Advertisement

Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Online Product Customization Using Different Terminals with/without Default Template

  • Jiaheng Xie
  • Wangsheng Zhu
  • Kanliang Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)

Abstract

To provide more personalized products, many vendors allow consumers to design their products by selecting attribute by attribute, a technology commonly called customization. Complexity of customizing process has been a concern for consumers, and default template was introduced to solve this dilemma. With the rapid development of mobile internet, mobile terminals, such as tablets and smart phones, play ever vital roles in conducting e-commerce. The shift from desktop computers to mobile terminals may generate changes in the response of consumers viewing identical content as digital interfaces fundamentally change the experience of the content they access. However, little attention has been paid to the impacts of different terminals on consumers’ purchase intention. This research aims to find out the impact of default template on consumers’ purchase intention, and the interaction effect that terminal and need for uniqueness have on the relationship. A lab experiment was conducted to test the proposed hypothesis. The result shows that default template increase consumers’ intention to buy. Besides, terminal and need for uniqueness have moderating effect on the relationship.

Keywords

Default template Terminal Need for uniqueness Intention to buy Interaction effect Customization 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China with grant # 71331007.

References

  1. Anderson, C.A.: Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal influences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(2), 293 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brasel, S.A., Gips, J.: Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. J. Consum. Psychol. 24(2), 226–233 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, J.S.: The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: an interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14(1), 88–96 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase, R.B., Jacobs, F.R., Aquilano, N.J.: Operations Management for Competitive Advantage, 11th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  5. Chin, w.w.: The partial least squares of structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295–336 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. Configurator-Database. Configurator Database Report 2013 (2013) (accessed from http://www.configurator-database.com/report2013)
  7. Davis, S.M.: From “future perfect”: Mass customizing. Strategy Leadersh. 17(2), 16–21 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. Dellaert, B.G., Stremersch, S.: Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity. J. Mark. Res. 42(2), 219–227 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engel, A.K., Fries, P., Singer, W.: Dynamic predictions: oscillations and synchrony in top–down processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2(10), 704–716 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fogliatto, F.S., da Silveira, G.J., Borenstein, D.: The mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138(1), 14–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franciosi, R., Kujal, P., Michelitsch, R., Smith, V., Deng, G.: Experimental tests of the endowment effect. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 30, 215–226 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodale, M.A., Milner, A.D.: Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 15(1), 20–25 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregory, W.L., Cialdini, R.B., Carpenter, K.M.: Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: does imagining make it so? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43(1), 89 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hildebrand, C., Häubl, G., Herrmann, A.: Product customization via starting solutions. J. Mark. Res. 51(6), 707–725 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ho, S.Y., Davern, M.J., Tam, K.Y.: Personalization and choice behavior: the role of personality traits. ACM SIGMIS Database 39(4), 31–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IBM. Black Friday Research Report 2012. IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark (2012) (accessed from www-01.ibm.com)
  17. Jansson-Boyd, C.V.: The role of touch in marketing: An introduction to the special issue. Psychol. Mark. 28, 219–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, E.J., Payne, J.W.: Effort and accuracy in choice. Manage. Sci. 31(4), 395–414 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lau, A.K., Yam, R., Tang, E.: The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 28(2), 270–284 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nail, P.R.: Toward an integration of some models and theories of social response. Psychol. Bull. 100(2), 190 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1972)Google Scholar
  22. Norman, J.: Two visual systems and two theories of perception: an attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behav. Brain Sci. 25(1), 73–96 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  24. Peck, J., Childers, T.: To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. J. Mark. 67(2), 35–48 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peck, J., Shu, S.: The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J. Consum. Res. 36, 434–447 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peck, J., Barger, V., Webb, A.: In search of a surrogate for touch: the effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. J. Consum. Res. 23(2), 189–196 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K.T.: The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 7, 84–107 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pine II, B.J., Victor, B.: Making mass customization work. Harvard Bus. Rev. 71(5), 108–117 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Reb, J., Connolly, T.: Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment Decis. Making 2(2), 107–114 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. Rokeby, D.: The construction of experience: Interface as content. In: Dodsworth Jr., C. (ed.) Digital Illusion: Entertaining the Future with High Technology. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  31. Schlosser, A.: Learning through virtual product experience: The role of imagery on true versus false memories. J. Consum. Res. 33(3), 377–383 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simonson, I., Nowlis, S.M.: The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. J. Consum. Res. 27(1), 49–68 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L.: Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 28(1), 50–66 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Hippel, E.: “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manage. Sci. 40(4), 429–439 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Werner, C.M., Brown, B.B., Damron, G.: Territorial marking in a game arcade. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41(6), 1094–1104 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wertenbroch, K., Skiera, B.: Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J. Mark. Res. 39(2), 228–241 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright, P.: Consumer choice strategies: simplifying vs. optimizing. J. Mark. Res. 12(1), 60–67 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations