA

(perceived control product type). There was a significant

main effect of the product-type manipulation on the goal-

orientation item such that participants who saw the utilitar-

ian ad thought the ad highlighted how drinking sugarcane

juice was representative of goal-oriented consumption to a

greater extent (M¼4.08, SD ¼1.83) than those who saw

the hedonic ad (M¼3.34, SD ¼1.80; F(1, 171) ¼8.05, p

<.01). There was also a significant main effect of the

product-type manipulation on the pleasure-orientation item

such that participants who saw the hedonic ad thought the

ad highlighted how drinking sugarcane juice was represen-

tative of pleasure-oriented consumption to a greater extent

(M¼4.01, SD ¼1.71) than those who saw the utilitarian

ad (M¼3.38, SD ¼1.77; F(1, 171) ¼5.30, p<.05).

Lastly, there was a significant main effect of the product-

type manipulation on the problem-solving item such that

participants who saw the utilitarian ad thought the ad high-

lighted how drinking sugarcane juice could help them

solve a particular problem or prevent a particular problem

from happening to a greater extent (M¼3.77, SD ¼1.89)

than those who saw the hedonic ad (M¼2.91, SD ¼1.72;

F(1, 171) ¼10.33, p<.005). Neither the main effect of

control nor the interaction between control and product

type on any of the three ratings was significant (p’s >.12).

Together, these results showed that the product-type ma-

nipulation worked as intended, and that people were

1038 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

inclined to view the utilitarian ad as highlighting the

problem-solving properties of sugarcane juice.

Main Analyses. Participants’ ratings of how likely

and interested they would be to purchase a regular size

cup of sugarcane juice after seeing the ad were averaged

to form a purchase-intention index (r¼.81). A two-way

ANOVA of participants’ purchase intention with per-

ceived control and product type as independent factors

revealed a marginally significant interaction effect be-

tween perceived control and product type (F(1, 171) ¼

3.31, p¼.07). The simple main effect of perceived con-

trol within each product-type condition was nonsignifi-

cant, but directionally consistent with our hypothesis

(p’s ¼.20 in both hedonic and utilitarian conditions).

Because liking for sugarcane juice and thirstiness were

correlated with purchase intention (r¼.55, p<.001 and

r¼.15, p<.05, respectively), we reran the analysis

controlling for these two variables as covariates. Results

showed a significant interaction between perceived

control and product type (F(1, 169) ¼5.60, p<.05; see

figure 2, top panel). Within the utilitarian condition,

low-control participants indicated greater purchase in-

tentions (M¼4.85, SD ¼1.75) than baseline partici-

pants (M¼4.36, SD ¼1.70; F(1, 169) ¼4.16, p<.05).

However, within the hedonic condition, there was no dif-

ference in purchase intentions between low-control (M¼

4.18, SD ¼1.73) and baseline participants (M¼4.65,

SD ¼1.77; F(1, 169) ¼1.66, p¼.20). The main effects

of control and product type were not significant (p’s >.56).

Liking for sugarcane juice was a significant predictor of

purchase intentions (b¼.73, F(1, 169) ¼72.30, p<

.001), but thirstiness was not (b¼.09, F(1, 169) ¼2.54,

p¼.11).

Submitting participants’ ratings of the extent to which

the problem-solving properties of the sugarcane juice influ-

enced their purchase intentions to another two-way

ANOVA with perceived control and product type as inde-

pendent factors revealed a marginally significant inter-

action between perceived control and product type (F(1,

171) ¼3.17, p¼.08). The simple main effect of perceived

control was significant in the utilitarian condition (F(1,

171) ¼5.47, p<.05) but not in the hedonic condition (p¼

.89). After we controlled for liking for sugarcane juice and

thirstiness, there was a significant main effect of perceived

control such that low-control participants indicated that the

problem-solving properties of sugarcane juice influenced

their purchase intentions to a larger extent (M¼4.49,

SD ¼2.12) than baseline participants (M¼4.02,

SD ¼2.05; F(1, 169) ¼3.99, p<.05). More importantly,

the interaction effect became significant (F(1, 169) ¼3.98,

p<.05; see figure 2, bottom panel). Within the utilitarian

condition, low-control participants indicated that the

problem-solving properties of sugarcane juice influenced

their purchase intentions to a larger extent (M¼4.95,

SD ¼1.97) than baseline participants (M¼3.89,

SD ¼2.03; F(1, 169) ¼7.63, p<.01). However, within

the hedonic condition, there was no difference between

low-control (M¼4.09, SD ¼2.18) and baseline partici-

pants (M¼4.15, SD ¼2.10; F(1, 169) ¼.00, p>.99) in

this influence. Finally, liking for sugarcane juice was a sig-

nificant predictor (b¼.45, F(1, 169) ¼14.56, p<.001),

whereas thirstiness was a marginally significant predictor

(b¼.15, F(1, 169) ¼3.45, p<.07) of this influence.

Results from study 3 replicated our basic effect that

control-deprived individuals tend to desire utilitarian prod-

ucts (hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we found that control-

deprived individuals assigned greater importance to the

problem-solving properties of the product when they con-

sidered the utilitarian juice beverage. Nonetheless, we do

not have conclusive evidence that a generalized tendency

FIGURE 2

STUDY 3: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL

AND PRODUCT TYPE ON INTENTION TO PURCHASE

BEVERAGE (TOP PANEL) AND CONSIDERATION OF

PROBLEM-SOLVING PROPERTIES IN DECISION

(BOTTOM PANEL)

4.65

4.18

4.36

4.85

Baseline Low control

Intenon to purchase juice beverage

Control condion

Hedonic Ulitarian

4.15 4.09

3.89

4.95

Baseline Low control

Extent to which problem-solving

properes inﬂuenced purchase intenon

Control condion

Hedonic Ulitarian

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1039

to engage in problem solving was indeed responsible for

our effect. Therefore, in the next study, we tested whether

generalized problem-solving tendency mediated the effect

of control deprivation on eagerness to pursue utilitarian

consumption (hypothesis 2).

STUDY 4: GETTING A MASSAGE—

PROBLEM-SOLVING TENDENCY AS

MEDIATOR

Having established the basic effect in the first three stud-

ies, we sought in study 4 to test whether it is indeed a gen-

eral motivation to engage in problem solving that makes

utilitarian products more desirable to consumers when they

have low perceived control. In a pilot test, we manipulated

participants’ perceived control and measured their

problem-solving tendency. One hundred fifty-six US par-

ticipants (87 male) aged 18–68 (M¼35.39, SD ¼13.17)

recruited through Mechanical Turk were randomly as-

signed to either a low-control or baseline condition. We

manipulated perceived control using the autobiographical

recall task from study 3. Subsequently, we asked partici-

pants to indicate on a seven-point scale (1 ¼strongly dis-

agree, 7 ¼strongly agree) their desire to engage in

problem solving on four items: “I would like to take action

to try to make a problematic situation better,” “I would like

to concentrate my efforts on doing something about a cur-

rent or potential problem,” “I want to try to come up with a

strategy about what to do regarding a problem,” and “I

want to think about what steps to take to solve a problem.”

These items were adapted from the brief COPE inventory,

which measures problem-focused coping behaviors

(Carver 1997). Ratings on these items were averaged to

form a problem-solving tendency index (a¼.96). Results

showed that low-control participants reported a greater

problem-solving tendency (M¼5.76, SD ¼1.16) than

baseline participants (M¼5.09, SD ¼1.34; t(154) ¼3.31,

p<.005).

In study 4, we manipulated product type using consump-

tion goals (Botti and McGill 2011;Pham 1998): partici-

pants were asked to imagine a scenario in which they were

planning to get a massage either for hedonic or utilitarian

reasons. After participants indicated their level of eager-

ness to schedule their massage appointment, we measured

their generalized tendency to engage in problem solving.

We predicted that in line with hypothesis 1 low-control

participants would be more eager to schedule the appoint-

ment than baseline participants when the consumption goal

was utilitarian (vs. hedonic). Importantly, we also pre-

dicted that this relationship would be mediated by their

problem-solving tendency (hypothesis 2).

Participants and Procedure

Two hundred seventeen US participants (112 male),

aged 18–72 (M¼34.81, SD ¼11.82) were recruited

through Mechanical Turk. A 2 (perceived control: low vs.

baseline) 2 (consumption goal: utilitarian vs. hedonic)

between-subjects design was employed to test our predic-

tion. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the

four conditions. We manipulated participants’ perceived

control using the autobiographical recall task from study 3.

After completing the recall task, participants were asked

to complete a scenario study that was ostensibly unrelated

to the recall task. They were asked to imagine that they

were deciding whether to schedule an appointment for a

professional massage at a local spa. We varied participants’

goal for getting the massage. In the utilitarian condition,

participants were told that their goal was to get a massage

to provide immediate relief and reduce the body fatigue

that they had been experiencing. In the hedonic condition,

they were told that their goal was to treat themselves to an

enjoyable time at the spa, and hence they would like the

massage to be pleasurable and relaxing. Participants rated

on a 100-point sliding scale how eager they were to sched-

ule the spa appointment (1 ¼not at all eager, 100 ¼very

eager).

Following that, we measured generalized problem-

solving tendency by asking them to indicate on a seven-

point scale (1 ¼strongly disagree, 7 ¼strongly agree) their

desire to engage in problem solving on the same four items

from the pilot test (a¼.94). Next, as manipulation checks,

participants rated on separate seven-point scales (1 ¼not

at all, 7 ¼extremely) how much they thought getting the

massage was representative of pleasure-oriented consump-

tion, goal-oriented consumption, and action taken to solve

a problem. Finally, they were asked to indicate on seven-

point scales how often they go for a massage (1 ¼never, 7

¼very frequently) and how much they like getting a mas-

sage (1 ¼not at all, 7 ¼very much).

Results and Discussion

Fourteen participants (4 from the low-control/hedonic

condition, 4 from the low-control/utilitarian condition, 3

from the baseline/hedonic condition, 3 from the baseline/

utilitarian condition) were excluded from the sample be-

cause they misread or failed to follow the instructions in

the control manipulation task and gave irrelevant accounts

(n¼7), or failed the attention check (n¼7), leaving a

sample of 203 participants.

Consumption-Goal Manipulation Check. To test

whether the consumption-goal manipulation was success-

ful, participants’ ratings of how much they thought getting

the massage was representative of goal-oriented consump-

tion, pleasure-oriented consumption, and action taken to

solve a problem were submitted to a two-way ANOVA

1040 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

(perceived control consumption goal). There was a sig-

nificant main effect of the consumption-goal manipulation

on goal-oriented consumption such that participants in the

utilitarian condition thought that getting the massage was

more representative of goal-oriented consumption (M¼

4.25, SD ¼1.74) than participants in the hedonic condition

(M¼3.65, SD ¼1.77; F(1,199) ¼6.57, p<.05). There

was also a significant main effect of the manipulation on

pleasure-oriented consumption such that participants in the

hedonic condition thought that getting the massage was

more pleasure-oriented (M¼5.54, SD ¼1.46) than partici-

pants in the utilitarian condition (M¼5.06, SD ¼1.55;

F(1, 199) ¼7.64, p<.01). Lastly, there was a significant

main effect of the consumption-goal manipulation on the

problem-solving item such that participants in the utilitar-

ian condition thought that getting the massage was more

representative of action taken to solve a problem (M¼

4.91, SD ¼1.62) than participants in the hedonic condition

(M¼3.49, SD ¼1.79; F(1,199) ¼34.20, p<.001).

Neither the main effect of control nor the interaction be-

tween control and consumption goal on any of the three

ratings was significant (p’s >.23).

Main Analyses. We hypothesized that low-control par-

ticipants would be more eager to schedule the spa appoint-

ment in the utilitarian condition than baseline participants,

and that there would be no difference in eagerness between

low-control and baseline participants in the hedonic condi-

tion. To test this hypothesis, a two-way ANOVA with per-

ceived control and consumption goal as independent

factors was performed on the eagerness ratings. Supporting

our hypothesis, results showed a significant interaction

between perceived control and consumption goal (F(1,

199) ¼4.81, p<.05; see figure 3). As predicted, a follow-

up contrast analysis showed that within the utilitarian con-

dition, low-control participants were significantly more

eager to make the appointment (M¼77.91, SD ¼24.48)

than baseline participants (M¼62.61, SD ¼29.92; F(1,

199) ¼7.35, p<.01). However, within the hedonic condi-

tion, there was no difference in eagerness between low-

control (M¼65.63, SD ¼28.68) and baseline participants

(M¼67.91, SD ¼29.90; F(1, 199) ¼.16, p¼.69).

Neither of the main effects was significant (p’s >.11).

Moderated Mediation of Eagerness Ratings by Problem-

Solving Tendency. We predicted that problem-solving

tendency would mediate the relationship between per-

ceived control and eagerness ratings in the utilitarian con-

dition but not in the hedonic condition. A moderated

mediation analysis with 5,000 bootstrapped samples was

conducted using model 8 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS

to test this hypothesis (Hayes 2012). Results from the ana-

lysis revealed a significant moderated mediation (B¼

3.48, with a bias-corrected 95% confidence interval that

does not include 0 {.29, 9.48}). Within the utilitarian con-

dition, the relationship between perceived control and

eagerness ratings was mediated by problem-solving ten-

dency (B¼2.29, with a bias-corrected 95% confidence

interval that does not include 0 {.21, 5.90}). However,

there was no mediation in the hedonic condition (B¼–

1.19, with a bias-corrected 95% confidence interval that in-

cludes 0 {–5.13, .45}).

