University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences

(USC Thesis Other)

Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SAVORING FUTURE EXPERIENCES: ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS ON EVALUATIONS OF CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCES by Hae Eun Chun _________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) May 2009 Copyright 2009 Hae Eun Chun ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Overview of Chapters 5 CHAPTER 2: CONCEPT OF SAVORING 6 Key Dimensions of Savoring 6 Savoring and Time 9 Differentiating Savoring from Related Constructs 10 Prior Research on Savoring (the Past, the Present, and the Future) 21 CHAPTER 3: MODEL AND HYPOTHESES 31 Immediate and Retrospective Evaluations 31 Effects of Savoring the Future on Evaluations of the Experience 33 Amount of Time Available to Think about the Future Experience 37 on Savoring and Evaluations The Effect of Time Frame on Savoring and Evaluations 39 Amount of Information on Savoring and Evaluations 41 Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome of the Experience 43 CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION 51 Study 1: Savoring Halloween 51 Overview 51 Method 51 Measures 53 Results 53 Discussion 55 Study 2: The Effect of Time Frame on Savoring and Evaluations 56 Overview 56 Method 57 Measures 60 Results 61 Discussion 68 iii Study 3: The Amount of Information on Savoring and Evaluations 69 Overview 69 Method 69 Results 71 Discussion 75 Study 4: Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome of the Experience 76 Overview 76 Method 79 Measures 83 Results 85 Discussion 95 CHAPTER 5: GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 97 Contributions and Implications 98 Future Research 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 APPENDICES 118 Appendix 1 Prior Literature on Experienced and Retrospective 118 Evaluations Appendix 2-A Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the First Survey Wave 126 (3 Days prior to Halloween) Appendix 2-B Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the Second Survey Wave 128 (1 Day after Halloween) Appendix 2-C Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the Second Survey Wave 129 (2 Weeks after Halloween) Appendix 3-A Study 2: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First 130 Wave Appendix 3-B Study 2: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave 134 (2 Days after Participating in the Study) Appendix 4-A Study 3: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First 135 Wave Appendix 4-B Study 3: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave 139 (2 Days after Participating in the Study) Appendix 5-A Study 4: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First 140 Wave Appendix 5-B Study 4: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave 145 (2 Days after Participating in the Study) iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Anticipation for Positive and Negative Outcomes 18 Table 2 Differentiation of Savoring from Related Constructs 20 Table 3 Prior Research on Savoring 30 Table 4 Relationship between Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome 50 Table 5 Study 2: Correlations among Items that Measure Evaluations 63 and Savoring Table 6 Study 4: ANOVA results and Means (The Impact of Savoring, 87 Expectations, and Outcome on Dependent Measures) v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Savoring the Past, the Present, and the Future 9 Figure 2 Conceptual Model 36 Figure 3 Timeline in Study 1 52 Figure 4 Screen Shot of Video Game Used in Study 2 59 Figure 5 Study 2 Results: The Interaction between Amount of 66 Time and Time Frame on (a) Savoring the Future, (b) Immediate and (c) Retrospective Evaluations Figure 6 Study 3 Results: The Interaction between Amount of 73 Time and Amount of Information on (a) Savoring the Future, (b) Immediate and (c) Retrospective Evaluations Figure 7 Sequence of Manipulations in Study 4 83 Figure 8 Study 4 Results: Effect of Savoring and Expectations on 89 Immediate Evaluations Figure 9 Study 4 Results: Effect of Savoring and Expectations on 91 Retrospective Evaluations Figure 10 Prior Research on Antecedents to Immediate 122 Evaluations Figure 11 Prior Research on Antecedents to Retrospective 126 Evaluations vi ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the concept of savoring and defines it as a state of mindfulness in which consumers appreciate the pleasure they get at the very moment from an outcome or experience. Whereas past research has focused on savoring the present or the past, limited research has studied consumers savoring an experience to be consumed in the future. Focusing on the temporal dimension of the future, this dissertation contributes to the literature by (1) theoretically differentiating savoring from related constructs, (2) identifying factors that impact the extent to which consumers savor the future, and (3) examining savoring’s impact on consumers’ immediate and retrospective evaluations of the savored experience. It also (4) studies whether and how expectations about the valence of the future experience play a role in this process. Finally, this dissertation (5) examines whether savoring leads to more positive evaluations even when consumption experiences are worse than expected. Four empirical studies find that the more consumers savor a future consumption experience the more positively they evaluate it and the more positively they remember it. The results also show that having time available to think about the future is a necessary but not sufficient condition for savoring to occur. Consumers must also use the available time to enjoy thinking about the future. Having sufficient time but using that time to merely “wait” for the experience will not induce savoring and its effects (Study 2). Consumers must also have sufficient information regarding the future experience (Study 3) in order to savor the future. Savoring the future not vii only enhances current and retrospective evaluations of the savored experience, it also enhances expectations about the valence of the future experience (i.e., it will be better). Importantly though, savoring does not impact immediate and retrospective evaluations by affecting expectations themselves. Savoring is also found to positively affect evaluations even when the experience turns out to be not nearly as good and is thus negatively disconfirmed (Study 4). Combined, this research demonstrates that savoring has a significant and consistent effect on evaluations. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION As consumers, we often feel good about our past, present and future consumption experiences. Either by our own efforts, by situational stimulation, or even by natural flow of moments, we can further appreciate and dwell on these good feelings. We can attend to these feelings by being mindful about them. The state of mind described above captures the gist of the concept of savoring, which will be explored in this dissertation. Savoring is defined as a state of mindfulness in which consumers appreciate the pleasure they get at the very moment from an outcome or experience. Savoring is indeed an important concept to marketing since consumers can savor a broad range of experiences in various consumption domains. Consumers may savor the acquisition of a new product – either through purchase or gift receipt. Consumers may savor a service or consumption experience (e.g., massages, theme park rides, vacations, excursions, restaurants, sporting events, music, art, books). Good feelings derived from personal accomplishments that are enabled through product, service, or experience (e.g., a feeling of pride from losing weight by regularly going to the gym) can also be savored. It is notable that for each of the above entities, consumers can savor the products, services, or experiences that occur in the present, the past, or the future. Specifically, one can savor (1) the actual consumption of products, services, and experiences (called savoring the present), (2) the idea of their future consumption (called savoring the future), and/or (3) memories of consumption experiences after they have occurred (called savoring the past). 2 An emerging stream of research among positive psychologists has begun to spotlight the concept of savoring as a way of managing positive emotions and bringing joy to life (Bryant and Veroff 2007; Tugade and Fredrickson 2006; Langston 1994). The tendency to savor has been found to enhance immediate pleasure from an experience and overall life happiness and subjective well-being (Bryant 1989; Bryant 2003). However, the concept of savoring has received limited attention in consumer behavior and marketing, and the literature on savoring the future — even in psychology — is more limited. Despite the lack of research on savoring the future, numerous examples indicate that consumers might savor experiences that have not yet occurred. Consider the millions of Harry Potter fans around the world who pre-ordered the final Harry Potter book prior to its release. Many may have savored the idea of reading the book and enjoying the latest exploits of Harry and his friends. Last summer welcomed crowds of women happily awaiting the big screen version of Sex and the City. Each summer brings throngs of consumers looking forward to well-deserved summer vacations. Each of these examples hints at the prevalence and importance of anticipating future consumption experiences. These acts of looking forward to pleasant future experience may lead consumers to feel good now simply from the prospect of a positive future experience. I call this phenomenon savoring the future and define it as a state of mindfulness in which consumers appreciate the pleasure they experience right now from a future experience. Whereas anticipation, an antecedent to savoring the future, is more outcome-focused, savoring the future is a 3 process-oriented concept. That is, savoring captures the positive emotions and pleasure consumers experience at the very moment by virtue of anticipating the future. The limited research that has studied savoring the future has neither clearly conceptualized savoring nor measured this construct (Loewenstein 1987; Elster & Loewenstein 1992). For example, Loewenstein (1987) defines savoring as “positive utility derived from anticipation of future consumption” but infers versus measures the existence of savoring. That is, savoring is inferred from the fact that people choose to delay positive experiences (e.g., pleasurable deferral of a vacation or prolonged storage of a bottle of expensive champagne; Loewenstein 1987; Chew and Ho 1994; Lovallo and Kahneman 2000). The idea is that consumers choose to delay because they wish to savor the idea of their future consumption. Moreover, we know little about factors that impact savoring the future and its consumer outcomes. Thus, current understanding of savoring the future is very limited. As the above examples illustrate, the concept of savoring the future is potentially important. This focus has considerable relevance to consumer behavior since consumers are known to be future oriented (e.g., Taylor, Pham, Rivkin, and Armor, 1998; Gilbert and Wilson 2007). Savoring a future experience may not only impact consumers’ future decisions as past research suggests, but also impact their judgments of the consumption experience itself. That is, it may add positively