Effects Of Classical and Operant Conditioning On Online Consumer Purchase and Repurchase Intention

Transcription

1 JEL Codes: Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference Effects Of Classical and Operant Conditioning On Online Consumer Purchase and Repurchase Intention 1. Introduction Yi Fen Chen and Jian Han Jiang Previous research has shown that people are influenced by product stimuli when making decisions. This study presents two studies examining the effects which classical conditioning and operant conditioning have on online consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. This work proposes two stages of an experiment. In the first and second stages, the research models are based on classical and operant conditioning stimulus. In the first stage, A 2 (classical conditioning: conditioning/ unconditioning) x 2 (product type: utilitarian/hedonic product) online experiment was conducted. Additionally, in the second stage, A 2 (operant conditioning: positive/negative reinforcement) x 2 (product type: utilitarian/hedonic product) x 2 (sales promotion: monetary/nonmonetary) online experiment was conducted. The results showed that when consumers received classic and operant stimulus, their purchase repurchase intention can become significantly higher for hedonic products than for utilitarian products. Finally, when consumers received negative reinforcement stimulus, their repurchase intention did not become significant. Learning is a process of constant development, involving different stimulation and receiving immediate feedback. People continue to adjust to the situation under changing reactions. Previous studies defined learning as two stimuli, or a stimulus and a reaction, between the formation of the association or gain. Application studies regarding consumer behavior indicate that consumer behavior has changed because of learning. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) proposed that the framework of the basic structure of the implications for environmental stimuli (S) result in the organism s emotional reaction (O), and further produce the behavior or aversion response (R). Scholars in the past have presented the stimulus-organism-response model according to environmental psychology. However, with the rise of the Internet, online shopping has seen the most rapid growth of all retail channels; more and more scholars have begun to submit research related to this phenomenon. Eroglu et al. (2001) indicated that online stores could not provide some of the incentives of general retail stores, including atmospheric factors such as smell for instance; however, other environmental stimulation factors can still be realized visually (such as the color, pictures, layout design and parts of the website that provide the audio stimuli to influence consumer psychological and behaviorial reactions. Kotler (1991) proposed that promotion is the continuous use of all kinds of incentive tools, most of which have a short-term nature; they are mainly used to stimulate and encourage consumers or dealers to make advance purchases or purchase more products. Dr. Yi-Fen Chen, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. [email protected] Jian Han Jiang, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. [email protected]

2 There are two kinds of stimulus modes: classical conditioning and operating restrictions. Although different, they also have some similar principles which can be applied, such as in alternative classical conditioning and operation conditioning. (Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966; Liebert, Sprafkin & Davidson, 1982; Craig & Weinstein, 1965; Vaughn & Lanzetta, 1980). Previous scholars have mostly had discussions on individual consumers following the classical or operant conditioning stimulus response. To date, few studies have specifically investigated the moderating influence of the classical and operant conditioning on consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. The purpose of this work is to examine the effects which classical conditioning and operant conditioning have on online consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. This work proposes two stages of the experiment. In the first stage, the research model is based on a classical conditioning stimulus. In the second stage, the research model is based on the operating constraints of the stimulus. This work presents two experiments and the results of this research are then discussed. 2. Literature Review Learning is defined as the practice or experience of relatively lasting behaviorial change. John (1913) proposed the Stimulus-Response (S-R) model: people s learning is formed by stimuli and the response of the connection as well as the formation of such a coupling by enhancement; the influence of factors such as practice affect people s behavior and attitudes. Thorndike (1913) found another kind of restriction known as tool operant conditioning, which enhances the learning behavior theory foundation. 2.1Environmental Psychology Environmental psychology is the study of the environment and people's psychology and behavior: the relationship between applied social psychology, also called human ecology or ecological psychology. In the earlier days, environmental psychology-related literature mostly applied to the work environment, living environment or the entertainment environment and human behavior. During this early stage, authors focussed less on the retail market environment and consumer purchase behavior research (Craik, 1973). John s (1913) Stimulus-Response(S-R) model points out that people s psychological reaction to change occurs through external environment information caused by stimulation. People s learning is caused by the relationship between the stimulus and response of the connection, and the formation of the connection by enhancement, practice; the influence of such factors affects people's behavior and attitudes. Later, Mehrabian and Russell (1974) used this theory to do further research and put forward the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) model, which became the model of environmental psychology. The M-R model is used to study the influence of the main store environment on consumption. The research discussed the physical environment, which had a direct impact on the consumer s in-store behavior. Schultz, Robinson and Petricon (1993) explained the promotion aimed at business representatives, distributors or consumers as a direct stimulus or incentive to promptly increase sales volumes. According to the above literature, this study used Mehrabian and Russell s (1974) S-O-R model for extension. This work proposes classical conditioning and operant conditioning to stimulate consumers through the research on consumers' emotions, following the stimulation of the reaction.