In sum, results from study 4 replicated the basic effect of

control deprivation on preference for utilitarian consump-

tion. Most importantly, we found support for our hypothe-

sized mechanism that control-deprived individuals desire

utilitarian products because of their stronger problem-

solving tendency (hypothesis 2).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The hedonic-utilitarian typology of products is funda-

mental in marketing and consumer research (Dhar and

Wertenbroch 2000). Therefore, it is important to under-

stand the distinction between these two types of products

and the psychological states that drive preferences for one

type over the other. The current work demonstrates that

perceiving a loss of control over the environment enhances

desire for utilitarian products. An increased motivation for

control led shoppers in a supermarket to purchase more

utilitarian but not hedonic products (study 1). Participants

who perceived a loss of control were also more likely to

purchase a product (i.e., a pair of sneakers or cup of juice

beverage) that was framed as utilitarian rather than hedonic

(studies 2 and 3). Importantly, our empirical findings dem-

onstrate that low-control consumers acquire utilitarian

products because a perceived loss of control motivates

FIGURE 3

STUDY 4: INTERACTION BETWEEN PERCEIVED CONTROL

AND CONSUMPTION GOAL ON EAGERNESS TO SCHEDULE

THE SPA APPOINTMENT

67.91 69.60

62.61

77.91

100

Baseline Low control

Eagerness to schedule the spa

appointment

Control condion

Hedonic Ulitarian

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1041

these consumers to engage in problem solving, and utilitar-

ian products are typically seen as solutions to everyday

problems. Specifically, we found in study 4 that a general-

ized problem-solving tendency mediated the causal rela-

tionship between low control and eagerness to get a

massage with a utilitarian goal.

Theoretical Contributions

Contributions to Consumer Research. By showing that

control deprivation influences the type of products con-

sumers purchase, the present research contributes to a still-

nascent stream of work that examines the impact of peo-

ple’s fundamental desire for control on consumer behavior

(Cutright 2012). Our findings show that people compensate

for their lack of control by purchasing utilitarian products

because of these products’ association with problem solv-

ing. As solving problems represents and involves taking

control of situations in one’s life, such behaviors reinforce

self-perceptions of being able to attain desirable outcomes

and prevent undesirable outcomes in one’s environment

(Duncker and Lees 1945;Landau et al. 2015).

Our work adds to prior research that has identified con-

ditions under which utilitarian products are preferred (Dhar

and Wertenbroch 2000;Okada 2005;Sela, Berger, and Liu

2009). Much of this prior research points to the virtuous

nature of utilitarian products (i.e., consuming utilitarian

products is perceived to be more rational and induces less

guilt than consuming hedonic products; Kivetz and

Simonson 2002) as the underlying reason why they are

favored in various circumstances. Consumers faced with a

larger assortment of products, for example, are more likely

to choose utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products because these

products are easier to justify (Sela et al. 2009). Our article

identifies another attribute (i.e., problem solving) of utili-

tarian products that makes them desirable. Furthermore,

we uncover a new condition (i.e., loss of control) that

would stimulate utilitarian purchases. Unlike Sela et al.’s

(2009) research, which demonstrates that having too many

options (arguably a control-depriving situation) leads peo-

ple to select the utilitarian option in the choice set, we

show that incidental manipulations of control that are unre-

lated to the choice context can also increase preference for

utilitarian products.

Importantly, our research demonstrates the ecological

validity of the effect by documenting how control motiv-

ation could affect shopping behavior in a real-world con-

text; this empirical approach is especially essential given

the pervasiveness and ease of using product acquisition as

a means to cope with psychological threat. The use of dif-

ferent sample populations, product stimuli, shopping con-

texts, and dependent measures across studies also

demonstrates the robustness and generalizability of the ef-

fect besides its external validity.

Contributions to the Literature on Control

Motivation. As attested by earlier work (Inesi et al. 2011)

and findings from our preliminary study, instead of sinking

into a state of passivity and learned helplessness, individ-

uals temporarily induced with a state of low control are

often motivated to engage in problem solving. In addition,

our research demonstrates how control deprivation could

also prompt active attempts to acquire products (study 1).

Although the notion that ownership can serve as a source

of control has been acknowledged in the literature (Beggan

1991;Furby 1978,1980), this relationship has not been

tested empirically. Besides testing this relationship empir-

ically in the present work, we also extend this literature by

showing that specific types of products (i.e., utilitarian

products) are more attractive under a loss of control.

Through the acquisition of a utilitarian product that serves

as a solution to an everyday problem, people reinforce their

belief in their ability to attain desirable outcomes in the

environment.

Contributions to the Understanding of Control-Related

Constructs. The causal relationship between control mo-

tivation and utilitarian-product acquisition documented in

the current work enhances the conceptual understanding of

other motivation-related constructs that are closely inter-

twined but not synonymous with the construct of control.

In particular, power and autonomy are two constructs that

are affiliated with control, and these constructs have also

been studied in the domain of consumption.

(a) Power. Unlike a threat to one’s sense of power,

which triggers an increase in preference for high-status

products (e.g., silk tie, luxury pen) that consequently help

the individual derive respect from others (Rucker and

Galinsky 2008), a threat to one’s perceived control en-

hances desire for utilitarian products that satisfy the motive

for problem solving. To test this distinction, we recruited

101 Mechanical Turk participants (54 male) aged 18–69

(M¼32.96, SD ¼12.22) to first write about a low-control

situation or a typical weekday and then choose between a

hedonic pair of sneakers (label X) that was rated as super-

ior in style but inferior in functionality, and a utilitarian

pair of sneakers (label Y) that was rated as superior in

functionality but inferior in style. The hedonic pair of

sneakers was also assigned a higher overall consumer rat-

ing, while the utilitarian pair had a higher price.

Supporting our prediction that control deprivation would

enhance preference for the utilitarian pair of sneakers, we

found that low-control participants were more likely to

choose the utilitarian pair of sneakers than baseline partici-

pants (63.5%. vs. 40.8%, respectively; v

(1) ¼5.19, p<

.05) despite its lower overall rating and higher price.

However, we also found that participants from both condi-

tions, who rated the relative status of the two pairs of

sneakers on a seven-point bipolar scale (1 ¼the pair of

sneakers from X has higher status, 7 ¼the pair of sneakers

1042 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

from Y has higher status), similarly perceived the hedonic

pair of sneakers (label X) to have higher status than the

utilitarian pair of sneakers (label Y) (M¼2.51, SD ¼1.67;

t(100) ¼–8.96, p<.001). In other words, low-control par-

ticipants were not more likely to choose the hedonic pair of

sneakers with higher perceived status, in contrast to power-

less individuals, who presumably would exhibit greater

preference for high-status products (Rucker and Galinsky

2008). These results remained significant after we con-

trolled for perceptions of relative status across both pairs of

sneakers and were replicated in a subsequent study.

Although control is a broader construct that encom-

passes power, and thus high-status products could theoret-

ically compensate for one’s lack of control (Inesi et al.

2011), it seems plausible that directly manipulating power

would cause people to seek products that have immediate

interpersonal implications, whereas manipulating control

influences preference for products with immediate intra-

personal implications.

(b) Autonomy. Individuals who experience a threat to

their autonomy tend to seek variety or unique products to

assert their freedom in determining their own actions

(Levav and Zhu 2009). Unlike control-deprived individuals

such as those in our studies, these individuals are more

concerned with the freedom to decide their own actions

than whether those actions would lead to desired outcomes.