to the actual consumption experience, causing the experience to be judged more favorably and remembered as more pleasurable than what might have been the case in the absence of savoring. Savoring the future also gains relevance by its fit with larger 4 streams of research in consumer behavior on anticipation, future-oriented behaviors, meta-cognition, emotions and decision making, consumer judgments, and consumer happiness. Since immediate and retrospective evaluations likely impact both one’s future choices and those of others through positive word-of-mouth, the impact of savoring the future on these outcomes could render the concept quite relevant to marketers. The savoring construct is also potentially relevant to practitioners, particularly if marketers can identify mechanisms to stimulate savoring. In my dissertation I identify and articulate key components of savoring the future. I also explore the impact of savoring a future consumption experience on consumers’ evaluations of that experience. I also advance a conceptual framework by investigating critical antecedents to and moderators of savoring. Across four empirical studies, my dissertation yields six main findings. I find that savoring (1) enhances consumers’ immediate and retrospective evaluations of consumption experiences. I also show that (2) while savoring a future experience is positively impacted by the amount of time available to think about the future, enhanced savoring and its positive effects occur only when consumers use this time to enjoy the moments of thinking about the future (vs. when they merely wait) (Study 2) and when one has sufficient information regarding the future experience (Study 3). If find that (3) savoring also enhances consumers’ expectations about the future experience (i.e., it will be more enjoyable) but (4) it impacts evaluations independent of expectations. Importantly, (5) savoring also has a positive effect on evaluations when the experience is better than expected (i.e., negative expectations are disconfirmed by a 5 good experience), when it is as good as expected (i.e., positive expectations are confirmed by a good experience), and even when it is worse than expected (i.e., positive expectations are disconfirmed by a bad experience). I also identify (6) some interesting boundary conditions that limit the effect of savoring on evaluations. Overview of Chapters The rest of the dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter two defines the concept of savoring and details the key properties of savoring. It also differentiates savoring from related constructs from a theoretical standpoint. It puts the current research in context by reviewing prior research on savoring across different temporal frames (i.e., savoring the present, the future, and the past). Chapter three presents the conceptual model that directs this research. This chapter uses prior literature and logical deductions to develop novel hypotheses related to antecedents (amount of time available to think about the experience, time frame), moderators (amount of information, expectations and outcome of the experience), and consequences (immediate and retrospective evaluations) of savoring the future. Chapter four presents four empirical studies designed to test the proposed hypotheses. This chapter describes the objectives of the study, the method and procedure, the results, and the discussion of each empirical study. Chapter five summarizes the findings and describes the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of this research. Future research directions are also discussed. 6 CHAPTER 2: THE CONCEPT OF SAVORING I define savoring as a state of mindfulness in which consumers appreciate the pleasure they experience at the very moment from an outcome or experience. This definition encapsulates issues related to both the state of savoring and the experience about which one savors. Thus, the key components of savoring are mindfulness and appreciation of the pleasure (positive emotions) that is being experienced now. Both the concept of savoring and the temporal perspective involved in this concept are clarified below. Key Dimensions of Savoring As the definition of savoring indicates, savoring involves a state of current pleasure. Pleasure is a broad concept that encompasses sensory pleasure from physical sensations, aesthetic pleasure from natural or human-made phenomena, and accomplishment pleasure from attaining something desirable (Bryant and Veroff 2007 for review). Indeed, people can experience pleasure from myriad sources - tasting a delicious French dish, looking at a beautiful landscape, reading a touching novel, or winning a competition. The term pleasure has a close connection with savoring since when one savors, one experiences pleasure. However, by experiencing pleasure, one does not necessarily savor. Savoring is thus different from mere pleasure; when one savors, one not only experiences pleasure, but also is mindful of and appreciates that pleasure in the here and now. Mindfulness is a state of being 7 attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present (Brown and Ryan 2003) 1 . If one is mindfully aware of one’s experience with no accompanying positive emotion, one is not savoring but merely attending to the course of the experience. Alternatively, if one looks toward a future experience which conjures up aversive emotions such as anxiety or fear, one dreads, not savors the experience. Thus, in order for savoring to arise, experiences must include some degree of mindfulness (Bryant and Veroff 2007) or awareness (meta-awareness; Schooler 2001; Schooler, Ariely, and Loewenstein 2003) of deriving pleasure from a positive experience. Consistent with the notion that mindfulness is a key component of savoring, Le Bel and Dube (2001) instructed consumers to either attend to the sensations they were experiencing or to perform a distraction task while they tasted a chocolate cake. Tasting chocolate can be pleasurable without savoring. They found that those who mindfully attended to the experience of eating cake felt greater pleasure from the consumption experience. Hence, while savoring has a component of pleasure, it involves conscious awareness of pleasure. While savoring has a component of mindfulness, it is not synonymous with mindfulness. Savoring involves a more restrictive focus on internal and external stimuli associated with pleasure (Bryant and Veroff 2007), whereas mindfulness emphasizes a total open, undivided observation of what is occurring both internally and externally. In other words, savoring involves being mindful of pleasure derived from a positive source; mindfulness need not have 1 Brown and Ryan (2003) define mindfulness as “an enhanced attention to and awareness of current experience or present reality.” Similarly, Nyanaponika (1972) calls mindfulness “the clear and single- minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us at the successive moments of perception.” 8 a pleasurable source or feelings of pleasure as the target of one’s attentiveness. For example, one may be mindful of communicating with a friend, the subtle emotional tone underlying what is said, and even the environment surrounding them without necessarily being focused on experiencing any pleasure. On the other hand, if one savors moments of communicating with a friend, one dwells on and appreciates pleasure from that encounter. Another key component of savoring involves appreciation of one’s current feelings of pleasure. Appreciation is defined as recognition of the value, significance or importance of a stimulus or event (Bertocci and Millard 1963; Storm and Storm 1987). Appreciation involves cognitive processes and may also involve emotional processes, whereby one construes, appraises, or perceives the stimulus or event as positive or meaningful (Emmons and McCullough 2003; Tucker 2007). When one appreciates something, one tends to feel a positive emotional connection to it (Adler and Fagley 2005). Appreciation often connotes a high regard for an object’s excellence or value (e.g., as when one appreciates fine wine). Research has also found that appreciation positively correlates with reported positive affect and happiness (Tucker 2007). However, appreciation is a distinct yet broader construct than savoring. Appreciation has a wider range of reference - the quality, value, or significance of an event, a person, a behavior, or an object as well as one’s emotions, whereas savoring involves appreciation of current pleasure. 9 In sum, when people savor a future experience, they are not merely thinking about and predicting how the experience will evolve, but rather, they are mindful of and appreciate the pleasure they feel now from looking into the future. Savoring and Time While savoring is a state that happens in the present – here and now- the experience one savors may have happened in the past, be occurring in the present, or may occur in the future (see Figure 1). Therefore, the savored experience can be real or imagined. Figure 1 Savoring the Past, the Present, and the Future It is important to note that when people savor through reminiscence, they do not just remember past experiences. Rather, they are mindful of and appreciate the pleasure they feel now from this reminiscence. They may have memory traces about some original savoring events and may relive them, but that is not always the point in 10 savoring the past (Bryant and Veroff 2007). The same logic applies to savoring the future. When people savor a future experience, they do not merely think about and predict how the experience will evolve, but rather, they are appreciating the pleasure they feel now from looking into the future. Although savoring is often used in the context of gustatory senses, as when one savors food, other entities can also be savored. One can savor a positive sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, or kinesthetic experience. One can savor a feeling (of joy, pride, gratitude, happiness, awe, etc.) or more complex cognitive associations (Bryant and Veroff 2007), outcomes, or accomplishments. I use the term “experiences” to capture each of these marketing entities. Differentiating Savoring from Related Constructs Given the limited work on savoring, it is important to differentiate it from potentially related constructs. Below, I differentiate savoring from (a) involvement, (b) imagery, (c) elaboration, (d) aesthetic response, (e) flow, (f) anticipation, and (g) evaluation (enjoyment). Table 2 summarizes how savoring is differentiated from related constructs on key dimensions of savoring. Appreciation Appreciation is defined as recognition of the value, significance or importance of a stimulus or event (Bertocci and Millard 1963; Storm and Storm 1987). Appreciation involves both cognitive and emotional processes, whereby one 11 construes, appraises, or perceives the stimulus or event as positive or meaningful (Emmons and McCullough 2003; Tucker 2007). Indeed, one feels a positive emotional connect to the experience, when one appreciates it (Adler and Fagley 2005). Appreciation is a key component of savoring since one who savors appreciates one’s current feelings of pleasure. Appreciation often connotes sufficient understanding to enjoy an object’s excellence or value, as when we appreciate fine wine. Research has found that appreciation is indeed positively related to reported positive affect and happiness (Tucker 2007). However, appreciation