3 2.2 Classical Conditioning Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference The classical theory of conditioning was first proposed by the Russian physiologist Pavlov (Pavlov, 1972) with dogs as subjects. In the experiment a bell is rung after which food is given. By repeating the test, as the dogs heard the bell, it would cause them to salivate; this is a conditioned stimulation (ring) and an unconditioned stimulus (food) producing coupling. Bruewer (Bruewer, 1974) elaborated on the traditional classical conditioning hypothesis. He explained that the repeated Conditioned Stimulus (CS) with Unconditioned Stimulus (US) in the unconscious state causes the Conditioning Stimulus to be triggered by a conditioned response (CR). Shimp (1991) also explained restricted learning as signifying that when an animal or human experiences the different environmentallyproduced coupling, the special stimulation produces new reactions, one after another. Gorn (1982) applied the classical conditioning experiment to consumer products. He let subjects observe a slide show of different color pens (CS) while they listened to their favorite (UR) music (US). The results showed that when subjects heard pleasant music they formed a pen preference (CR). Classical conditioning theory can be used to understand/explain the effect of advertising, according to Smith, Feinberg, and Burns (1998). As early as the 1970s, classical conditioning theory was mentioned in the marketing field, and was the accepted theory underlying the advertising-related process Gorn (1982), Nord and Peter (1980) also thought classical conditioning may change consumer preferences in TV advertising. Allen, Janiszewski (1989) and Dawson (1973) found that the successful restriction usually was accompanied by "contingency awareness". With the combined exposure of conditioning stimulus and unconditioned stimulus, participants learn that a special unconditioned stimulus appears conditionally accompanied by a special conditioning stimulus. This restriction/unconditioned stimulus pairing characteristic of the discrimination is called the accidental perception. Associative learning refers to instances when animals or humans make connections among various events that take place in their environment (Shimp, 1991). From the above literature, we can understand the classical conditioning learning process, comprising a restricted stimulation and unconditioned stimulus accompanied by repetition. And we can trigger the conditioning stimulus by a restriction of the reaction model. In the first stage of the study, with the consumer product advertising stimulus, we observed that consumers can restrict the stimulation and the associated unconditioned stimulus, affecting consumers attitudes towards products and even the purchasing intention. 2.3 Product Attitude In the consumption behavior study, attitude was regarded as a predictor of purchase intention and the buyer s behavioral importance index (Riley, Ehrenberg, Castleberry, Barwise and Barnard, 1997). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined attitude as how people stimulate specific consumer and affect their preferences for products. Liu (2003) thought that product attitude can help to understand the consumer, as it usually directly affects the purchase intention. So product attitude is a key marketing strategy. According to the above studies, product attitude could reveal how consumers evaluate products to purchase what they want. Thus, this study hypothesizes that: H1: A conditioned group is positively influenced in regard to product attitude.

