Results for the factorial ANOVA tests of between-subjects effects for interaction effects

The two factorial MANOVAs revealed two significant interaction effects and two trends that are relevant to our study and shall be discussed in this section. We will use both ANOVAs and a further graphical analysis to identify the effects of the interactions upon the individual dependent variables and their nature.

4.6.1. Interaction of the two scarcity cues

Scarcity was represented by two cues, one contained within the text and one within the imagery. Together they created conditions wherein the fluency was either high or low, based upon both cues being congruent or incongruent. An interaction effect of some sort between the two was thus expected and found. It affected the attitude towards the product significantly [F (1,144) = 10,560, p = 0,001]. The effect was small (partial η2 = 0,042). A closer graphical inspection revealed that the both cases in which the cues were congruent led to the most positive attitude towards the product. The highest score on the attitude towards the product index was found for the condition in which both cues indicated that the wine was scarce.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 40 Graph 1. Showing the interaction effect between both scarcity cues on the attitude towards the product.

4.6.2. Interaction of scarcity and the processing depth

The ANOVA tests of between-subjects effects revealed one significant effect of the interaction of scarcity and processing depth on the attitude towards the product index [F (1,144) = 8,210, p = 0,005]. The effect size was small to medium (partial η2 = 0,054). Further graphical analysis revealed that the processing depth moderated the effect of scarcity on the attitude towards the product. In this case, a deeper processing led to a strong decrease in the effect of scarcity on the attitude towards the product. The abundant condition, on the other hand, saw a more positive attitude towards the product when the processing was deeper.

Graph 2. Showing the interaction effect between scarcity and the processing depth on the attitude towards the product.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 41 The between-subjects effects tests revealed a further two near-significant trends for the

interaction of scarcity and the processing depth upon the price perception [F (1,144) = 3,576, p = 0,061] and buying likelihood [F (1,144) = 3,449, p= 0,065]. Both the effect upon the price perception (partial η2 = 0,024) and buying likelihood (partial η2 = 0,023) were small.

In the case of the interaction effect upon the price perception the moderation effect was reversed. The deeper processing led to a higher price perception of the wine in the scarce condition, while in the abundant condition the price perception only fluctuated marginally.

Graph 3. Showing the interaction effect between Scarcity and the Processing depth on the Price perception.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 42 The interaction effect of scarcity and the processing depth upon the buying intention was in line with the effect on the attitude towards the product. Here, a deeper processing led to a slightly lower score on the buying intention index for the scarce condition. In the abundant condition, however, a deeper processing led to a higher score on the buying intention index.

Graph 4. Showing the interaction effect between Scarcity and the Processing depth on the Buying intention.

4.6.3. Interaction of scarcity, involvement and fluency

One key result of this study is the interaction of scarcity, involvement and fluency upon the price perception [F (1,144) = 5,213, p = 0,024), value perception [F (1,144) = 6,565, p = 0,011] and buying intention [F (1,144) = 4,857, p = 0,029]. Effect sizes in the case of price perception (partial η2 = 0,035) and buying intention (partial η2 = 0,033) were small. In the case of the value perception the effect size was small to medium (partial η2 = 0,044). We will discuss each interaction effect in turn.

The interaction effect of scarcity, involvement and fluency on the price perception was relatively straightforward. In the low fluency condition both the scarce and abundant wines had a higher price perception when involvement was high. In the high involvement condition, this was different. There, the price perception in the scarce condition dropped by almost a whole Euro when involvement was high as opposed to low. The abundant condition followed the same path as in the low fluency condition. We thus conclude that fluency moderates the

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 43 effect of involvement on the price perception when wine was scarce. Most critically is the observation that in all cases the abundant wine had a higher price perception.

Graph 5. Set of graphs showing the interaction effect between Scarcity, Fluency and Involvement on the Price perception.

The interaction effect of scarcity, involvement and fluency on the value perception followed a similar path. When fluency was low, in both scarce and abundant conditions, a higher

involvement led to a higher perceived value in Euros. When, however, fluency was high, the value perception of the scarce wines dropped when involvement was high as well. Here too, we conclude that involvement moderates the effect of scarcity on value perceptions, which is in turn moderated by fluency.

Graph 6. Set of graphs showing the interaction effect between Scarcity, Fluency and Involvement on the Value perception.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 44 The interaction effect between scarcity, involvement and fluency on the Buying intention index deviated in two distinct ways from the two interaction effects described before. Here, the scarce condition led to the highest score on the Buying intention index when fluency was low and involvement high. In the high fluency condition, the scarce wine had a similar buying intention score across involvement conditions, where the abundant wines drastically increased in buying intention score when involvement became high. We found a similar moderation effect for involvement as with the price and value perceptions, where a higher level of involvement under most circumstances led to a higher buying intention score. Critically, in this case, the scarce condition scored consistently higher on the buying intention index than the abundant condition.

Graph 7. Set of graphs showing the interaction effect between Scarcity, Fluency and Involvement on the Buying intention.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 45

4.6.4. Interaction of Scarcity, Processing depth and Processing Time

A closer inspection of the near-significant interaction between scarcity, processing depth and processing time in the tests of between-subjects effects analysis revealed an effect on the Price perception [F (1,144) = 4,524, p = 0,035]. The effect was small (partial η2 = 0,030). A closer graphical analysis revealed that when either the time used processing was long, or the processing was deep, the scarce condition performed best. Generally, a combination of a higher processing time and deeper processing was beneficial when wine was abundant. In this case, the effect of scarcity was moderated both by the processing depth and time, however not in a uniform way across both scarcity conditions.

Graph 8. Set of graphs showing the interaction effect of Scarcity, Processing depth and the Processing time on the Price perception.

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 46 Table 7. Significant effects and near-significant trends found within the factorial ANOVA tests of between-subjects effects. Level of significance used is 5% (α = 0,05).

Independent variable(s) Dependent variable Type of relation

F-score P-value Effect size in partial η2 Scarcity in text * Scarcity in image Attitude towards the product Interaction 10,560 0,001 0,042 Level of scarcity * Processing depth Attitude towards the product Interaction 8,210 0,005 0,054 Level of scarcity * Processing depth Value perception Interaction 3,576 0,061 0,024 Level of scarcity * Processing depth Buying intention Interaction 3,449 0,065 0,023 Level of scarcity * Level of Fluency * Level of Involvement

Price perception Interaction 5,213 0,024 0,035

Level of scarcity * Level of Fluency * Level of Involvement Value perception Interaction 6,565 0,011 0,044 Level of scarcity * Level of Fluency * Level of Involvement Buying intention Interaction 4,857 0,029 0,033 Level of scarcity * Processing depth * Processing time

Master thesis Joris van Gend page 47