Prior research has shown that people perceive a lower

sense of freedom when choosing a product to satisfy a utili-

tarian (vs. hedonic) goal because they feel more compelled

by extrinsic reasons to make the particular choice (i.e., “a

choice feels less like a choice”; Botti and McGill 2011,

1068; B&G for brevity). A careful consideration of the

conceptual distinction between autonomy and our focal

construct of control helps reconcile the seeming contradic-

tion between B&G’s finding and the current research,

which posits that consumers perceive utilitarian products

to have a control-restorative function. In both sets of stud-

ies, participants had to consider options that would enable

them to achieve a particular goal. However, in contrast to

the studies in B&G in which participants were induced

with a utilitarian goal while they were choosing between

options, participants in our studies freely decided which

products to buy or how much they wanted to buy a product

given their differential degrees of motivation for control.

Whereas control-deprived individuals in our studies

focused on the prospect of problem solving associated with

utilitarian products, participants induced with a utilitarian

goal in B&G focused on the constraints imposed by the

given instrumental motive as they made their choice.

In summary, motivations for power and autonomy are

conceptually distinct from the motivation for control and

thus engender different consumer preferences. Our findings

therefore add to this burgeoning literature on the conflu-

ence of control, power, and consumption (Inesi et al. 2011)

that seeks to understand how people might use

consumption as a means to satisfy specific psychological

needs. Importantly, unlike previous research in this area

and within the larger sphere of compensatory consumption

(which has largely been conducted in lab settings), we pro-

vide evidence that such compensatory behavior can occur

in a real-world context, and with real buying behavior.

Future research should further examine the relationships

between control and these closely relevant constructs (e.g.,

by depicting these relationships in a visual concept map)

and how these constructs can lead to divergent effects in

other contexts.

Implications for Subjective Well-Being

Addressing the impact of control motivation on product

acquisition is important given the prevalence of buying

activities in everyday life. As attested by the current find-

ings, consumers exposed to control-depriving situations in

their daily lives may buy utilitarian products as a conveni-

ent and important means to satisfy their need for control.

In study 1, participants incurred higher expenditures as a

result of this greater spending on utilitarian products.

Nonetheless, while prudent use of this strategy may be

helpful for those who wish to enhance their momentary

sense of control, and the purchase of utilitarian (vs. he-

donic) products is less likely to be associated with guilt

and regret (Khan et al. 2005), frequent use of buying as a

strategy among people who often experience a lack of con-

trol over their environment (e.g., employees with unpre-

dictable work schedules) may lead to overspending.

One question that arises from this research is whether

control is indeed restored after utilitarian products are

acquired. In a separate study that is not reported here, we

employed a 2 (perceived control: low vs. high) 2 (product

type: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects design to

test whether acquiring utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products

helps control-deprived individuals restore their perceived

control. Participants (N¼138; 40 male) from a northeast-

ern university in the United States, aged 18–40 (M¼

21.61, SD ¼3.69), were handed a $1 bill and a brown

paper bag containing two products that were either hedonic

(a pack of M&M’s chocolate candies and a bag of Lay’s

kettle chips) or utilitarian (a box of metal clip binders and

a gel-ink pen) at the start of the study. After completing the

recall manipulation, they were instructed to open the bag

and purchase one of the two products using the $1 bill.

After this shopping task, participants rated on seven-point

scales their momentary sense of control (1 ¼no control at

all, 7 ¼very high control) and power (1 ¼not powerful at

all, 7 ¼extremely powerful).

Results indicated a significant main effect of the control

manipulation (M

low

¼5.13, SD ¼1.38 vs. M

high

¼5.56,

SD ¼1.14; F(1, 134) ¼4.19, p<.05), qualified by a sig-

nificant interaction between perceived control and product

type (F(1, 134) ¼4.45, p<.05) on reported sense of

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1043

control. Low-control participants who bought a utilitarian

product reported greater perceived control than low-control

participants who bought a hedonic product (M

utilitarian

5.49, SD ¼1.20 vs. M

hedonic

¼4.77, SD ¼1.48; F(1, 134)

¼5.72, p<.05); the same difference was not significant

among the high-control participants (M¼5.47

utilitarian

SD ¼1.16 vs. M

hedonic

¼5.66, SD ¼1.13; F(1, 134) ¼.37,

p¼.55). In comparison, an analysis of participants’ ratings

of how powerful they felt did not produce any significant

findings (p’s >.17). Hence, results from this study provide

preliminary evidence that the acquisition of a utilitarian

product does heighten one’s sense of control, but not

power, for control-deprived individuals. In fact, low-

control participants who acquired utilitarian products

seemed to have restored their perceived control to levels

similar to their high-control counterparts. The downstream

consequences of consuming utilitarian products (and more

broadly, problem solving) on one’s perceived control con-

stitute a promising area for future research.

Other Future Research Directions

Negative-Affect Regulation. In our studies, a perceived

loss of control over the environment increased purchase of

utilitarian products, and not hedonic products, which are

typically considered more mood-lifting (Khan et al. 2005)

and likely consumed as a form of emotion regulation. It is

therefore unlikely that negative affect resulting from con-

trol deprivation was instrumental in driving the results.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to examine the inter-

play between control motivation and negative-affect

regulation.

Negative emotions, such as sadness and anxiety, have

been found to be associated with the appraisal of

situational-control loss (Rick, Pereira, and Burson 2014;

Smith and Ellsworth 1985). Yet sadness, for instance, has

been shown to increase consumption of hedonic foods

(e.g., buttered popcorn and M&M’s; Garg and Lerner

2013;Garg, Wanskin, and Inman 2007). An intervention

to boost control (via choice), however, eliminates the ef-

fect of sadness on hedonic consumption presumably be-

cause elevated perceived control from exercising choice

counteracts the sense of helplessness related to sadness

(Garg and Lerner 2013). Hence, it is possible that acquisi-

tion of utilitarian products or engagement in problem-

solving behaviors, which have control-restorative func-

tions, may also alleviate negative emotions associated

with low control. In fact, some empirical evidence sug-

gests that compared to individuals in a neutral mood, sad

individuals are willing to spend more on items such as

water bottles and highlighters, which tend to be more

utilitarian than hedonic (Cryder et al. 2008;Lerner,

Small, and Loewenstein 2004).

Given that the extant literature on affect regulation has

focused on the impact of negative affect on hedonic

consumption (e.g., “retail therapy”; Atalay and Meloy

2011;Lee 2015;Lee and Bo¨ttger 2016;Rick et al. 2014), it

would be worthwhile to investigate the extent to which

emotions generally associated with low control (e.g., sad-

ness, fear, and anxiety) would also increase people’s desire

to engage in problem solving and acquire utilitarian prod-

ucts. Future research could also examine whether these

emotions would be attenuated following such behaviors.

For example, would individuals with chronic depression,

who have a higher propensity to perceive themselves as

lacking control (Mirowsky and Ross 1990;Nezu and Perri

1989), feel better after acquiring a utilitarian product or

succeeding in problem solving? Additionally, it would be

interesting to determine the conditions under which these

emotions lead to stronger preference for utilitarian rather

than hedonic products (e.g., personal competence as an in-

tegral part of one’s self-identity vs. lay beliefs of indul-

gence as a form of mood repair).

Related Means of Compensation. Another promising

direction to explore pertains to the creation of new prod-

ucts (e.g., baking, art pieces). Insofar as the process of

creating a product involves the perception of how one’s

actions can successfully produce a desired outcome, the

product creator will experience the self as being effect-

ive in exercising control over the environment (Skinner

1996). In fact, the more skillful or capable the individual

is at creating the object, the higher the level of control

he or she would possess over the process and the out-

come, and therefore he or she would derive greater satis-

faction from control and mastery (Loewenstein 1999;

Shapiro, Schwartz, and Astin 1996).Inthesamevein,

future work could examine whether control motivation

influences people’s desire to innovate and ideate. From a

managerial perspective, Do-It-Yourself products, such

as baking mixes from Betty Crocker and stuffed animals

from Build-a-Bear Workshop, as well as furniture de-

signed to be assembled by the consumer, such as that

from Swedish retailer IKEA, could leverage this notion

of control in their marketing strategies (Norton,

Mochon, and Ariely 2012).

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

The first two authors jointly supervised the collection

ofdataforstudy1byresearchassistantsatMorton

Williams Supermarket in New York in the summer/au-

tumn of 2009. The first author collected the data for

study 2 using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel in the

autumn of 2013. The first and third authors jointly

supervised the collection of data for study 3 by research

assistants at Fusionopolis Mall in Singapore in the sum-

mer of 2015. The first author collected the data for study

4 using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel in the spring

1044 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

of 2016. The first author analyzed the data for all four

studies.

APPENDIX A

PRODUCT STIMULI FROM STUDY 2

Utilitarian pair of sneakers:

This pair of sneakers from label X is known for its function-

ality and craftsmanship. In particular, it features a solid non-

marking rubber outsole for long-wearing traction and dur-

ability. X’s signature emblem is found on the outer-side of

these shoes.

Hedonic pair of sneakers:

This pair of sneakers from label X is known for its stylish

and pleasing design. In particular, it features a sleek modern

aesthetic and a beautiful contrast shade design. X’s signa-

ture emblem is found on the outer-side of these gorgeous-

looking shoes.

APPENDIX B

PRODUCT STIMULI FROM STUDY 4

Utilitarian ad copy:

Beat heatstroke and dehydration with a glass of freshly-

squeezed sugarcane juice. Besides its rehydrating and ener-

gizing properties, this nutritional beverage is known in

many parts of Southeast Asia and South America to fight

common infections and keep one’s body healthy.

Hedonic ad copy:

Treat yourself by indulging in a glass of refreshing freshly-

squeezed sugarcane juice! This tasty and delicious beverage

that is popular in many parts of Southeast Asia and South

America is served ice cold, and if you like, with a squeeze

of lemon. Tastes like a vacation in paradise!

REFERENCES

Abramson, Lyn Y., Martin E. Seligman, and John D. Teasdale

(1978), “Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and

Reformulation,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 (1),

32–48.

Adler, Alfred (1956), The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler,

ed. Heinz. L. Ansbacher and Rowena R. Ansbacher, New

York: Harper Torchbooks.

Atalay, A. Selin and Margaret G. Meloy (2011), “Retail Therapy:

A Strategic Effort to Improve Mood,” Psychology &

Marketing, 28 (6), 638–59.

Averill, James R. (1973), “Personal Control over Aversive Stimuli

and Its Relationship to Stress,” Psychological Bulletin,80

(4), 286–303.

Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), “Measuring the Hedonic

and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing

Letters, 2 (2), 159–70.

Beggan, James K. (1991), “Using What You Own to Get What

You Need: The Role of Possessions in Satisfying Control

Motivation,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,6

(6), 129–46.

Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), “The Locus of Choice:

Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian

Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1065–78.

Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance,

New York: Academic.

Carver, Charles S. (1997), “You Want to Measure Coping but

Your Protocol’s Too Long: Consider the Brief COPE,”

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 (1), 92–100.

Cryder, Cynthia E., Jennifer S. Lerner, James J. Gross, and Ronald

E. Dahl (2008), “Misery Is Not Miserly: Sad and Self-

Focused Individuals Spend More,” Psychological Science,19

(6), 525–30.

Cutright, Keisha M. (2012), “The Beauty of Boundaries: When

and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775–90.

Cutright, Keisha M. and Adriana Samper (2014), “Doing It the

Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-

Effort Products and Services,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 41 (3), 730–45.

Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic

Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New

York: Plenum.

Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice be-

tween Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing

Research, 37 (1), 60–71.

Duncker, Karl and Lynne S. Lees (1945), “On Problem-Solving,”

Psychological Monographs, 58 (5), i–113.

Friesen, Justin P., Aaron C. Kay, Richard P. Eibach, and Adam D.

Galinsky (2014), “Seeking Structure in Social Organization:

Compensatory Control and the Psychological Advantages of

Hierarchy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

106 (4), 590–609.

Furby, Lita (1978), “Posessions: Toward a Theory of Their

Meaning and Function Throughout the Life Cycle, in

Lifespan Development and Behavior, vol. 1, ed. Paul Baltes,

New York: Academic Press, 297–336.

——— (1980), “The Origins and Early Development of Possessive

Behavior,” Political Psychology, 2 (1), 30–42.

Gao, Leilei, S. Christian Wheeler, and Baba Shiv (2008), “The

Shaken Self: Product Choices as a Means of Restoring Self-

View Conﬁdence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1),

29–38.

Garg, Nitika and Jennifer S. Lerner (2013), “Sadness and

Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1),

106–13.

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1045

Garg, Nitika, Brian Wansink, and J. Jeffrey Inman (2007), “The

Inﬂuence of Incidental Affect on Consumers’ Food Intake,”

Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 194–206.

Geary, David C. (1998), Male, Female: The Evolution of Human

Sex Differences, Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Hamerman, Eric and Gita V. Johar (2013), “Conditioned

Superstition: Desire for Control and Consumer Brand

Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 428–43.

Harter, Susan (1974), “Pleasure Derived by Children from

Cognitive Challenge and Mastery,” Child Development,45

(3), 661–9.

——— (1975), “Developmental Differences in the Manifestation of

Mastery Motivation on Problem-Solving Tasks,” Child

Development, 46 (2), 370–8.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), “PROCESS: A Versatile

Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation,

Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling,” http://

www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “The

Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,

Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2),

132–40.

Inesi, Ena, Simona Botti, David Dubois, Derek D. Rucker, and

Adam D. Galinsky (2011), “Power and Choice: Their

Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal

Control,” Psychological Science, 22 (8), 1042–8.

Kay, Aaron C., Danielle Gaucher, Jamie L. Napier, Mitchell J.