4 2. 4 Product Type: utilitarian versus hedonic (classical conditioning) Batra and Ahtola (1990) found that consumers perceive and evaluate products along two different dimensions: utilitarian and hedonic. Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) reported that hedonic products need attendant qualities such as fantasy, happiness and fun. Utilitarian products seek to meet basic needs or to complete functions or practical tasks. Prelec and Loewenstein (1998) found that in hedonic products the main aspect is the enjoyment experience, which is more difficult to assess and greater than the actual functional quantitative delivery benefits of utilitarian products. Babin and Griffin (1994) divided consumer shopping into utilitarian and hedonic consumption values. The practicality of consumer behavior was described as functional, task-related and rational. Usually this means a deliberately efficient way to buy the product. Consumer value and emotional value of consumption are more subjective and personal, and more frequently fun and playful, rather than just related to completing a task; therefore, the emotional consumer value reflects the consumer shopping entertainment potential and emotional value. Michael et al. (2000) found that the preference utility properties would be used to carefully evaluate the attributes of each brand and the final integration on the assessment of the various attributes of each brand, before forming brand preferences through rational decision-making tendencies. When consumers demand is pleasure-driven, their behavior is an emotional response or fantasy in order to satisfy an experiential need; thus, the consumers' behavior is a subjective experience. Consumers use the product to meet this stimulus, catering to their self-confidence and fun-demand (Solomon, 2002; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic demand does not only respond to external stimulus and reality (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), so the process of consumption usually requires the product to provide excitement, self-confidence and fantasy, and focusing less on the actual performance of the commodity (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) found that consumers gave up the decision-making scenarios for feature situations. Consumers would choose to keep the hedonic properties, and abandon the contexts. In the classical conditioning of the stimulation, we know that the consumer attitude was influenced by the product type (utilitarian/hedonic). Thus, according to the above assumptions, this study hypothesizes that: H2a: A conditioned group will have a positive product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. H2b: An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. 2.5 Purchase Intention Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined purchase intention, which is the consumers subjective tendency regarding a commodity, and confirmed that it can be used as an important index of consumer behavior. Fishbein and Middlestadt (1995) found that consumer attitudes can be used to predict behavioral intentions. Consumer attitudes have a positive influence on purchase intention (Dubé et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2002; Voss et al., 2003). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

5 H3: Product attitude has a positive influence on purchase intention. 2.6 Operant Conditioning Skinner (1963) defined the participants through an external stimulation enhancement that can actively engage them in some behavior; because the restricted operation mode is a kind of voluntary study course, rather than a classical conditioning pattern, it can explain the change of behavior. The operant model is used in the promotional activities of the instance (Nord & Peter, 1980). According to the Foxall (1990), positive or negative influences are enhanced when individuals receive reinforcement, such as the evaluations of others. 2.7 Consumer Emotion Organisms are the so-called intermediary under the stimulus of the environment; they can be adjusted to respond via cognitive perception and emotions which interact with each other. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) proposed the M-R model organism variables for consumers' emotions. Consumers receive environmental stimuli which lead to emotional changes. There are three main kinds of emotional states: pleasure, arousal and dominance. Pleasure refers to consumers feeling interested and enjoying an environment; arousal refers to environmental stimuli causing consumers to experience mental excitement or invigoration; domination is when consumers can feel external stimuli and that they are in control. In the adjustment M-R model, by using pleasure, arousal and domination, their relationship to avoidance behavior can be explored. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) and Donovan et al. (1994) found that pleasure determined the most powerful avoidance behavior for emotional factors. With "pleasant emotions" and "awakening emotions" consumers will stay in the store longer and their purchase intention will be improved with the help of service personnel. The extra time and money spent may also be increased by 12% on average. Baker et al. (1992) found that more than pleasure, arousal and purchase intentions are positively correlated; Fiore et al. (2005) identified experiential value and utilitarian value as affecting consumer response variables (attitude and purchase intention). Eroglu et al. (2003) found that website design links have a positive impact on the joy and excitement of interested buyers attitudes, satisfaction and behavior. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4a: Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. H4b: Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. 2.8 Product Type: utilitarian versus hedonic (operant conditioning) Past studies have pointed out that the product type will influence consumers' emotional evaluation (Pham, 1998). Raghunathan and Irwin (2001) pointed out that a hedonic product will have a significant impact on consumer evaluation, unlike utilitarian products. Consumers prefer hedonic products (Lim & Ang, 2008). Kempf (1999) also pointed out that the hedonic test evaluation and ultimately brand attitude arouse important decisive factors. In addition, regardless of the amount of involvement in the consumer products, emotions affect their attitudes. Therefore, this research explores the different product function attributes and its influence on consumer emotions through different stimulations.

