Dependent measures and hypotheses testing

7.4.1.1 Experiment 1a-1: Likelihood assessment

The first task in this section required participants to assess the collectability of a specific amount (£6,000) from subscriptions based on the given information. Two measures were taken in relation to their likelihood assessment. Participants were asked to rate the likelihood of collectability of £6,000 using a six-point Likert scale from 0 (‗Certainly Not‘) to 5 (‗Certainly‘) at first and then to indicate the likelihood in percentage. The descriptive

statistics of responses in this task are shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Experiment 1a-1 – Assessment of the likelihood of generating £6,000 from subscriptions

Likelihood Assessment N Mean

(Likert scale)

Mean

(%) Std. Deviation

Group 1 Promotion + Matching 15 2.53 60.93 29.577

Group 2 Prevention + Matching 15 2.20 40.20 26.569

Group 3 Promotion + Mismatching 15 2.40 55.13 34.838

Group 4 Prevention + Mismatching 17 2.41 53.18 25.603

Total 62 2.39 52.39 29.492

Responses using Likert scale were similar across all four treatment groups, F = 0.645, p >

0.10. The following are analyses of responses indicated in percentage (see Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Experiment 1a-1 - Assessment of the likelihood of receiving £6,000 or more (%)

Note:

1. Materials given in fit condition for promotion focus = misfit condition for prevention focus.

Messages were framed as ‗hits‘ information about amount attained (e.g., how much had been collected) and collectability (e.g., how many individuals would make payment).

2. Materials given in fit condition for prevention focus = misfit condition for promotion focus.

Messages were framed as ‗misses‘ information about amount unattained (e.g., how much had not been collected) and uncollectability (e.g., how many individuals would not pay).

The mean of responses from participants primed with promotion focus was 58.03%, which is higher than the mean of those primed with prevention focus, being 47.09%. Their

deviations from the even chance (50%) were in the predicted directions. Promotion focused participants indicated higher likelihood, which suggested that they were more persuaded with parts of the information concerning collectability. Prevention focused participants indicated lower likelihood, which suggested they were more persuaded with parts of the given information concerning uncollectability. The differences in judgments between promotion focused participants and prevention focused participants were however not statistically significant, F = 2.171, p > 0.10, rejecting H1a(i). The effect of regulatory focus on individuals‘ sensitivity to ‗positive‘ or ‗negative‘ accounting information is not strong enough to establish a significant difference in this likelihood assessment judgment.

Promotion focused participants would be more persuaded by ‗hits‘ messages (H2a).

Among participants primed with promotion focus, those in the matching message condition (M = 60.3%) made higher estimation than those in the mismatching condition (M = 55.13%). However, the differences in responses between the two groups were not significant, F = 0.242, p > 0.10.

Prevention focused participants would be more persuaded by ‗misses‘ messages (H3a).

Among participants primed with prevention focus, those in the matching condition (persuasion fit), decided on a lower likelihood (M = 40.2%), on average, than those in the mismatching condition (persuasion misfit) (M = 53.18%). The difference was marginally significant, t (30) = -1.40, sig. = 0.09.

The biggest difference was found between the two matching treatment groups – the two groups processing messages with framings that match with individuals‘ regulatory focus concerns. As predicted, promotion focused individuals would be more persuaded by the

‗hits‘ messages concerning the collectability of the subscriptions (H2a) and hence suggested higher likelihood (M = 60.93%), whereas prevention focused individuals would be more persuaded by the ‗misses‘ messages concerning with the uncollectability of the subscriptions (H3a) and hence suggested lower likelihood (M = 40.20%). Promotion focused group indicated significantly higher likelihood than the prevention focused group, t (28) = 2.02, one-tail sig. = 0.026. This result supports the hypotheses that under the effect of persuasion fit, individuals with different regulatory foci make different judgments (H4a).