Callan, and Kristin Laurin (2008), “God and the

Government: Testing a Compensatory Control Mechanism

for the Support of External Systems,” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 18–35.

Kay, Aaron C., Jennifer A. Whitson, Danielle Gaucher, and Adam

D. Galinsky (2009), “Compensatory Control: Achieving

Order through the Mind, Our Institutions, and the Heavens,”

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (5), 264–8.

Keltner, Dacher, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Cameron Anderson

(2003), “Power, Approach, and Inhibition,” Psychological

Review, 110 (2), 265–84.

Khan, Uzma, Ravi, Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “A

Behavioral Decision Theoretic Perspective on Hedonic and

Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of

Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed. S.

Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick, New York: Routledge,

144–65.

Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002), “Self Control for the

Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to

Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2),

199–217.

Landau, Mark J., Aaron C. Kay, and Jennifer A. Whitson (2015),

“Compensatory Control and the Appeal of a Structured

World,” Psychological Bulletin, 141 (3), 694–722.

Langer, Ellen J. (1975), “The Illusion of Control,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (2), 311–28.

Lee, Leonard (2015), “The Emotional Shopper: Assessing the

Effectiveness of Retail Therapy,” Foundations and Trends in

Marketing, 8 (2), 69–145.

Lee, Leonard and Tim M. Bo¨ ttger (2016), “The Therapeutic

Utility of Shopping: Retail Therapy, Emotion Regulation,

and Well-Being,” working paper, National University of

Singapore, Singapore 119245.

Lerner, Jennifer, Deborah Small, and George Loewenstein (2004),

“Heart Strings and Purse Strings: Carry-Over Effects of

Emotions on Economic Transactions,” Psychological

Science, 15 (5), 337–41.

Levav, Jonathan and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2009), “Seeking Freedom

through Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4),

600–10.

Loewenstein, George (1999), “Because It Is There: The Challenge

of Mountaineering ... for Utility Theory,” Kyklos, 52 (3),

315–44.

Mandel, Naomi, Derek D., Rucker, Jonathan Levav, and Adam D.

Galinsky (2016), “The Compensatory Consumer Behavior

Model: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior,”

Journal of Consumer Psychology, forthcoming.

Mead, Nicole L., Roy F. Baumeister, Tyler F. Stillman, Catherine

D. Rawn, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2011), “Social Exclusion

Causes People to Spend and Consume Strategically in the

Service of Afﬁliation,” Journal of Consumer Research,37

(5), 902–19.

Mirowsky, John (1995), “Age and the Sense of Control,” Social

Psychology Quarterly, 58 (1), 31–43.

Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross (1989), Social Causes of

Psychological Distress, New York: Aldine.

——— (1990), “Control or Defense? Depression and the Sense of

Control over Good and Bad Outcomes,” Journal of Health

and Social Behavior, 31 (1), 71–86.

Nezu, Arthur M. and Michael G. Perri (1989), “Social Problem-

Solving Therapy for Unipolar Depression: An Initial

Dismantling Investigation, Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 57 (3), 408–13.

Norton, Michael I., Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely (2012), “The

IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love,” Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 453–60.

Okada, Erica Mina (2005), “Justiﬁcation Effects on Consumer

Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 42 (1), 43–53.

Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko

(2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting

Satisﬁcing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.

Pham, Michel Tuan (1998), “Representativeness, Relevance, and

the Use of Feelings in Decision Making,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 25 (2), 144–59.

Piaget, Jean (1952), The Origins of Intelligence in Children, New

York: International University Press.

Rick, Scott I., Beatriz Pereira, and Katherine A. Burson (2014),

“The Beneﬁts of Retail Therapy: Making Purchase Decisions

Reduces Residual Sadness,” Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 24 (3), 373–80.

Robertson, S. Ian (2001), Problem Solving, Philadelphia:

Psychology Press.

Roth, Susan and Richard R. Bootzin (1974), “Effects of

Experimentally Induced Expectancies of External Control:

An Investigation of Learned Helplessness,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (2), 253–64.

Roth, Susan and Larry Kubal (1975), “Effects of Noncontingent

Reinforcement on Tasks of Differing Importance:

Facilitation and Learned Helplessness,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (4), 680–91.

Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “Desire to

Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 257–67.

Rutjens, Bastiaan T., Frenk van Harreveld, Joop van der Pligt,

Loes M. Kreemers, and Marret K. Noordewier (2013),

“Steps, Stages, and Structure: Finding Compensatory Order

1046 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

in Scientiﬁc Theories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 142 (2), 313–8.

Sela, Aner, Jonah Berger, and Wendy Liu (2009), “Variety, Vice,

and Virtue: How Assortment Size Inﬂuences Option Choice,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 941–51.

Shapiro, Deane H., Carolyn E. Schwarz, and John A. Astin (1996),

“Controlling Ourselves, Controlling Our World:

Psychology’s Role in Understanding Positive and Negative

Consequences of Seeking and Gaining Control,” American

Psychologist, 51 (12), 1213–30.

Skinner, Ellen A. (1996), “A Guide to Constructs of Control,”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 549–70.

Smith, Craig A. and Phoebe C. Ellsworth (1985), “Patterns of

Cognitive Appraisal in Emotion,” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48 (4), 813–38.

Strahilevitz, Michal (1999), “The Effects of Product Type and

Donation Magnitude on Willingness to Pay More for a Charity-

Linked Brand,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (3), 215–41.

Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to

Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May

Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 24 (4), 434–46.

Tennen, Howard and Sandra J. Eller (1977), “Attributional

Components of Learned Helplessness and Facilitation,”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (4),

265–71.

Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelley (1959), The Social

Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley.

Thompson, Suzanne C. (1993), “Naturally-Occurring Perceptions

of Control: A Model of Bounded Flexibility,” in Control

Motivation and Social Cognition, ed. Gifford Weary, Faith

Gleicher, and Kerry L. Marsh, New York: Springer-Verlag,

74–93.

——— (2009), “The Role of Personal Control in Adaptive

Functioning,” in Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology,

2nd Edition, ed. R. Charles Snyder and Shane J. Lopez, New

York: Oxford University Press, 271–8.

Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann

(2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions

of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research,40

(3), 310–20.

Whitson, Jennifer A. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “Lacking

Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception,” Science, 322

(5898), 115–17.

CHEN, LEE, AND YAP 1047

The negative handmade effect: How and why control deprivation thwarts desire for handmade products

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
PSYCHOL MARKET

This research examines consumer reactions to handcrafted products under control deprivation. Four studies reveal that while a positive handmade effect exists among consumers whose sense of personal control is not threatened, a negative handmade effect appears for those consumers under control deprivation. That is, consumers show less favorable attitudes toward handcrafted products when their sense of personal control is threatened. This effect appears because the lower psychological ownership of handcrafted (vs. regular) products cannot instrumentally help restore consumers' sense of personal control. The negative handmade effect under control deprivation is mitigated when consumers can customize the product based on their own preferences. The current research is among the first to show how the handcrafted nature of products can backfire and lead to negative reactions among consumers (i.e., a negative handmade effect). Our findings also shed light on the antecedents and consequences of psychological product ownership and add to the current knowledge of personal control in the consumption domain.

The Impact of Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Purchasing, Eating Behavior, and Perception of Food Safety in Kuwait

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government in Kuwait implemented public health measures to control the spread of the virus. However, despite the importance of these restrictions, normal activities related to purchasing of groceries, concerns related to food safety, and overall uncertainty may have influenced food behaviors and food consumption. Hence, the study investigates the impact of COVID-19 on food purchasing behaviors, eating behaviors, and the perception of food safety and security among residents in Kuwait. A cross-sectional study was carried out using self-administered questionnaires between 28 July 2020 and 31 August 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. A total of 841 respondents participated in the study. The study identified several changes in food purchasing behaviors, eating behaviors, food consumption, and consumers perceptions on food safety during the pandemic. The closures, restrictions, and changes in food purchasing evidently influenced individual’s eating behaviors. Largely, participants were found to (i) change their food purchasing behavior (74%); (ii) opt for online food delivery services (42.8%); (iii) purchase long-shelf-life foods (e.g., canned food and dry staples) (76%); (iv) consume more meals at home (76%); and (v) follow public health measures to reduce the spread of the virus and ensure their safety (98%). This study indicates that individuals during times of uncertainty and stress change their food purchasing behaviors, food consumption habits, and follow guidelines and recommendations. These findings may help public health initiatives to focus on raising awareness about the importance of health, wellbeing, and nutrition during times of crises.

The big five personality traits as antecedents of panic buying

Article

Jan 2022

Aysel Kurnaz

This study aims to analyse the effects of personality traits as antecedents of panic buying. In extraordinary periods, certain behavioural changes could be observed in individuals, and panic buying behaviour could occur for specific products or product groups. The theoretical framework of the concept of panic buying comprises various theories, including individual and socio-psychological backgrounds. In line with the main objective of this study, the concept of panic buying is addressed in the light of theories that elaborate on individual factors. Even though there are many factors affecting panic buying, there is a limited number of studies discussing the subject within the context of personality traits, which are among the individual factors. In this study, data were acquired from 852 participants in Turkey by applying the questionnaire technique as a quantitative research method. The Big Five Personality Traits, one of the significant theories in measuring personality traits, are selected as the baseline. This study used the «The Big Five Inventor» scale. On the other hand, the «Panic Buying Scale» was applied in the measurement of panic buying. Data analysis was conducted through confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Upon evaluating the findings, it was concluded that agreeableness (one of the five major personality traits) has a statistically significant and negative impact on panic buying. In contrast, neuroticism has a significant and positive effect. The more individuals have high agreeableness personality traits, the more panic buying decreases. Besides, the trait of high neuroticism causes an increase in panic buying. No significant effect of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness personality traits on panic buying was determined. The findings indicate the effects of personality traits on the individual causes of panic buying behaviour. It is anticipated that this study will fill the relevant gap in the literature concerning considering personality traits as an antecedent of panic buying in the context of Turkish participants and examining both individual characteristics and cultural effects. Understanding the basic motivations of individuals regarding panic buying behaviour is of utmost importance for correctly managing the processes for similar extraordinary periods that may occur again in the future and for taking the necessary precautions.

Trauma's effects on shopper choice confusion: The role of psychological hardiness and retailer strategies as mitigating factors

Article

Full-text available

May 2023
J Retailing Consum Serv

Retailers must understand how trauma influences the consumer shopping journey and identify ways to mitigate any potential adverse effects. Two studies were conducted to explore trauma in the retail environment. First, a conceptual model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) based on survey data collected from 324 participants. Findings indicate that consumers who report previously experiencing traumatic events feel anxiety while shopping in retail environments, negatively influencing their ability to make purchase decisions. This outcome is due to challenges in adequately assessing stressful environmental stimuli and developing positive coping mechanisms. Consumer propensity for psychological hardiness was found to moderate this relationship. Next, a follow-up qualitative study from 110 consumers who reported experiencing instances of trauma identified potential ways for retailers to help consumers who have experienced trauma feel more comfortable in shopping environments. These findings extend research on trauma and consumer shopping behavior by identifying its impacts on choice confusion and stress appraisal and suggesting how retailers can support shoppers through a trauma-informed approach.

Locked, Stocked, and Charmin: Sources of White Americans' Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Mar 2023

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unprecedented number of people purchasing firearms/ammunition. However, this was not the only way Americans responded to the pandemic: large swaths of the public also stayed at home and stockpiled goods. Twelve months later, as the pandemic raged, these coping mechanisms were still present as Americans continued to buy guns/ammunition, limit social interactions, and hoard supplies. Using two nationwide surveys conducted one year apart, we examine the extent and sources of gun/ammunition purchasing compared to staying home and panic buying during this unique moment in American history. Results from both surveys indicate that the factors that led to these divergent coping mechanisms vary. Both at the beginning of the pandemic and one year later, the likelihood of purchasing a firearm/ammunition was associated low self-control and White nationalism. Conversely, fear of the virus was associated with people staying home and amassing supplies.

From experience to expectation: The reverse effect of power on purchasing impulsiveness

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Introduction Previous literatures have mainly explored the impact of the experience of power on impulsive buying, but have ignored the impacts of the expectations of power. The purpose of this research is to delineates a two-facet portrait of power in the role of affecting purchase impulsiveness by proposing a theoretical extension from the experience of power to the expectations of power. Methods Four laboratory experiments were developed that used ANOVA to verify the hypothesis. A moderated mediation path model was established including the experience of power, product attribute, the expectations of power, deservingness, and purchasing impulsiveness as observed variables. Results The results revealed that powerless consumers are more likely to impulsively buy hedonic products; while powerful consumers prefer to impulsively buy utilitarian products. However, when focusing on the expectations of power, powerless consumers feel a lower perception of deservingness, which reduces their impulse to buy hedonic products. In contrast, when powerful consumers imagine how powerful people should behave in consumption, they will experience a higher sense of deservingness and increase purchasing impulsiveness for hedonic products. The underlying mechanism is that deservingness plays a mediation role in the three-way interaction impacts of the experience of power, product attribute, and the expectations of power on purchasing impulsiveness. Conclusion The current research formulates a new theoretical perspective on the relationship between power and purchasing impulsiveness. An experience-expectation model of power is presented that proposes consumers’ purchasing impulsiveness can be affected both by the experience of power and the expectations of power.

Examining the effects of authenticity fit and association fit: A digital human avatar endorsement model

Article

Dec 2022
J Retailing Consum Serv

In recent years, the extensive use of digital human avatar (DHA) endorsement has emerged. DHA endorsement often entails the use of real products, e.g., wearing real clothes, which raises the issue of the fit between a "fake" virtual image and a real product. Whether consumers feel a positive attitude toward this kind of fit is the basis of whether DHA endorsement can be successful. Accordingly, based on cue consistency theory, we infer that consumers generate positive attitudes toward DHA endorsement when there is a fit between a DHA and a real product. We therefore developed a DHA endorsement model to explain the antecedents and consequences of avatar-product fit, decomposing fit type into authenticity fit and association fit. Two tests were used to verify this model. Their results show that authenticity fit and association fit have significant positive impacts on consumer attitudes toward DHA endorsement. Furthermore, the influences of these two paths vary by product. For hedonic products, authenticity fit has a greater impact on attitudes; for utilitarian products, association fit is a more influential factor.