6 H5a: A positive reinforcement results in higher consumer pleasure for a hedonic product than for a utilitarian product. H5b: A negative reinforcement results in higher consumer arousal for a hedonic product than for a utilitarian product. 2.9 Sales Promotion Kotler (2000) pointed out that promotion includes a variety of incentive tools, mostly shortterm properties; its main purpose is to stimulate the target customers or dealers for a particular product or service. Campbell and Diamond s (1990) are divided into promotional methods monetary and non-monetary. The monetary method includes monetary performance products and price comparisons, such as discounts, coupons, etc; it is not easy to compare non-monetary product prices, such as gifts, door prizes, etc. Mela, Gupta & Lehmann (1997), in regard to the promotion and advertising of consumer brand behavior, studied the long-term effects of the promotional tools, dividing them into two categories: price-oriented promotional tools (such as discounts, future sales and discount coupons) and non-price-oriented promotional tools (eg. merchandise display and comes with gifts promotions). Dodson, Tyboutand & Sterntha (1978) used price incentives to boost future re-purchases. The results are in line with the self-perception of management theory (self-perception theory). When consumers' purchase behavior resulting from promotions (external factors), is based on economic value and the formation of cross-trading, and not on brand quality (internal factors) while causing consumer, such behavior will lead to the purchase of promotional products; repurchase probability will be lower during the non-promotional period. Thus, this research proposes the following hypotheses: H6a: Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention. H6b: A negative reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention Repurchase Intention The repurchase Intention is an important indicator of marketing (Fornell, 1992). Dodds & Monroe (1985) proposed that the customer s purchase intention is based on behavior propensity. Folkes (1988) pointed out that repurchase involves a causal relationship. By purchasing products or services, customers expect to be reimbursed if the product or service fails to meet expectations; this will affect subsequent behavior intention. Kotler and Keller (2009) pointed out that when consumers purchase products or services, they will experience some degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and their psychological changes will affect their subsequent conduct. If the consumers are satisfied, they will buy again, or have a higher willingness to reuse; this is called the repurchase intention, which belongs to one of the conduct dimensions, also known as the customer's repeat patronage.

7 The general measure of the dimensions of multi-repurchase intentions is divided into the two main categories: repeat purchase and recommendations to others. Therefore, this study refers to the study of Kotler (1997). The Wong & Sohal (2003) repurchase intention scale of this study is divided into repeat purchase, word-of-mouth recommendations and recommendations to others. This research proposes the following hypothesis: H7: Consumer pleasure and arousal have a positive influence on repurchasing intentions. 3. The Methodology and Model 3.1 Research framework-stage 1 The research framework is illustrated in Figures and In the first stage, the classical conditioning was the independent variable and both classic conditioning and operant conditioning were manipulated. Purchase intention was chosen as the dependent variable. Product type affects consumer attitude and is a moderating variable. Product type is defined as utilitarian or hedonic. Classical Conditioning -Product Stimulus Product Type -Utilitarian -Hedonic Consumer Attitude Consumer Decision Product Stimulus -Conditioning -Unconditioning H1 H2 Product Attitude H3 Purchase Intention Fig Research framework-stage Research framework-stage 2 The research framework is illustrated in Figure In the second stage, the operant conditioning was the independent variable. Repurchase intention was chosen as the dependent variable. Product type and sales promotion affect consumer emotion and are moderating variables. Product type is defined as utilitarian or hedonic.

8 Operant Conditioning -Product Stimulus Product Type -Utilitarian -Hedonic Consumer Emotion Consumer Decision Positive Reinforcement Negative Reinforcement H4 H5 Sales Promotion Pleasure Arousal H6 Repurchase Intention -Monetary Promotion -Non-monetary Promotion H7 3.3 Sample Fig Research framework-stage 2 The data were gathered through an internet survey ( Table displays the online shopping experience of participants. This includes the five major items considered by this study: Do you have online shopping experience? How long have you been shopping online. How often do you shop online? How often do you browse online shopping websites? How much money do you spend on online shopping each time? As shown in Table 3.3.1, all of the participants have online shopping experience. Most of the participants have had more than three years of online shopping experience. Most of participants purchased on online shopping every one month. About 40.94% of participants browsed online shopping websites each week.

9 Table Characteristics of Respondents (n=320) Item Description Frequency Percentage (%) Online Experience Shopping Yes % How long have you Less than One Year % shopping in online One-three years % experience? Three-five years % Five-seven years % More than Seven % Years How often do you on Every Week % shopping online? Every Two Weeks % Every Month % Every Two Months % Every Six Months % How often do you glance Every Two Months % at online shopping Every Month % website? Every Week % Every Five Days % Every Two Days % How much money do you Under 500 NT % spend for online shopping 501-1,000 NT % each time? 1,001-2,000 NT % 2,001-3,000 NT % More than 3,000 NT % Total % 3.4 Manipulation Checks Following Khan & Dhar (2010), this study tested consumer knowledge of hedonic and utilitarian products. Participants were asked to rate each statement on a Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. We tested consumers knowledge of hedonic and utilitarian products. Participants were asked to answer with their level of agreement with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. We offered the available goods from online shopping sites for participants to choose from. The result of the pretest indicated that the notebook was perceived as a utilitarian product (M=4.226) and MP5 was perceived as a hedonic product (M=4.560). After the t-test (Table 3.4.1), we could confirm that MP5 (t = ) was suitable as a utilitarian product and the notebook (t = ) was suitable as a hedonic product in the experiment. As the notebook can be carried around easily, it is more convenient and practical than desktop computers. There are a lot of hedonic functions in a MP5 (such as music, movies and games). Thus, we chose a notebook as a utilitarian product, and an MP5 as a hedonic product.

10 Table Compared T test (Utilitarian/Hedonic Product) Product Mean Std. Dev t df p-value Hedonic Product Utilitarian Product MP a *** Note book *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p < b *** Material The target product of the utilitarian test was the notebook; the target product of the hedonic tests was the MP5. The information on the utilitarian product test was: Intel Core i5-2.4ghz; 15.6 HD LED; 2 GB DDR3 Memory; 640GB Hard Disk, NT$18,000. The information on the hedonic products test was: Cortx A8-1.2GHz; 800*480; 9 inches, WIFI and 3G, NT$5,000. In the sales promotion, we chose the cash voucher and gift voucher for the notebook and MP5. We designed the same 4% discount on MP5 and the notebook s price. Participants could use cash vouchers to get a discount of NT$720 on the notebook, and NT$200 on the MP5. When participants purchased the notebook, they could use a gift voucher to get a 32GB flash drive. If participants purchased the notebook, they could use the gift voucher to get a headset. The 32GB flash drive and headset had the same value. 3.6 Experimental design and procedure Experiment stage 1 was a 2 (classical conditioning: experiment/control) x 2 (product types: utilitarian/hedonic product) online experiment. Table illustrates the experiment design of this study. Table Experiment Design-Stage1 Groups Classical Conditioning Product Types 1. Experiment Group Utilitarian 2. Control Group 3. Experiment Group Hedonic 4. Control Group Experiment stage 2 was a 2 (operant conditioning: experiment/control) x 2 (product types: utilitarian/hedonic product) x 2 (sales promotion: monetary/non-monetary promotion) online experiment. Table illustrates the experiment design of this study.

11 Table Experiment Design-Stage2 Groups Operant Conditioning Product Types Promotion Ways 1. Utilitarian Monetary 2. Positive Non-monetary 3. Reinforcement Hedonic Monetary 4. Non-monetary 5. Utilitarian Monetary 6. Negative Non-monetary 7. Reinforcement Hedonic Monetary 8. Non-monetary In the first experiment, we designed eight questions. Participants were randomly asked to comment on their consumer experience. Then, respondents received scenario information regarding the online shopping page of the first experiment. The pages showed questions relating to the two types of classical conditioning, including conditioning and unconditioning, and used two types of products (a notebook and an MP5) as interference. The subjects were asked to answer three questions about product attitude and five questions about purchase intention (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were indicated by their level of agreement with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. In the second experiment, we designed eight questions. Respondents received scenario information regarding the online shopping page of the first experiment. The pages showed questions relating to two types of operant conditioning, including positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, and used two types of products (a notebook and a MP5) as interference. The subjects were asked to answer eight questions about consumer emotions (Mehrabian and Russell 1974) and were divided into two types of sales emotion (monetary promotion and non-monetary promotion). Finally, further pages showed three to five questions measuring the repurchase intention (Dodds & Monroe 1985). Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were indicated by their level of agreement with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. 3.6 Measurement This study defined purchase and repurchase intentions as the degree to which consumers intend to buy products. The following items in Table were adapted from the measurement items (Mannsi et al., 2011; Dodds et al., 1991). Each item was measured on a Likert five point scale. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement, from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.