is different from savoring in that appreciation has a wider range of reference - the quality, value, or significance of an event, a person, a behavior, or an object as well as one’s emotions. In contrast, savoring involves a narrower focus - appreciation of current pleasure. Involvement Park and Mittal’s (1985) definition of involvement as “goal directed arousal” is widely accepted in the field. One can be involved in many different things – in an advertisement, a product category, a medium, or a decision. One can also be highly involved in what one savors. For example, one who savors a future vacation may be highly involved in a TV commercial that advertises the vacation destination or in the activity of reading review articles relevant to the vacation. However, savoring and involvement are distinct concepts. First, one who is involved is not necessarily mindful or appreciative of what one experiences. That is, involvement need not have a mindfulness or appreciation component unlike savoring. Second, involvement 12 reflects the extent of arousal or energy that the consumer experiences (neutral valence). However, savoring involves experiencing pleasure (positive valence), which can be experienced independent of the level of arousal or energy. Lastly, the reference of pleasure in savoring can be any of the three temporal orientations (past, present, or future); involvement references things in the present. Imagery MacInnis and Price (1987) define imagery 2 as a process (not a structure) by which sensory information is represented in working memory. Imagery processing involves concrete sensory representations of ideas, feelings, and memories and evoke as sensory experiences in working memory (MacInnis and Price 1987). Thus, by imagining, one represents the visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and/or olfactory properties of an object or an experience. Imagining and thus representing experiences in a sensory form seems to be related to savoring. In fact, imagery may aid savoring if generating elaborate and concrete imagery leads one to become more mindful of the pleasure brought about by positive experience. Imagery may create a web of associations in the context of a savored experience and thus facilitate the savoring experience. According to Bryant and Veroff (2007), complex and diverse (vs. simple or one-dimensional) properties of an object are more likely to provide an environment 2 Escalas (2004) contends that mental simulation can take on the form of imagery or discursive processing. Mental simulation is different from savoring in that mental simulation is a cognitive representation of an external reality (Escalas 2004; Taylor and Schneider 1989), whereas savoring is a cognitive experience or process that attends to emotions, not a cognitive representation per se. 13 conducive to savoring. However, not all imagery produces positive judgments perhaps due to increased negative cognitive elaborations (Kisielius and Sternthal 1984). Furthermore, one can savor an experience without necessarily engaging in imagery processing. For example, one may savor the present (e.g., acquiring a new product) without engaging in imagery. Likewise, one can prolong and dwell on excitement about the enjoyable upcoming event by the mere thought of having this experience in the future. Importantly, engaging in imagery also does not mean that one necessarily savors the experience. One can produce a chain of associations with imagery without mindfully attending to or appreciating pleasure linked to these associations. Lastly, one should also note that imagery is a form of elaboration (MacInnis and Price 1987). Thus, the factors that differentiate savoring from imagery also differentiate savoring from elaboration, a construct described next. Elaboration Elaboration is the process of deeply analyzing information in working memory (Caciopppo and Petty 1984; Petty and Cacioppo 1983; Hoyer and MacInnis, 2006). Elaboration has been shown to affect attitude formation and change, behavior, memory enhancement, and subjective comprehension (e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983; Craik and Lockhart 1972; Mick and Buhl 1992). One who savors may process thoughts about the past, present, or future experience extensively. In fact, savoring and elaboration can be closely related since savoring may manifest as an outcome of elaboration when one elaborates on the 14 details of an experience itself. However, they are distinct concepts for the following reasons. Elaboration is not necessarily part of savoring. For instance, one who savors afternoon tea does not necessarily engage in deeper thoughts about the experience. Instead, one mindfully appreciates pleasure brought about the tea time. To take another example, one can savor thoughts of an upcoming vacation and feel excited and good without necessarily thinking deeply about or elaborating on these thoughts. With respect to the object of elaboration, one can elaborate on any information that grabs one’s attention – advertisement, product, message, and the like, whereas when one savors, one put his or her mental energies mainly on positive emotions. Savoring also differs from elaboration in that savoring is self-focused, whereas one can elaborate on oneself, on one’s experiences, on other people, and on other entities. Finally, savoring has a focus on one’s emotions, whereas elaboration is a heavily cognitive term that has implications for thoughts. Aesthetic Response People experience positive feelings from the natural beauty of things around them or from the beauty formed by creative work. I call such feelings aesthetic responses. In marketing, consumers’ aesthetic responses to products and consumption experiences have gained growing awareness (e.g., Holbrook and Zirlin 1985; Veryzer 1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). Holbrook and Zirlin (1985) define an aesthetic response as a “deeply felt experience that is enjoyed purely for its own sake without regard for other more practical considerations.” 15 According to the above definition, experiencing emotions is a key aspect of aesthetic response as is also true of savoring. Indeed, on some occasions, savoring and aesthetic responses may seem hard to tease apart due to their frequent co-occurrence. However, savoring and aesthetic response are independent phenomena if the aesthetic response does not involve a mindful process. To elaborate, aesthetic responses can occur by simply reacting to the stimulus with emotions without being mindful of the pleasure. For example, consumers may respond with pleasure to the aesthetics of product design or the refined package of the product without being mindfully aware of or appreciating the pleasure. Savoring and aesthetic response are also different if savoring does not involve appreciation of aesthetic components. For instance, one may savor the moments of enjoying a magnificent scale of the landscape without necessarily having an aesthetic feel for it. Indeed, one can savor an experience for numerous reasons other than aesthetics. Flow Csikszentmihalyi (1975) introduced the concept of “flow” to explain what people truly find gratifying in their activities and life. Flow is a mental state of operation in which a person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing. The state is characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity (Csikszentmihalyi 1975). A flow experience occurs when activities people engage in are persistently but not overwhelming challenging to their 16 efficacy. When flow occurs, people lose themselves and a sense of time by giving total attention on the task at hand. Flow is akin to savoring in that flow is a mental state where one is absorbed in one’s inner states. Both are internally motivating and enjoyable experiences. In addition, there is a similarity in the processes that maintain savoring and flow such that any concern for ego needs, including mastery or proficiency, can interfere with both savoring and flow. However, there are key differences that distinguish these two concepts. Compared with a savoring experience, far less conscious attention is given to the flow experience (Bryant and Veroff 2007). Mindfulness is not a necessary condition for flow since when one is in a state of flow one is totally engrossed in the activity. Whereas savoring requires one to step outside the experience and mindfully appreciate pleasure evoked by the experience, flow involves absolute immersion in the experience. Indeed, Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) assert that intense self-awareness interrupts flow experiences. When they are in a state of flow, people are not aware of the pleasure they feel. Instead, awareness of pleasure in flow activities may only happen afterwards (Csikszentmihalyi 1999). Finally, flow occurs in relation to the current activity, whereas savoring can occur with respect to the past, present, and future activities. Anticipation I define anticipation as a process of mentally simulating the future. Savoring and anticipation are distinct constructs for the following reasons. First, anticipation 17 can involve both positive and negative events, whereas savoring concerns only positive events. When negative outcomes are involved, anticipation connotes forestalling the negativity or experiencing dread. To be more specific, when negative outcomes are controllable, anticipation prepares one for an action to “mitigate or prevent (i.e., forestalling) the negative outcomes” acting as a coping skill (Vaillant 2000). However, when negative outcomes are uncontrollable, people dread the future event (e.g., getting electric shocks, going to a dentist) (see Table 1). Second, whereas anticipation is future-oriented, one can savor the future, the present, and the past. Thus, savoring need not involve anticipation. Third, even when focus is restricted to anticipation of positive events, which is comparable to savoring a positive future experience, savoring is distinct from anticipation. In this context, anticipation is the act of looking forward to the pleasurable future. Even for the pleasurable future, anxiety may accompany anticipation if outcomes are highly uncontrollable (see Table 1). Savoring involves not only an act of looking forward to the future but also involves mindful appreciation of the good feelings one experiences now from such anticipation. Savoring, unlike anticipation, combines both cognition and emotional states. Therefore, in order to savor a future experience, anticipation is a necessary, yet insufficient, condition. Indeed, anticipation serves as an antecedent of savoring. By anticipating a good future, one can construct possibilities associated with positive feelings and one’s mindful appreciation of them. 18 Table 1 Anticipation for Positive and Negative Outcomes Positive outcome Negative outcome (approach goal) (avoidance goal) Controllable Positive anticipation (antecedent to savoring) Forestall Positive anticipation (antecedent to savoring) Uncontrollable *anxiety may come into play when uncontrollable Dread Evaluation (Enjoyment) Whereas pleasure is a feeling experienced during the process of savoring, enjoyable is a judgment or evaluation of the experience once it has occurred. Hence in this dissertation, pleasure and enjoyment differ in two critical respects. One (pleasure) is a feeling that references the self; the other (enjoyment) is an evaluation that references experience. Prior literature has distinguished feelings from evaluations. It was shown that feelings experienced in response to the ads have an impact on evaluations of the ads and the brand, indicating that they are distinct constructs (e.g., Holbrook and Batra 1986; Edell and Burke 1987; Burke and Edell 1989). Westbrook (1987) also found that positive and negative consumption affective response is related to judgments of satisfaction with the product. Second, the two constructs differ from a temporal perspective; pleasure is experienced from savoring the anticipated experience, whereas judgments of an experience as enjoyable follow enactment of the experience. 