Dependent measures and descriptive results

7.5.1.1 Experiment 1b-1: Estimation of total donations received

Participants were informed that they stood at the beginning of the year, and were required to estimate the amount of donations the drama club would receive in the year ahead. The

descriptive results are summarized in Table 7.6 and means of responses are exhibited in Figure 7.3.

Table 7.6 Experiment 1b-1 – Estimation of amount of donations received (£)

Estimation of the amount receive（£） N Mean Standard Deviation

Promotion Focus 29 2644 783.278

Matching 15 2344 699.518

Mismatching 14 2966 761.029

Prevention Focus 32 2509 681.799

Matching 15 2432 567.340

Mismatching 17 2576 780.136

Total 61 2573 728.788

The mean of responses from promotion focused participants (M = £2,644) was higher than the mean of responses from prevention focused participants (M = £2,509). However, this difference was not significant (t-value = 0.75, sig. = 0.477). This result rejects H1a (iii).

The effect of regulatory focus on sensitivity to ‗positive‘ and ‗negative‘ information was not strong enough to establish a significant difference in judgments among individuals.

Figure 7.3 Experiment 1b-1 – Estimation of donations received (£)

Note: Fit groups are those who received matching messages in the subscription section (Experiment 1a) and misfit groups are those who received mismatching messages.

Results revealed the existence of a relationship between responses and regulatory fit / misfit induced earlier in Experiment 1a (see Figure 7.3). Individuals who experienced fit, i.e., the two treatment groups receiving matching messages (in Experiment 1a), made significantly different judgments from those experienced misfit, i.e., the other two groups receiving mismatching messages, F = 4.999, sig. = 0.05.

The differences in experience of regulatory fit and misfit induced in earlier section (Experiment 1a) had significant influence on judgments among promotion focused individuals, F = 5.256, sig. = 0.03. Those promotion focused participants who received mismatching messages earlier gave the highest estimates in this task (M = £2,966) amongst all, F = 5.685, sig. = 0.02. Their estimations were significantly higher than estimations by those who received matching messages earlier (M = £2,344). The pattern of responses by promotion focused participants was in contrast with the pattern observed in earlier section.

Among prevention focused participants, those in the matching group (M = £2,432), who made lower estimation in earlier section (Experiment 1a), also made lower estimation in this task than those in the mismatching group (M = £2,576). This difference was however not significant, p > 0.10.

Between the two groups receiving mismatching messages in Experiment 1a, those primed with promotion focus made higher estimations than others primed with prevention focus.

The differences in judgments were significant (one-tail sig. = 0.08), p < 0.10.

Therefore, the above results suggest that individuals‘ regulatory fit / misfit induced earlier was carried into this section and affected their judgments. (The observed carry-over effect of regulatory fit / misfit in this task will be discussed later in Section 7.5.2).

7.5.1.2 Experiment 1b-2: Likelihood assessment

The next judgment was to assess the likelihood that the club would get £3,000 from donations received this year. Two measures were taken in relation to this likelihood judgment. Like in Experiment 1a, each participant was asked to rate the likelihood on a scale from 0, ‗Certainly Not‘ to 5, ‗Certainly‘ and after that, to specify a percentage of the probability. Descriptive results are summarized in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 Experiment 1b-2 – Likelihood assessment of receiving the target amount of donations

N Mean

(Likert scale)

Mean (%)

Standard Deviation

Promotion Focus 30 2.57 52.67 25.174

Matching 15 2.60 51.53 24.934

Mismatching 15 2.53 53.80 26.236

Prevention Focus 32 2.53 58.84 26.928

Matching 15 2.73 66.87 28.443

Mismatching 17 2.35 51.76 24.155

Total 62 2.55 55.85 26.067

As exhibited in Table 7.7 above, promotion focused participants indicated lower probability in percentage (M = 52.67%) than prevention focused ones (M = 58.84%). The difference was insignificant (p > 0.10) and the pattern of responses contradicted with the prediction Hence, H1a(iv) was rejected.

Figure 7.4 Experiment 1b-2 – Likelihood assessment on target amount of £3,000 (%)

Note:

Fit groups are those who received matching messages in the subscription section (Experiment 1a) and misfit groups are those who received mismatching messages.

Responses from prevention focused participants, who received matching messages in earlier section, were significantly different from other groups, F = 3.687, sig. = 0.060, indicating a strong association with regulatory fit / misfit induced earlier in Experiment 1a.

Among promotion focused individuals, earlier experience of regulatory fit did not affect judgment in this task, F = 0.059, p > 0.10; whereas, among prevention focused participants, those experiencing fit earlier indicated significant higher probability than other experiencing misfit, t (27.2) = 1.624, one-tail sig. = 0.057.

The differences in responses between promotion focused and prevention focused individuals induced with regulatory / persuasion fit earlier were significant. The prevention matching group gave the highest estimates amongst all (t = 1.78, one tail sig. = 0.048).

Moreover, the two groups that received mismatching messages earlier made similar judgment in this task, F = 0.957, p > 0.10. The effect of regulatory misfit induced in Experiment 1a was carried into this task, which lessened the effect of difference in individuals‘ regulatory foci on judgments.

The above results indicate that regulatory fit / misfit induced earlier in Experiment 1a was carried into this task and impacted on participants‘ judgments. This observed carry-over effect of regulatory fit / misfit in this likelihood assessment task will be discussed later in Section 7.5.2.

7.5.1.3 Experiment 1b-3: Confidence rating

Participants rated their confidence in their judgment on assessing the likelihood of receiving the target amount (£3,000) of donations using Likert scale. Descriptive results were presented in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8 Experiment 1b-3 – Confidence on likelihood assessment

N Confidence (%) Standard deviation

Promotion focused 30 75.60 16.909

Matching 15 76.93 18.699

Mismatching 15 74.27 15.453

Prevention focused 32 69.69 20.711

Matching 15 75.33 22.715

Mismatching 17 64.71 17.982

Total 62 72.55 19.047

Participants in the promotion focus and matching messages condition were most confident in their judgments amongst all. Their confidence rating was significantly higher (one-tail sig. = 0.035) than the rating by those in the prevention focus and mismatching messages condition, who were least confident amongst all. The rest two groups gave same rating on their confidence (sig. = 0.882). Provided with the same set of information using ‗hits‘

framing in earlier section, participants experiencing fit were more confident in judgment made in this section than others experiencing misfit. Hence, H11a(ii) was accepted.