12 Construct Proceedings of 8th Asian Business Research Conference Table Measurement Source Product Attitude Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) Purchase Intention Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) Consumer Emotion Mehrabian and Russell (1974) Repurchase Intention Kotler (1997);Wong and Sohal (2003) 4. The findings 4.1 Reliability of Measure The reliability analysis detection of each variable in the questionnaire checked the internal consistency. Cronbach's α value was used to measure the scale of reliability. Cronbach's α value table correlation between the questionnaire showed that the higher the value, the higher the internal consistency. The Cronbach α coefficient was above 0.7 recommended by Cortina (1993), so we could conclude that the reliability of the framing measurement was appropriate for testing our hypothesis. Cronbach s α (stage 1) of the product attitude and purchase intention was and 0.848, respectively. The Cronbach α (stage 2) of product consumer emotion, sales promotion, endowment effect and repurchase intention was 0.862, 0.721, and 0.736, respectively, as shown in Table Table Reliability Construct Cronbach's α Source Product Attitude Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) Purchase Intention Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) Consumer Emotion Mehrabian and Russell(1974) Repurchase Intention Kotler (1997);Wong and Sohal (2003) 4.2 Measurement Result for Product Attitude and Purchase Intention Tables and provide descriptive question items for each research variable, including mean and standard deviations. The research variable is four items consisting of product attitude and purchase intention. In stage 1, Table indicates that the highest extent of the agreement in product attitude is shown in item (1) (M= 3.425). The lowest extent of agreement in product attitude is shown in item (3) (M= 3.266).

13 Table Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320) Product Attitude Research Item Mean Std. Dev. (1) After I reading this advertisement, I think the wares are good in this promotion (2) After I reading this advertisement, I think the goods are charm in this promotion. (3) After I reading this advertisement, I like this product Second, Table indicates that the highest extent of agreement in purchase intentions is shown in item (5) (M= 3.363), followed by (1) (M= 3.241). The lowest extent of agreement in product attitude in shown on item (2) (M= 3.044). Table Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320) Purchase Intention Research Item Mean Std. Dev. (1) I want to have this product (2) I intend to purchase this product (3) I would like to recommend this product to others (4) I intend to put this product into online shopping cart (5) I would buy this product if I want it in the future Measurement Result for Sales Promotion and Repurchase Intention In stage 2, Table indicates that the highest extent of agreement in sales promotion is shown in item (1) (M= 3.900), followed by (8) (M= 3.869). The lowest extent of agreement in product attitude in shown on item (6) (M= 3.294). Second, Table indicates that the highest extent of agreement in repurchase intentions is shown in item (1) (M= 3.703). The lowest extent of agreement in product attitude is shown in item (2) (M= 3.266). Table Descriptive Analysis for Questionnaire Items (n=320) Repurchase Intention Research Item Mean Std. Dev. (1) I would like to recommend my relatives and friends (2) I would like to this product again (3) I would recommend this product if my relatives and friends

14 4.4 Result of Classic conditioning Comparing Test H1 posited that the effects of the classical conditioning experiment group on product attitude would differ from those of the unconditioned control group. Table indicates T test results were (t= 2.436, p<0.008). This rejects the null hypothesis and means that the experimental group and control group of product attitude had significant differences. This result supported H1. Table Results of each group of T test Source Mean t-value p-value Experiment Group of Product *** Attitude (conditioning) Control Group of Product Attitude (unconditioning) *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p < Moderating the Product Stimulus (Classic) by Product Type The results in Table shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (classic) and product type (F= 4.827, p< 0.029). The results show that there was significant prodct attitude difference between hedonic and utilitarian products under classic conditioning group (M hedonic, conditioning= 3.646, M utilitarian, conditioning= 3.275; t = 4.805, p= 0.000). H2a was supported. An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. (M hedonic, unconditioning = 3.296, M utilitarian, unconditioning = 3.254; t= 1.916, p< 0.028). H2b was supported. Table Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Attitude ANOVAs Construct df MS F p-value Product Product Stimulus ** Attitude (Classic) Product Type *** Product Stimulus (Classic)* Product Type ** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001

15 Fig The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Classic) and Product Type on Product Attitude 4.6 Relationship between Product Attitude and Purchase Intention Table and shows the results of product attitude under classic conditioning on purchase intention. The results show that the product attitude had a significant influence on purchase intention (F= , p< 0.000). Consumers revealed a significantly higher purchase intention when they received classic conditioning stimuli (β= 0.292, p<0.000). This result supported H3. Table Results of Regression on Purchase Intention ANOVAs Dependent Variable df MS F p-value Purchase Intention *** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001 Table Results of Regression on Purchase Intention Regression Std. Dependent Variable Coefficient Error Beta t p-value Purchase Intention *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p < Moderating the Product Stimulus (Operant) by Product Type The results in Table shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (operant) and product type (F= 6.398, p< 0.012). H4 was supported. The results show that there was significant prodct attitude difference between hedonic and utilitarian products under operant conditioning group (M hedonic, positive reinforcement= 3.786, M utilitarian, positive reinforcement= 3.491; t= 4.706, p= 0.000). H5a was supported. An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. (M hedonic,

16 negative reinforcement= 3.734, M utilitarian, negative reinforcement= 3.752; t= , p< 0.394). H5b was not supported. Table Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Emotion ANOVAs Construct df MS F p-value Consumer Product Stimulus ** Emotion (Operant) Product Type *** Product Stimulus (Operant) * Product Type ** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001 Fig The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Operant) and Product Type on Consumer Emotion 4.8 Moderating the Product Stimulus (Operant) by Product Promotion The results in Table shows a significant interaction between product stimulus (operant) and sales promotion (F= 4.270, p< 0.040). Product stimulus can affect repurchase intention. The results show that there was significant prodct attitude difference between hedonic and utilitarian products under operant conditioning (M monetary, positive reinforcement= 3.913, M non-monetary, positive reinforcement= 3.483; t= 3.398, p= 0.000). H6a was supported. An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. (M monetary, negative reinforcement= 4.038, M non-monetary, negative reinforcement= 3.258; t= , p< 0.000). H6b was supported.

17 Table Results of Product Stimulus and Consumer Decision ANOVAs Construct df MS F p-value Repurchase Product Stimulus ** Intention (Operant) Product Type *** Product Stimulus (Operant) * Product Type ** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001 Fig The Interactive Effect Between Product Stimulus (Operant) and Sales Promotion on Repurchase Intention 4.9 Relationship between Consumer Eomtion and Repurchase Intention Table and shows the results of consumer emotion under operant conditioning on repurchase intention. The results show that the consumer emotion had a significant influence on repurchase intention (F= , p< 0.000). Consumers revealed a significantly higher purchase intention when they received operant conditioning stimuli (β= 0.214, p<0.000). This result supported H7. Table Results of Regression on Repurchase Intention ANOVAs Dependent Variable df MS F p-value Repurchase Intention *** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001 Table Results of Regression on Repurchase Intention Regression Std. Dependent Variable Coefficient Error Beta t p-value Repurchase Intention *** *p <.05, **p<.01, ***p <.001

18 H1 H2 `H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 Hypotheses Table Summary of Hypotheses Test A conditioned group is positively influenced in regard to product attitude. (a) A conditioned group will have a positive product attitude regarding a hedonic product rather than a utilitarian product. (b) An unconditioned group results in a negative product attitude regarding a utilitarian product rather than a hedonic product. Product attitude has a positive influence on purchase intention. (a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. (b) Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. (a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. (b) Negative reinforcement has a positive influence on consumer pleasure and arousal. (a) Positive reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention. (b) A negative reinforcement has a positive influence on the repurchase intention and monetary promotion is more moderating than the non-monetary repurchase intention. Consumer pleasure and arousal have a positive influence on repurchasing intentions. Results Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Supported 5. Summary and Conclusions This study examined the influence of classic and operant conditioning on online consumer purchase and repurchase intentions. In the first experimental result, we confirmed that the consumer was affected by the product advertising picture effect; consumers were attracted to the product message, were restricted to the preference of products, and the products produced positive or negative attitudes. We think that advertisements of the implied emotional stimulation can directly influence the attitudes of consumers using the classical conditioning learning principle. Finally, the consumers' attitude toward the product influenced their purchase intention. Most of the hypothesis were supported. The results also showed that when consumers received negative reinforcement stimulus, their repurchase intention did not become significantly higher for hedonic products than for utilitarian products. Therefore, H5b was not supported. The reason for this result might be that for some consumers not all of the hedonic products were necessities (Lacher, 1989). Thus, their repurchase intention did not become significantly higher under negative reinforcement stimulus. However, when the hedonic products were important to consumers, repurchase intention was raised significantly by negative reinforcement stimulus. Therefore, there was no significant difference between utilitarian and hedonic products under positive reinforcement stimulus. Furthermore, consumers were sensitive to