19 What is the relationship between the pleasure associated the experience to be consumed and the evaluation (enjoyment) of that experience once it has occurred? Because feelings are fleeting and they occur prior to the experience, they may not need to be factored into judgments of an experience. This may be particularly true when people are not mindful of the fact that they are feeling pleasure. However, being mindful and appreciative of the pleasure adds clarity, vividness, and meaningfulness to an experience (e.g., Brown and Ryan 2003; Emmons and McCullough 2003) and is further likely to create a memory trace of these positive feelings. Therefore, the pleasure that is mindfully appreciated during the process of savoring will have a positive impact on evaluations. 20 Table 2 Differentiation of Savoring from Related Constructs on Key Dimensions of Savoring Key Dimensions of Savoring Related Constructs to Savoring Pleasure Mindfulness Appreciation Real/Imagined Experience Savoring Involves pleasure Involves mindfulness Involves appreciation Real or imagined Pleasure N/A No need to involve mindfulness No need to involve appreciation. Real or Imagined Mindfulness No need to involve pleasure; One can be mindful of any incoming or internal stimuli. N/A No need to involve appreciation Real or Imagined Appreciation No need to involve pleasure; One can appreciate any objects, events, or people. Involves Mindfulness N/A Real or Imagined Involvement No need to involve pleasure; One can be involved in objects, advertisement, a product category, a medium, or a decision. No need to involve mindfulness. No need to involve appreciation Real Imagery No need to involve pleasure; Can involve negative emotions under negative imagery. No need to involve mindfulness. No need to involve appreciation Imagined Elaboration No need to involve pleasure; One can elaborate on objects, advertisement, product, message, etc.; Can involve negative emotions under the elaboration on negative information. No need to involve mindfulness No need to involve appreciation Real or Imagined Aesthetic Responses Involves pleasure No need to involve mindfulness Involves appreciation Real Flow Involves pleasure No need to involve mindfulness. Awareness can occur after (not during) the activity or experience No need to involve appreciation Real Anticipation No need to involve pleasure; Can involve negative emotions when anticipating negative experiences. No need to involve mindfulness No need to involve appreciation Real or Imagined Evaluation Involves a judgment of an experience as positive (e.g., enjoyable and fun) No need to involve mindfulness No need to involve appreciation Real or Imagined 21 Prior Research on Savoring (the Past, the Present and the Future) This dissertation focuses on savoring the future as opposed to savoring the present or the past. However, I review work on savoring other temporal frames so as to provide as complete a picture as possible on prior work on this construct. Savoring and Affect Regulation An emerging stream of studies on positive psychology has approached savoring from an affect regulation perspective (Tugade and Fredrickson 2006; Bryant 1989; Bryant 2003; Langston 1994). Thus, savoring is a counterpart of coping; it is a form of emotion regulation designed to maintain and extend positive emotional experiences (Tugade and Fredrickson 2006; Bryant 1989). This perspective resonates with the hedonic contingency model (Wegener and Petty 1994) which contends that when one feels good, one actively searches for activities that will maintain that state. According to this model, people behave strategically to select cognitions or behaviors that will keep them happy or make them happier due to learned associations of benefits with positive emotional experiences. Some research has indeed highlighted the impact of savoring on well-being. Correlational studies show that the tendency to savor predicts subjective well-being for school children, adolescents, college students, and the elderly (Bryant 1989). In a similar vein, savoring is shown to be positively related to favorable advantages in well-being, including self-reported optimism, internal locus of control, self-control behaviors, life satisfaction, and self-esteem. In contrast, it is negatively correlated 22 with hopelessness and depression (Bryant 2003). Furthermore, mindfulness, which is a key element of savoring, has been shown to be an effective intervention to reduce suffering and improve well-being (Hayer et al., 2004). Therefore, it appears that having a general tendency to savor experiences benefits individuals across the lifespan (Tugade and Fredrickson 2006). Beliefs about Savoring and Savoring Capacity To better understand the relationship between savoring and other well-being related variables, Bryant (1989) developed a scale assessing beliefs about one’s capacity to savor positive experiences, focusing on savoring the present (the Perceived Ability to Savor Positive Outcome scale; PASPO). Bryant (1989) found that people evaluate (a) their ability to avoid and cope with negative outcomes and (b) their ability to obtain and savor positive outcomes differently. In fact, beliefs about savoring emerged as a distinct form of perceived control over positive emotions and were independent of beliefs about coping, a form of perceived control over negative emotions. Bryant (2003) subsequently broadened this perspective to involve different temporal orientations. He developed three subscales of savoring beliefs: (a) anticipating upcoming positive events (e.g., feeling a joy from anticipation; enjoying pleasant events in the mind), (b) enjoying positive moments (e.g., easy to enjoy myself when I want to; knowing how to make the most of a good time), and (c) reminiscing about past positive experiences (e.g., enjoying reflecting on happy times; 23 easily rekindling joy from happy memories). SBI scores were validated by first measuring college students’ savoring beliefs and then later by assessing participants’ behaviors and affect in looking forward to, enjoying the experience of, and looking back on their Christmas vacation. Understanding beliefs about one’s capacity to savor has been extended to the role of culture. Looking at similarities and differences in savoring across culture, Lindberg (2004) found that both North American and Japanese people revealed comparable factor structures underlying their beliefs about their ability to savor positive events. However, East Asian respondents reported less capacity to derive joy by savoring compared to the North American respondents. Instead, they were more likely to endorse responses that dampen savoring. Although some studies on savoring, as seen above, have dealt with three temporal frames (i.e., the past, the present, and the future), most have centered on one of the three temporal frames. Below I separately and briefly review research relevant to each temporal frame. Savoring the Present Studies on savoring the present generally focus on (1) ways to promote savoring and (2) individual differences in savoring tendencies. One strategy to enhance savoring the present is to ask people to mindfully appreciate ordinary, everyday experiences. Seligman, Rashid, and Parks (2006) invited depressed people to take a few minutes once a day to savor or relish something that is usually rushed 24 through (e.g., eating a meal, taking a shower, finishing the workday, or walking to the subway). Afterwards, they were instructed to write down how different their experience (and emotions) was compared to time when they hurried through it. They found significant increases in happiness and reductions in depression among those instructed to practice savoring. In another study, students and community members were instructed to savor two pleasurable experiences per day, to reflect on each for several minutes, and to try to make the pleasure last as long and as intensely as possible (Schueller 2006; cited from Lyubomirsky 2008). This research also found increased happiness due to the savoring practice. A field experiment by Bryant and Veroff (2007) produced similar results. Students instructed to take a 20-minute walk once a day and notice what made it pleasurable (the “positive focus” group) reported experiencing greater happiness over the week than did those who focused on what made the walk negative (“negative focus” group) or those who simply went about their business as usual (control group). Indulging the senses (or luxuriating) has been proposed as another way of promoting savoring the present (Bryant and Veroff 2007; Lyubomirsky 2008). One laboratory experiment found that people who focused on the sensory experience of tasting chocolate reported greater pleasure than did those who were distracted during the consumption (Le Bel and Dube 2001). An act of paying attention to and taking delight in momentary sensory pleasures seems to boost the positive effect of savoring. Engaging in social behaviors has also been shown to enhance savoring the present. Langston (1994) found that expressive displays such as communicating the 25 outcome of an experience to others or celebrating an event with others generated positive affect and involvement after the positive event occurred. Another stream of research has examined individual differences in tendencies to savor positive experiences. By introducing dampening as an interesting counterpart of savoring, Wood, Heimpel, and Michela (2003) revealed that people with high self- esteem are likely to savor their positive moods, whereas those with low self-esteem are likely to dampen positive experiences. A study comparing introverts’, extraverts’, and neurotics’ tendencies to savor found that extraverts (vs. introverts) savored the experience more and thus experienced more positive affect (Billings and Revelle 2000). Neurotic people reported savoring less and thus experienced less positive affect. Studies on Savoring the Past Prior research on savoring the past has examined its short-term (positive affect; e.g., Hughston and Merriam 1982; Thornton and Brotchie 1987) and long-term benefits (i.e., life perspective or well-being; e.g., Coleman 1974; Fallot 1980; Lewis and Butler 1974). Research has also examined individual differences and gender differences in tendencies to savor the past (Bryant, Smart, and King 2005). A number of studies have examined the benefits to older people of reminiscing about past positive experiences. Research has shown that the elderly enjoy savoring the past not only because it generates pleasure for its own sake (Hughston and Merriam 1982; Thornton and Brotchie 1987) but because it (1) gives 26 perspective to life (Sedikides, Wildschut, and Baden 2004), (2) bolsters self-esteem (Lewis 1971; McMahon and Rhudick 1967), (3) influences perceptions of the quality of one’s own life (Chang 2004; Strack, Schwarz, and Gschneidinger 1985; Van Boven and Ashworth 2007), and (4) promotes well-being (Coleman 1974; Fallot 1980; Lewis and Butler 1974). Research has also found increased savoring when memories of the past are shared with other people. Mutual or social reminiscence produces positive emotions, such as joy, accomplishment, amusement, contentment, and pride and thereby serves as an effective emotion regulation strategy (Pasupathi and Carstensen, 2003). Similarly, Havighurst and Glasser (1972) found that the more time older adults spend reminiscing with one another the more positive affect they reported experiencing. Bryant et al. (2005) found that savoring the past can serve a constructive and adaptive function (i.e., coping strategy) that helps individuals gain self-insight and a new perspective toward present problems; in turn, making them feel good. Specifically Bryant et al. (2005) found that the more time people reported spending on savoring the past, the more they felt able to savor the present and the happier they felt. However, the benefits of savoring the past depended on how people went about recalling the past (i.e., different styles of reminiscence). More people reported using behavioral strategies (i.e., looking at memorabilia, photographs, and souvenirs) (61%) than cognitive imagery (39%) when looking back on pleasant memories. However, those who relied mainly on mental imagery had stronger savoring beliefs and had more frequent positive emotions than those who relied mainly on behavioral 27 strategies. Thus, encouraging people to re-create the details of a pleasant experience in one’s mind by use of vivid, cognitive imagery than putting them in similar surroundings by looking at memorabilia appears to help experience more intense savoring when recalling positive memories. Gender differences in savoring the past have also been observed (Bryant et al. 2005). More women (vs. men) reported reminiscing so as to gain insight and perspective, whereas more men (vs. women) reported reminiscing so as to escape the present. Women also had higher perceived savoring ability than did men (Bryant et al. 2005). Interestingly, those who savored the past to gain insight reported feeling more capable of savoring in general than those who savored the past to escape from the present. Hence, reminiscence, in some cases, may be maladaptive if savoring serves mainly as a substitute for living in the present and prevents people from coping with their present life (Bryant and Veroff 2007). Studies on Savoring the Future Compared to research on the other temporal frames (the present and the past), research on savoring the future is scant. Initial evidence of future-oriented savoring comes from the domain of consumption or decision timing. Loewenstein (1987) argues that we sometimes delay consumption in order to savor a positive future experience. Respondents in his study were asked to indicate how much they were willing to pay to receive a kiss from their favorite movie star - either immediately, in three hours, or in three days. The kiss was considered nearly twice as valuable if it 28 were to occur in three days rather than immediately. Respondents might have wanted to savor this pleasant experience by delaying the time of experience. In a related study, Chew and Ho (1994) suggest that consumers may delay scratching numbers off a lottery ticket to savor the good feelings derived from the thought of a possible win. In the context of gambling, Lovallo and Kahneman (2000) also found that the more attractive a gamble becomes, the more willing people are to delay the resolution of uncertainty so as to savor the possibility of high payoffs. The studies illustrated above all work contrary to the notion of positive discounting, a traditional utility model, which predicts that people will prefer to consume desired outcomes as soon as possible. However, it should be noted that these studies neither conceptualize nor measure the concept of savoring. Instead savoring is inferred by delayed decision timing. Research by Nowlis, Mandel, and McCabe (2004) is an exception. They directly examined the effect of delayed consumption on evaluations of enjoyment by considering anticipation and savoring. They treated anticipation and savoring as two items reflecting emotions that occur during the delayed consumption period. In my dissertation, however, I articulate that (1) savoring is not emotions per se, but rather a state in which people are mindfully attending to positive emotions and (2) anticipation is an antecedent to savoring. Research in this area calls for more rigor in conceptualization and measurement. Some literature speculates that people may have a harder time savoring the future than savoring the past or present (Bryant 2003) perhaps because the future is unknown. The past and the present, on the other hand, contain rich memories and 29 current experiences that are vivid and salient here and now. Nonetheless, Bryant and Veroff (2007) speculate that planning may help one savor the future. Planning a positive future experience may be pleasurable in its own right, and it may provide the perception of control over positive outcomes (e.g., Flaherty 2003; Bryant 1989). To sum, this chapter elaborated on the concept of savoring by (1) providing the definition, (2) discussing its key components, (3) differentiating it from potentially related constructs, and (4) reviewing prior literature on this concept. The chapter that follows develops the conceptual framework that guides this research and presents a set of hypotheses to be tested. 30 Table 3 Prior Research on Savoring The References of Savored Experience Savoring the Past Savoring the Present Savoring the Future Individual differences in savoring tendency Bryant (2003), Bryant and Veroff (2007) Cultural difference and savoring Lindberg (2004) Short-tem effect (positive affect) Ways to promote savoring Consumption/decision timing Hughston and Merriam (1982) Seligman, Rashid, and Parks (2006) Loewenstein (1987) Thornton and Brotchie (1987) Bryant and Veroff (2007) Chew and Ho (1994) Lyubomirsky (2008) Lavallo and Kahneman (2000) Le Bel and Dube (2001) Long-term effect (life perspectives, well-being, adaptive function) Sedikides, Wildschut, and Baden (2004) Social behaviors and savoring Delayed Consumption and Enjoyment Lewis (1971) Langston (1994) McMahon and Rhudick (1967) Nowlis, Mandel, and McCabe (2004) Coleman (1974) Fallot (1980) Individual differences in savoring tendency Lewis and Butler (1974) Chang (2004) Bryant (1989) Strack, Schwarz, and Gschneidinger (1985) Wood, Heimpel, and Michela (2003) Van Boven and Ashworth (2007) Billings and Revelle (2000) Bryant, Smart, and King (2005) Social behaviors and savoring Pasupathi and Carstensen (2003) Havighurst and Glasser (1972) Gender difference Bryant, Smart, and King (2005) 31 CHAPTER 3 MODEL AND HYPOTHESES In this chapter, hypotheses related to the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of savoring the future are developed based on the relevant literature. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual model that summarizes the hypotheses examined in this dissertation. Immediate and Retrospective Evaluations Evaluations are judgments about the goodness or badness of an experience. Evaluations of a consumption experience are important consumer outcomes since the degree to which an experience is judged and remembered as being positive is a key determinant of future consumption of that experience. Experiences judged and remembered as positive are likely to be chosen again and/or communicated to others via favorable word-of-mouth. Below I briefly review prior literature on the factors found to influence immediate and retrospective evaluations of experiences. The review below is restricted to evaluations of experiences. Studies on judgments of an object (e.g., an ad or a product) or people’s event memories (e.g., recall of certain facts) are not reviewed below. Evaluations can be distinguished based on when they occur. Hence, one can distinguish between (1) on-line evaluations, (2) immediate or experienced evaluations, (3) and retrospective evaluations. On-line evaluations are moment to moment 32 judgments of an experience. Hence, they are made while they are being experienced. Immediate or experienced evaluations are summary judgments of an experience that has just occurred. Hence, they are measured immediately following the completion of a consumption episode. Finally, retrospective evaluations refer to remembered evaluations of an experience. Hence, retrospective evaluations are measured following a delay. Although some literature calls experienced evaluations “retrospective evaluations” (e.g., Fredrickson and Kahneman 1993; Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, and Redelmeier 1993), I differentiate immediately experienced and delayed retrospective evaluations based on the time delay between the experience and evaluation. Delayed retrospective evaluations reflect memory following the passage of time. In this dissertation, I focus on the extent to which people report liking an experience immediately after it occurs (immediate evaluations) and the extent to which they remember liking the experience following a time delay (retrospective evaluations). 3 3 Figure 2 suggests that savoring impacts immediate and retrospective evaluations of a savored experience. Note that the focus here is on how positively one evaluates and remembers the experience to be, not how accurate one’s memory for the experience is. The accuracy of one’s memory for experiences can, in fact, be quite distorted (see Hirt, Lynn, Payne, Crackow, and McCrea 1999 for review). However, it is what people remember, not whether it is accurate or not that will affect word-of-mouth and future choices. 33 Effects of Savoring the Future on Evaluations of the Experience As Figure 10 shows, research to date has focused on various antecedents to immediate evaluations—specifically (a) moment-to-moment experiences (e.g., Fredrickson and Kahneman 1993; Redelmeier and Kahneman 1996; Kahneman et al. 1993), (b) affective expectations (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, and Wetzel 1989; Geers and Lassiter 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005; Wilson and Klaaren 1992) or affective misforecasts (MacInnis, Patrick, and Park 2005; Patrick, MacInnis, and Park 2007), (c) social factors that affect these judgments (Raghunathan and Corfman 2006; Thoman, Sansone, and Pasupathi 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007) and (d) story writing about experience (West, Huber, and Min 2004; see Appendix 1). On the other hand, research on retrospective evaluations has focused on (a) when expectations or implicit theories guide retrospective evaluations (e.g., Mitchelle, Thompson, Peterson, and Cronk 1997; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1997), (b) when immediate and retrospective evaluations converge (Novemsky and Ratner 2003; Nunes and Novemsky 2008), (c) when individual differences moderate retrospective evaluations (Christensen, Wood, and Barrett 2003), and (d) when postexperience behavior/information is taken as a proxy for memory (Cowley 2007; Braun-LaTour, LaTour, Pickrell, and Loftus 2004; See Figure 11 and Appendix 1). Adding to the literature illustrated above, a primary research question in this dissertation concerns the impact of savoring the future on consumers’ immediate and retrospective evaluations of a consumption experience. Some studies are suggestive of the positive impact of savoring on evaluations of an experience. Nelson and 34 Meyvis (2008) found that positive experiences were judged more favorably when the experiences were separated by time breaks. The authors speculate that one potential reason for this effect is that consumers may have savored the future during these breaks. Nowlis, Mandel, and McCabe (2004) investigated the impact of delayed consumption on evaluations more directly. They found that an externally imposed delay on a pleasurable consumption experience (e.g., chocolate tasting) led to more favorable evaluations of the experience. Additional support to the idea that savoring may impact evaluations comes from the research on savoring the present. Le Bel and Dube (2001) found that savoring the present – by focusing on the sensory experience of tasting chocolate - boosts one’s pleasure with the experience. Although this research focuses on taking delight in sensory experiences that take place in the present, savoring a future experience may also make the actual experience itself to be judged more enjoyable due to core properties of savoring. In line with these studies, I posit that the more one savors a pleasurable future experience the more positive one’s immediate evaluations will be. Several factors may explain this effect. First, mindfulness of the pleasure of thinking about the future may make current pleasure more salient and perhaps more intense. Mindfulness adds clarity and vividness to an experience, thereby contributing to happiness directly (Brown and Ryan 2003). By being mindful, one focuses one’s attention to the stimulus (in this case, pleasure), which heightens salience of positivity. Positivity may therefore serve as an attribute or benefit that enhances evaluations. 35 Second, appreciation of the currently felt pleasure may also influence evaluations. Appreciation is known to enhance positive mood and feelings of connection to what one experiences (Adler and Fagley 2005). When one appreciates the pleasure brought out by a future experience, this appreciation will increase positive emotional connection to the future experience. Appreciation also allows one to appraise or perceive the appreciated experience as positive or meaningful (Emmons and McCullough 2003). Therefore, one may find the experience to be more positive when the actual experience is realized. Furthermore, I predict that savoring the future also positively impacts retrospective evaluations of the experience. This prediction posits a long-term effect of savoring the future on affective evaluations. Within the advertising and memory domain, Braun-LaTour et al. (2004) speculate that consumers have a memory trace for the ad and a memory trace for their actual experience. When the past experience is recalled, the memory trace for the ad may infiltrate the memory of the experience. Analogously, by being mindful and appreciative of the pleasure of an anticipated experience, savoring is likely to create strong traces of the affect experienced when savoring, which in turn may infiltrate retrospective evaluations of the experience. Therefore, I hypothesize that: H1: The more consumers savor a pleasurable future experience, the more positively they will evaluate the experience both immediately and retrospectively. 36 Figure 2 Conceptual Model 37 Amount of Time Available to Think about the Future Experience on Savoring and Evaluations In order to savor a future experience, consumers must devote sufficient time to think about the future. Indeed, insights gained from research on consumption timing (Loewenstein 1987; Lovallo and Kahneman 2000) lend support to the significance of amount of time in savoring. When Loewenstein (1987) asked respondents to indicate how much they were willing to pay to kiss their favorite movie star, the kiss was considered nearly twice as valuable if it were to occur in three days rather than immediately. This study employed a hypothetical scenario that does not involve actual experience but nicely captured people’s intuitive theories about time and savoring. Presumably respondents would have required time to be able to savor this pleasant experience and thus were willing to pay a higher price to delay the time of the experience. Further, in the context of gambling, Lovallo and Kahneman (2000) found that the more attractive a gamble is, the more people are willing to delay the resolution of uncertainty (i.e., the timing of knowing the outcome) so as to savor the possibility of high payoffs. These findings suggest that if people are willing to delay the timing of an attractive experience the time span preceding an event may play a critical role in deriving pleasure even before the experience occurs. Taken together, the above findings provide indirect support for the role of time in generating savoring. More direct evidence is found in Nowlis et al. (2004). They demonstrated that delaying consumption for 30 minutes gave people a 38 chance to anticipate tasting food (i.e., chocolate) more than when there was no delay, and as a result, enjoyment of tasting food increased. Bryant and Veroff (2007) speculate that when one savors the present, the longer the experience lasts, the more people may become conscious of new facets of what they are experiencing which may trigger new associations and feelings. I posit that having a longer period to think about a future event will produce similar outcomes. Spending more time thinking about a future experience is likely to evoke a spectrum of associations and feelings, which may in turn make one more mindful of the self experiencing pleasure. Sufficient time may also allow for rich, elaborate imagery to be evoked, which was shown to help consumer anticipate future situations (Kolers 1983; Singer 1978; Singer and Antrobus 1972). Thus consumers are more likely to savor when more time is devoted to think about a future experience. Thus, I predict that: H2: The more time consumers spend thinking about a pleasurable future experience, the more they will savor it. H3: Savoring mediates the impact of the amount of time available to think about a future experience on immediate and retrospective evaluations. 39 The Effect of Time Frame on Savoring and Evaluations As suggested by Figure 1, I hypothesize that the amount of time consumers have to think about the future experience represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for savoring. Whether this time translates into savoring likely depends on what consumers do with that time—that is, whether they use this time as “time to enjoy” or “time to wait for” the future consumption experience. Research on time perception has been an important topic for researchers studying consumer services, particularly as it pertains to wait management strategies. That literature has focused on ways to mitigate negative aspects of waiting (e.g., check-out lines), either by minimizing the wait itself or by altering consumers’ perceptions of waiting time (e.g., Baker and Cameron 1996; Dube, Schmitt, and Leclerc 1991; Hui, Dube, and Chebat 1997; Hui and Tse 1996; Hui and Zhou 1996; Katz, Larson, and Larson 1991). Katz et al. (1991) found that distracting consumers (e.g., a newsboard or television) during a wait period reduces the negativity of the wait. Kellaris and Kent (1992) showed that playing music during a waiting period shortens time perceptions and thus increases consumers’ satisfaction while waiting. Other literature proposes that providing information about the waiting time (i.e., how much time has left before proceeding in the process) reduces uncertainty and stress associated with waiting (Carmon 1991; Durrande-Moreau 1999; Hui and Tse 1996; Hui and Zhou 1996; Kumar, Kalwani, and Dada 1997; Larson 1987). Whereas prior research has focused on strategies to mitigate the negative aspects of waiting, I focus on how the framing of time prior to a consumption 40 experience can impact savoring. Specifically, I examine whether a period framed as “time to enjoy” induces a mindset of enjoying the moment and thus savoring, more so than a period framed as “time to wait.” This focus presents a fundamentally different view on how to use the time available prior to the future experience – encouraging consumers to use this time to think about the experience itself instead of distracting them with some pleasant or neutral stimuli irrelevant to the focal experience. Thus, the “time to enjoy” framing encourages consumers to use the available resource (i.e., time) in a positive and productive manner. As noted earlier, spending time enjoying the period preceding an experience (vs. merely waiting) is more likely to create strong memory traces of this affect, which may be positively incorporated into consumers’ evaluations of the experience. Therefore, I predict that the effect of time available to think about a future experience will have a positive effect on savoring only when the time is framed as enjoying (vs. waiting) time. Furthermore, when consumers only have little time to think about a future experience, savoring is unlikely to occur. In that situation, time frame - either enjoying or waiting frame - would not have an effect on the extent of savoring and evaluations. H4: Having more time to think about a pleasurable future experience increases the extent to which consumers savor a future experience and evaluate the savored experience more positively only when the time is framed as enjoying time (vs. waiting time). 41 Amount of Information on Savoring and Evaluations I further predict that the amount of information about a future experience is a boundary condition for the positive effect of available time on savoring and thus on evaluations. Research on anticipatory self-referencing suggests that providing more rather than less information may increase savoring and evaluations of the experience. Krishnamurthy and Sujan (1999) argue that when consumers anticipate their future experience with the product, self-related knowledge structures are less contextually detailed and based on bottom-up processing. Therefore, providing detailed contextual information about a future episode may help consumers form a more complete conception of the self consuming the future experience. Krishnamurthy and Sujan (1999) found that providing detailed information enhances brand attitudes and intentions. In fact, self-referencing is related to savoring since one is more likely to savor one’s own experience, not those of other people. Prior work on imagery processing also contends that elaborated imagery processing, perhaps aided by more concrete information, can help consumers anticipate future situations (Kolers 1983; Singer 1978; Singer and Antrobus 1972). The provision of concrete information (which enhances vividness of images) is also found to impact the perceived likelihood of future events (Sherman, Cialdini, Schwartzman, and Reynolds 1985). Importantly, savoring a future experience based on more information is likely to create a strong memory trace about what one envisioned and savored. When less 42 information is provided, one’s image may either be impoverished or open-ended, making for multiple imagined outcomes. Both should result in weaker memory traces for a specific savored outcome. One may wonder whether recent work on the positive effect of uncertainty predicts the opposite. Wilson et al. (2005) found that people gain more happiness from uncertain (vs. certain) pleasurable events. When people had difficulty making sense of positive events after experiencing them (e.g., received an unexpected gift of a dollar coin attached to an index card but could not make sense of the text written on the card), their positive moods lasted longer compared to the conditions when they made sense of positive events more easily. Seemingly, having less (vs. more) information about a future experience appears akin to being uncertain about the experience. However, the uncertain context investigated by Wilson et al. (2005) differs from the one created by providing a varying amount of information; the former concerns uncertainty about the source of positive events (i.e., the reasons for experiencing positive events), whereas the latter concerns the specificity of the positive event itself (i.e., the level of detailed information). Moreover, their work examines uncertainty about positive events that have already occurred (i.e., the past), whereas the current context concerns positive events that will occur (i.e., the future). Therefore, their finding does not allow for the prediction that uncertain events driven by less information may lead to more savoring and more positive evaluations. Based on the reasoning made above, more (vs. less) information available in advance should lead to greater levels of savoring and more favorable evaluations of future experiences. Therefore, I predict that: 43 H5: The amount of time consumers have to think about a pleasurable future experience will have a greater impact on savoring a future experience and evaluations of the savored experience when consumers are given more (vs. less) information about the experience. Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome of the Experience As stated in H1-H5, savoring is predicted to have a positive impact on evaluations of anticipated consumption experiences once they occur. However, it is not clear as to whether and, if so, how expectations play a role in this process. In fact, by virtue of spending more time to think about the future experience savoring increase one’s expectations about how good the experience will be like (e.g., valence of the experience). Thus one may wonder whether the positive effect of savoring on evaluations is due to the fact that savoring increases expectations about the valence of the future experience. If so, is the positive effect of savoring on evaluations due to expectations? Since expectations have shown to positively impact evaluations (e.g., Oliver 1980; Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Tse and Wilton 1988) perhaps what affects evaluations of the experience is not be savoring per se, but rather the expectations of the experience. Extensive research has supported that people’s judgments of experiences are often based on their expectations and thus align their experiences to be consistent with what they expected to see or do (e.g., Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, and Wetzel 1989; Wilson and Klaaren 1992; Lee, Frederick, and Ariely 2006). Indeed expectations held prior to the experience were found to be a strong predictor 44 of post-experience evaluations (Wirtz et al. 2003; Klaaren, Hodges, and Wilson 1994). Research on the comparison process has also shown that by default people engage in a process of similarity testing (vs. dissimilarity testing) and thus evaluations are assimilated to the standard (e.g., Mussweiler 2003a, b; Trope and Liberman 1996). I predict that savoring may indeed increase expectations about how positive the experience will be (H6a). Prior work has shown that in prospect people tend to have a rosy view about the future experience and favor outcomes that are positive (e.g., Armor and Taylor 1998; O’Neal 1974; Ross and Newby-Clark 1988). This tendency to have positive expectations about the future may be further impacted by savoring and one’s prolonged focus on positive emotions. Savoring may also invite thoughts and imagery related to the future experience, which may in turn enhance one’s perceived likelihood of having a positive experience. Prior work has shown that imagining a future event made people perceive the event or outcome to be more likely to occur (Carroll 1978; Sherman, Zehner, Johnson, and Hirt 1983). Concrete information is also found to impact the perceived likelihood of future events (Sherman et al. 1985). Such results imply that savoring a future experience, especially based on concrete information, may lead consumers to have the enhanced likelihood perceptions of the experience as being more positive. Importantly, however, I also predict that savoring makes additional contributions to evaluations independent of these heightened expectations (H6b). The utility or benefits obtained by the properties of savoring, which focus more on the 45 pleasure felt in the prospect of the future experience, are likely to directly impact evaluations. Indeed, the process of mindfully dwelling on positive emotions is an enjoyable experience in itself, which creates a richly positive resource on its own. Moreover, through appreciation of good feelings, positive emotional connections (Adler and Fagley 2005) to the future experience is already made, which makes the experience more positive when it is realized. This additional utility created prior to the experience is therefore hypothesized to add to evaluations above and beyond what expectations may contribute. Based on the savoring model (vs. the expectation disconfirmation model) explained above, I propose that: H6: Although savoring will make consumers have more positive expectations about a future consumption experience (H6a), it will have an independent and positive effect on evaluations above and beyond the effect of expectations (H6b). It should be noted that the expectation disconfirmation (E-D) model makes predictions that differ from those proposed in H6b. That model proposes that expectations of product performance serve as anchors or reference points against which satisfaction judgments are made (Helson 1964; Oliver 1980). Disconfirmation occurs when there is a discrepancy, positive or negative, between prior expectations and actual performance of the product or experience (Oliver 1980; Yi 1992). 46 If savoring alters expectations, such that people who savor have more positive expectations of the experience than people who do not savor, savoring might actually reduce evaluations. That is, savoring may create expectations that are more positive than what the experience can actually deliver. According to E-D model, expectations would be disconfirmed (different from what was expected) and disconfirmed in a negative direction (e.g., worse than what was expected). The E-D model would further suggest that negatively disconfirmed expectations would have a negative, not a positive effect on evaluations. Another critical question related to savoring, expectations, and the E-D model concerns the role of the outcome of the experience in the effect of savoring on evaluations. Although H1-H5 suggest that savoring has a positive impact on one’s evaluation of positive experiences, whether savoring will still positively impact evaluations when the experience is not nearly as positive remains to be addressed. I predict that savoring will make even not-so-good experiences more favorable compared to conditions when consumers do not savor or savor less. Even when experience is not nearly as positive, sensory awareness heightened by mindfulness of the pleasure (Brown and Ryan 2003) prior to the experience is likely to shed a more positive light on the experience when it unfolds. In addition, through appreciation of positive emotions felt before the experience, consumers already developed positive emotional connections to the future experience (Adler and Fagley 2005). Therefore, savoring creates added benefits even to not-so-good experiences. 47 I further expect that savoring will have a positive impact on evaluations of less positive experiences irrespective of the level of initial expectations (positive vs. less positive expectations). Consider the following scenario. Suppose that you have been savoring the thought of having dinner at a fancy restaurant this coming weekend. However, right before your first visit to this place, you happened to read some good (vs. bad) reviews about the place in the newspaper. Reading good (bad) reviews would enhance (lower) expectations about the experience you will have in the restaurant. In cases when the actual experience turns out to be bad, your experience is likely to be worse than expected (i.e., negative expectation disconfirmation) or as bad as expected (i.e., negative expectation confirmation). The question is whether savoring will still positively impact evaluations in these cases. I predict that consumers who do vs. do not savor the future consumption experience will have more positive evaluations of the experience after it occurs regardless of whether their expectations are negatively disconfirmed (comparison between cells (3) and (7) in Table 4) or negatively confirmed (comparison between cells (4) and (8) in Table 4). This prediction runs contrary to prior literature on the E- D model that has shown that negatively disconfirmed experiences reduce satisfaction (e.g., Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, and Zeithaml 1993; Oliver 1980). Thus, the proposed positive role of savoring in this domain bears significant theoretical importance. Based on the theorizing explained above, I predict that: 48 H7: Consumers will have more favorable evaluations of negatively disconfirmed (H7a) and negatively confirmed (H7b) experiences when they savor compared to when they do not savor that future experience. As noted, H1-H5 pertain to the positive impact of savoring on evaluations of positive experiences. Extending these hypotheses, I further predict that the impact of savoring on evaluations will occur independent of the valence of expectations; that is, regardless of whether the expectations are positive (leading to positive expectation confirmation; cells (1) and (5) in Table 4) or negative (leading to positive expectation disconfirmation; cells (2) and (6) in Table 4). Prior research has shown that positive expectation disconfirmation or positive expectation confirmation impact evaluations (Swan and Trawick 1981; Oliver 1980), so the role of savoring will add to the literature if its positive effect on evaluations is indeed found. I hypothesize that: H8: Consumers will have more favorable evaluations of positively disconfirmed (H8a) and positively confirmed (H8b) experiences when they savor compared to when they do not savor that future experience. Notably, two alternative models make predictions that differ from H6-H8. First, as explained earlier, the E-D model may predict that savoring would lead to positive experiences being evaluated as less positive due to disconfirmed expectations. Furthermore, savoring would also make not-so-good experiences seem even worse 49 because expectations would have been raised beyond what the product or experience could deliver. Thus, experiences that are worse than expectations may be judged less favorably, which is opposite to the prediction made by the savoring account. Second, a combination of the savoring based account and the expectation disconfirmation perspective may exist. This mixed perspective would predict that the process through which savoring impacts evaluations depends on the valence of the experience. That is, savoring may heighten evaluations of the experience only when that experience is positive (and thus when expectations are likely to be positively confirmed or positively disconfirmed). When the experience is not nearly as positive, however, savoring may lower evaluations due to negative expectation disconfirmation. Notably, these predictions are in line with the affective expectation model (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, and Wetzel 1989). According to that model, the experience will be assimilated to the expectation when the difference between expectations and experience is not noticeable (possibly for a good outcome), whereas the experience will be contrasted away from expectations when difference between expectations and experience is noticeable (possibly for a bad outcome). Here, it is important to note that the savoring account goes beyond the affective assimilation model in that the former predicts (1) an independent effect of savoring on evaluations above and beyond what expectations contribute and (2) a positive effect of savoring even when experience is worse than expected. 