Results also confirm the prediction that processing messages mismatching with individuals‘

regulator focus concerns (persuasion misfit) lead to more careful consideration on the messages (H12) so that there would be no difference between responses from the two

groups given mismatching messages. The two mismatching groups made similar judgment in this task (M = 53% and 55%), t (30) = 0.18, sig. = 0.86, which supports H12a(i). This finding is consistent with Koenig et al. (2009)‘s that regulatory misfit leads to (the more effortful) high elaboration.

7.4.1.2 Experiment 1a-2: Confidence rating

Participants across four treatment groups indicated their confidence in the likelihood assessments. It was hypothesized that message matching would lead to feeling of rightness and therefore increase individuals‘ confidence in judgments made (H11). The mean of confidence rated by the two matching treatment groups primed with promotion focus (M = 79.60%) and prevention focus (M = 75.67%) was lower than the two mismatching groups (M = 83.27% and 78.47%). No significant differences were found among the treatment groups, which therefore rejected H11a(i).

7.4.1.3 Experiment 1a-3: Range of possible amounts

Apart from assessing the collectability of £6,000 from members‘ subscriptions, individual participants also gave estimation on the total amount of revenue the club would be able to generate from members‘ subscriptions by indicating a range of expected amounts. The descriptive results are shown in Table 7.4 below and means of responses from the four treatment groups are exhibited in Figure 7.2 on next page.

Table 7.4 Experiment 1a-3 – Indication of the range of amounts generated from subscriptions (£)

Prevention focused participants gave the highest estimates of the upper bound and the lower bound, on average, when given mismatching message and they made the lowest

Estimation of the range of amount to

be collected (£) N Upper bound Lower bound

Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Group 1 Promotion + Matching 15 5740 860.066 4807 1017.326 Group 2 Prevention + Matching 15 5440 610.386 4693 724.536

Group 3 Promotion + Mismatching 14 5600 800 5000 908.083

Group 4 Prevention + Mismatching 15 5867 990.430 5093 827.618

Total 59 5663 821.458 4897 4896.61

estimation when given matching messages. However, results of ANOVA suggested no significant difference in responses between participants primed with promotion focus and those primed with prevention focus, p > 0.10, rejecting H1a(ii).

Figure 7.2 Experiment 1a-3 – Estimation of subscriptions to be collected (upper and lower bound) (£)

Note:

1. Materials given in fit condition for promotion focus = misfit condition for prevention focus.

Messages were framed as ‗hits‘ information about amount attained (e.g., how much had been collected) and collectability (e.g., how many individuals would make payment).

2. Materials given in fit condition for prevention focus = misfit condition for promotion focus.

Messages were framed as ‗misses‘ information about amount unattained (e.g., how much had not been collected) and uncollectability (e.g., how many individuals would not pay).

In indicating the upper bound, promotion focused participants made higher estimates under the matching condition (M = £5,740) than those in the mismatching condition (M = £5,600) on average, F = 0.205, p > 0.10; whereas, for the lower bound, they made lower estimates under the matching condition (M = £4,807) than those in the mismatching condition (M =

£5,000) on average (F = 0.29, p > 0.10). Hence, H2b was rejected.

Prevention focused participants under matching condition (M = £5,440) made lower estimation on the upper bound than those under mismatching condition (M = £5,867) on average, t (22.8) = -1.421, one-tailed sig. = 0.083, p < 0.10. In indicating the lower bound, prevention focused participants under matching condition (M = £4,693) made lower estimation than those under mismatching condition (M = £5,093) on average, t (27) = -1.408, one tail sig. = 0.085, p < 0.10. Hence, H3b was accepted at 0.10 level of significance.

Variations in responses from the four groups were not significant. The two matching groups did not make significantly different judgment in indicating both upper bound and lower bound, p > 0.10. Therefore, H4b was rejected.

On the contrary, the differences between the range indicated by the two mismatching groups (in respect of both upper bound and lower bound) were not significant, (t (26) = -0.801 and -0.288), p > 0.10. Hence, H12b(i) was accepted.