19 negative reinforcement stimuli when the products were utilitarian products. Thus, repurchase intention towards utilitarian products was lower under negative reinforcement stimulus (Sen & Lerman, 2007; Cheung et al., 2009). Compared with classical conditioning, operation conditioning mainly emphasized that consumers were affected by external stimulation enhancement, and were also active and engaged in learning activities. In the second experiment using coupons and gift vouchers, the restriction of sales promotion activities affected consumers' repurchase intention. We expected that the consumer, through operant conditioning, would respond to different promotions (coupons and gift vouchers). Finally, it influenced consumers' emotions in regard to their repurchase intention. In the past, classical and operant conditioning were usually separate discussions, but in this study we tried to make the sequential arrangement the second phase of the experiment. Its significance for consumers occurred through passive classical conditioning stimulation, and then in the operation and under active stimulation. It allows the consumer to learn, and influences consumers purchase intention and repurchase intention. References Allen, Chris T. and Chris A. Janiszewski (1989), Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning With Implications for Advertising Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), Bandura, A. & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of arousal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), Babin, B. J., William, R. D., & Mitch, G. (1994). Work and/or Fun:Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions, Journal of Retailin, 68(4), Craig, K. D., & Weinstein, M. S. (1965) Conditioning vicarious affective arousal. Psychology Reports, 17, Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, Crowder, M. J. (1978). Beta-binomial anova for proportions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 27, Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L. & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), Liu, C. I. (2003). Effect of Reason Analyzing on Consumer Attitude Change: The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition. Dawson, M. E. (1973). Can classical conditioning occur without contingency learning? A review and evaluation of the evidence, Psychophysiology, 10(1),

20 Dubé, L., Cervellon, M. C., & Jingyuan, H. (2003). Should consumer attitudes be reduced to their affective and cognitive baseds? Validation of a hierarchical model. International Journal of marketing research, 20, Dodson, A., Tybout, A., & Sternthal, B. (1978). The Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction on Brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: the environmental psychology approach, Journal of Retailing, 58, Dhar, R., & Klaus, W. (2000). Consumer Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), Donovan, R. J., Marcoolyn G., Nesdale A. Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing, 70, Dodds, W. B. & Kent, B. M. (1985). The Effect of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluations. Quoted in Advances in Consumer Research, Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 54, Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology & Marketing, 20 (2), Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, Foxall, G. R. (1990). Consumer psychology in behavioral perspective. New York: Routledge. Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: Fact or artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, Fiore, A. M., Kim, J., & Lee, H. (2005b). Effect of image interactivity technology on consumer responses toward the online retailer. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(3), Gorn, G. J., & Goldberg, M. E. (1982). Behavioral evidence of the effects of televised food messages on children. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, Huck S. W., & MeLean R. A. (1975). Using a Repeated Measures ANOVA to Analyze the Data from a Pretest-Posttest Design: A Potentially Confusing Task. Psychological

21 Bulletin, 82, Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Morris, B. H. (1982). Hedonic Consumption : Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46, Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and control, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kim, M. K., Park, M. C., & Jeong, D. H. (2004). The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services. Telecommunications Policy, 28, Khan, U. & Dhar, R. (2010). Price framing effects on purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, Schultz, E., Don, Robinson, A. William & Petricon Lisa, (1993). Sales Promotion Essentials, 2. NTC Publishing Group. Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer theory and research. Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E.W., & Engle, R.W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. The Journal of Consumer Research, 18, Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. (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), Sen, S. & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), Liebert, R. M., Sprafkin, J. N., & Davidson, E. S. (Eds.). (1982). The early window: Effects of television on children and youth. New York: Pergamon Press. Lacher, K. T. (1989). Hedonic consumption: music as a product. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, Morris, J. D., Woo, C., Geason, J. A., et al. (2002). "The power of affect: predicting intention". Journal of Advertising Research, 42(3), Miller, N. E. (1969). Learning of visceral and glanduter responses. Science, 163,

22 Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Michael, W. A., Marc, W., & Sik, H. N. et al. (2000).Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores, Journal of Social Psychology, 140(8), Peltier, J. W., & Westfall, J. (2000). Dissecting the HMO-benefits managers relationship: What to measure and why. Marketing Health Services, 20(2), Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College. Watson, John B. (1913). Psychological Review, 20(2), Vaughn, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1980). Vicarious instigation and conditioning of facial expressive and autonomic responses to a model's expressive display of pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, Voss K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3),