Does product touch affect consumer attitude toward a product? Meta‐analysis of effect sizes, moderators, and mediators

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022
PSYCHOL MARKET

Consumers rely on physical touch in offline shopping and vicarious touch (i.e., imagining touch) in online shopping to develop their attitudes toward a product. The subject of how touching (versus not touching) affects consumer attitudes toward a product merits studying. However, past research has drawn controversial conclusions regarding the effect of product touch on consumer attitudes. This study conducted a meta‐analysis to resolve this inconsistency and explore the reasons for this inconsistency. It quantitatively analyzed 185 effect sizes in 42 empirical studies conducted between 2003 and 2022. In general, relative to not touching, touching had a positive effect on consumers' attitudes toward a product (ρ $\rho $ = 0.242, p < 0.001), and the effect size was moderate. Furthermore, the positive touch effect was mediated by consumers' cognitive experiences relating to the product and their affective experiences relating to the product. The cognitive path (total indirect effect = 0.068, p < 0.001) being stronger than the affective path (total indirect effect = 0.067, p < 0.001). Importantly, it showed that past inconsistency regarding the touch effect could be explained by moderators including product type (utilitarian versus hedonic), participants' uncertainty avoidance, and type of touch (physical touch versus vicarious touch). This study provides new insights into the product touch literature and offers valuable implications for online and offline retailing and consumer well‐being.

Name reminders and customization preferences: The role of perceived control

Article

Feb 2023
Int J Hospit Manag

Applying Predictive Analytics in Interactive Marketing: How It Influences Customer Perception and Reaction?

Chapter

Jan 2023

Predictive analytics, the process of using current and/or historical data with a combination of statistical techniques to assess the likelihood of a certain event happening in the future, has become increasingly prevalent in interactive marketing. However, previous research on predictive analytics in interactive marketing has mostly assumed customers’ voluntary participation and engagement in predictive analytics, overlooking the role of customers’ psychological factors in driving customer engagement. Based on self-determination theory, this chapter provides a theoretical framework to understand customer engagement in predictive analytics. Specifically, this chapter proposes that predictive analytics positively influences customer engagement through need for meaningful affiliation, which is moderated by self-construal, and that predictive analytics negatively influences customer engagement through sense of control, which is moderated by data use transparency and trust. This chapter presents both theoretical contributions and practical implications to interactive marketing.KeywordsInteractive marketingPredictive analyticsCustomer engagementNeed for meaningful affiliationSense of controlPrivacy concerns

The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior

Article

Full-text available

May 2016
J CONSUM PSYCHOL

Consumer goods and services have psychological value that can equal or exceed their functional value. A burgeoning literature demonstrates that one source of value emerges from the capacity for products to serve as a psychological salve that reduces various forms of distress across numerous domains. This review systematically organizes and integrates the literature on the use of consumer behavior as a means to regulate self-discrepancies, or the incongruities between how one currently perceives oneself and how one desires to view oneself (Higgins, 1987). We introduce a Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model to explain the psychological consequences of self-discrepancies on consumer behavior. This model delineates five distinct strategies by which consumers cope with self-discrepancies: direct resolution, symbolic self-completion, dissociation, escapism, and fluid compensation. Finally, the authors raise critical research questions to guide future research endeavors. Overall, the present review provides both a primer on compensatory consumer behavior and sets an agenda for future research.

The Emotional Shopper: Assessing the Effectiveness of Retail Therapy

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2015

Leonard Lee

Shopping is an integral part of our everyday lives. Common wisdom suggests that many consumers engage in shopping and buying as a means to repair their negative feelings - a notion commonly referred to as retail therapy. However, does retail therapy really work? The present monograph seeks to address this question by proposing a tripartite approach, reviewing and organizing relevant research in marketing and consumer psychology based on this tripartite framework: (1) motivational (the goals and motives that consumers have for shopping); (2) behavioral (the activities in which consumers engage during the shopping process); and (3) emotional (the feelings that consumers experience while shopping). Although accumulating evidence suggests that retail therapy does work to a certain extent, simultaneously considering the three perspectives in future empirical investigation helps to further improve our understanding of the antecedents, underlying mechanisms, and consequences of retail therapy. Accordingly, a number of questions and directions for future research on the topic of retail therapy are discussed, drawing upon the proposed tripartite framework.

Doing It the Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-Effort Products and Services

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2014

Consumers often face situations in which their feelings of personal control are threatened. In such contexts, what role should products play in helping consumers pursue their goals (e.g., losing weight, maintaining a clean home)? Across five studies, we challenge the traditional view that low control is detrimental to effort and demonstrate that consumers prefer products that require them to engage in hard work when feelings of control are low. Such high-effort products reassure individuals that desired outcomes are possible while also enabling them to feel as if they have driven their own outcomes. We also identify important boundary conditions, finding that both the nature of individuals’ thoughts about control and their perceived rate of progress toward goals are important factors in the desire to exert increased effort.

The Therapeutic Utility of Shopping: Retail Therapy, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being

Chapter

Sep 2017

Problem Solving: Perspectives from Cognition and Neuroscience

Book

Sep 2003

S. Ian Robertson

Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior

Book

Jan 1985

I: Background.- 1. An Introduction.- 2. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination.- II: Self-Determination Theory.- 3. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Perceived Causality and Perceived Competence.- 4. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Interpersonal Communication and Intrapersonal Regulation.- 5. Toward an Organismic Integration Theory: Motivation and Development.- 6. Causality Orientations Theory: Personality Influences on Motivation.- III: Alternative Approaches.- 7. Operant and Attributional Theories.- 8. Information-Processing Theories.- IV: Applications and Implications.- 9. Education.- 10. Psychotherapy.- 11. Work.- 12. Sports.- References.- Author Index.

Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle

Article

Jan 1978

L. Furby

Naturally Occurring Perceptions of Control: A Model of Bounded Flexibility

Chapter

Jan 1993

Suzanne C Thompson

The bulk of the research on perceived control indicates that we feel better about ourselves, are physically healthier, perform better on cognitive and manual tasks, cope better with adversity, and are better able to make desired behavioral changes if we have a sense of personal control (Thompson & Spacapan, 1991). Given these positive effects, it is not surprising that individuals are motivated to have control and tend to overestimate their abilities to influence events (Alloy & Abramson, 1979). However, it cannot be assumed that the motive to have control is without limit or disadvantage. For example, in “low-control” situations in which there are fewer opportunities for exercising effective control and increased likelihood that control perceptions will be disconfirmed, beliefs in personal control may not be beneficial and individuals may not overestimate their control. Not much is known about the motivation to believe that you have control when people are in life circumstances that limit the actual control available to them.

Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation

Article