50 Table 4 Relationship between Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome High Savoring Low Savoring Positive Experience Less Positive Experience Positive Experience Less Positive Experience Positive Expectations Positively Confirmed (1) Negatively Disconfirmed (3) Positively Confirmed (5) Negatively Disconfirmed (7) Less Positive Expectations Positively Disconfirmed (2) Negatively Confirmed (4) Positively Disconfirmed (6) Negatively Confirmed (8) This chapter outlined a conceptual model that identified antecedents (amount of time, time frame), consequences (immediate and retrospective evaluations), and moderators (amount of information, outcome of the experience, expectations about the valence of the experience) of savoring the future. Chapter 4 presents four empirical studies that test the hypotheses proposed in Chapter 3. 51 CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS Study 1: Savoring Halloween Overview One of the primary goals of this dissertation is to assess whether a positive relationship exists between savoring a future experience and evaluations of the experience once it occurs. Study 1 was conducted to provide preliminary insight into the validity of this hypothesis (H1). Study 1 also tests whether having more time to think about the future experience is positively related to savoring (H2) and whether savoring mediates the impact of time to think about the future experience on evaluations (H3). The context for the study concerns college students’ experiences with Halloween parties; consumption events for which college students have considerable enthusiasm. Method Participants, Design, and Procedures. Seventy two participants were recruited in classrooms and dormitories at USC to participate in an on-line study on their experiences with Halloween. Participants were contacted at three points in time: (a) three days prior to Halloween, (b) immediately following (one day after) Halloween, and (c) two weeks after Halloween. Evaluations were operationalized in terms of enjoyment of the experience measured both immediately after the experience (immediate evaluations) and after a substantial time delay (retrospective evaluations). 52 Retrospective evaluations enable an assessment of whether the effect of savoring is sustained beyond immediate evaluations. The first survey wave assessed whether and to what extent participants savored a future Halloween party they would attend. The second wave assessed immediate evaluations of the Halloween party. The third wave assessed retrospective evaluations of the party (see Figure 3). Participants were told that the survey would be conducted over the three points in time and that participants who complete all three surveys would be selected into a lottery whereby they were one of 3 people to win a $100 prize. Figure 3 Timeline in Study 1 53 Measures Amount of Time Available to Think about the Future Experience. Respondents were asked “how much time in minutes do you think you have spent thinking about the Halloween party so far?” Savoring. The extent to which respondents savored the future party was assessed with the following two items; “I savor the idea of enjoying the Halloween party” and “I relish the thought of enjoying the Halloween party” (1 = not at all; 9 = a great deal). The two items were averaged to yield a measure of savoring the future (Cronbach’s α = .76). Evaluations of the Experience. Participants used two nine-point scaled items to indicate the extent to which the Halloween party was fun and enjoyable (1 = not at all; 9 = a great deal). The two items were averaged to yield a measure of evaluations. These two items were collected both immediately after Halloween and 2-weeks later (Cronbach’s α’s = .94 and .96, respectively). Results As predicted by H1, a regression analysis showed that the more participants savored the Halloween party, the more positively they evaluated the experience (b = .31, t = 3.64, p < .01). Consistent with H2, the more time participants spent thinking about the Halloween party, the more they reported savoring the experience (b = .008, t = 3.26, p < .01). Savoring also mediated the effect of amount of time spent thinking about the Halloween party on immediate evaluations of the experience. Using the 54 Baron and Kenny (1986) approach to mediation, separate regression analyses showed that the amount of time spent thinking about the party had a significant effect on the extent of savoring (b = .008, t = 3.26, p < .01) and on immediate evaluations (b = .005, t = 2.56, p < .05). However, the effect of the amount of time spent thinking about the party on immediate evaluations (b = .003, t = 1.15, p > .10) became insignificant when controlling for the extent of savoring. The effect of savoring on immediate evaluations (b = .26, t = 2.85, p < .01) remained significant, supporting the meditating role of savoring on immediate evaluations (H3). The Sobel test also confirmed this mediation effect (z = 2.15, p < .01). The results for retrospective evaluations of the experience replicated the findings obtained for immediate evaluations. As predicted by H1, a regression analysis showed that the more participants savored the Halloween party, the more positively they evaluated the experience, even two weeks after the party (b = .45, t = 5.01, p < .001). In support of H3, savoring also mediated the effect of amount of time spent thinking about the Halloween party on retrospective evaluations. Using the same Baron and Kenny (1986) approach to mediation, separate regression analyses revealed that the amount of time spent thinking about the party had a significant effect on retrospective evaluations (b = .005, t = 2.32, p < .05). However, the effect of the amount of time spent thinking about the party on retrospective evaluations (b = .002, t = .82, p > .10) became insignificant when controlling for savoring. Since the effect of savoring on retrospective evaluations (b = .43, t = 4.35, p < .001) remained significant, the results support the meditating role of savoring on retrospective 55 evaluations (H3). The Sobel test also confirmed this mediation effect (z = 2.36, p < .02). Discussion Study 1 provides preliminary support for H1-H3. The more people savored a future Halloween party experience, the more favorably they evaluated the experience and the more favorably they remembered it as being two weeks following the party. As predicted, the more time respondents reported thinking about the Halloween party the more they savored the future party. Savoring mediated the relationship between the amount of time spent thinking about the future experience and evaluations of that experience. Despite these encouraging results Study 1 is limited in several ways. First, the survey methodology does not provide sufficient control over potential confounds. For example, since the nature of the party experience was idiosyncratic to each participant, there was no control over the nature of the experience itself. In addition, the amount of time spent thinking about the future experience was not manipulated, but was instead based on retrospective reports of time. Study 1 also measured savoring in terms of synonyms for the construct as opposed to the mindfulness and appreciation constructs that comprise it. Study 2 was designed to address these issues. 56 Study 2: The Effect of Time Frame on Savoring and Evaluations of the Experience Overview Study 2 used a controlled experimental setting to replicate the results of Study 1. Study 2 was also designed to introduce time frame as a critical antecedent to savoring. Study 2 thus manipulated both the amount of time available prior to a future experience (which was measured in Study 1) and how that time is framed (waiting vs. enjoying time) on savoring and its evaluative outcomes. Regarding the measure of savoring, Study 1 adopted a simple measure that does not reflect the core properties of savoring (mindfulness and appreciation of the pleasure). However, in a critical advance from Study 1, Study 2 developed a novel and reliable measure of savoring reflecting the definition of savoring and its constituent elements. The measure was adopted from the literature on mindfulness and appreciation and modified accordingly to reference the experience of pleasure or positive emotions. The future experience concerned actually playing an on-line video game, an experience which college students may find pleasurable, and hence one for which savoring could be manipulated. The video game (‘Extreme Pamplona’) involves a runner dressed as a Spanish matador who is chased by a bull. To avoid being hit by the bull, the player (matador) must avoid various obstacles. 57 Method Participants and Design. Seventy seven undergraduates participated in the experiment for class credit. A 2 (amount of time available to think about the future experience: short vs. long) x 2 (time frame: enjoying vs. waiting time) between- subjects design was utilized. Time frame was manipulated by giving participants different instructions regarding the time available prior to the video game experience. The amount of time available to think about the future experience was manipulated by providing participants with either 15 seconds or 1 minute and 45 seconds before playing the video game. Procedure. Upon entering the laboratory, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and were seated at a computer workstation. Participants were told that the researchers were interested in college students’ responses to and preferences for on-line video games. They were also told that they would play an on- line video game and were given brief description about the game (see Appendix 3-A). Figure 4 presents a screen shot of the video game used in the experiment. After receiving brief descriptions about the game, participants in the enjoying time frame were instructed to think about how much fun they will have and to attend to how they feel now before playing the video game. The instructions read: Before you play the video game, spend a minute imagining how much fun you’ll have playing the game this time. Also, focus on how good you feel, right now, about the thought of playing the game again. In other words, try to enjoy the thought of playing the game before it starts up! We encourage you to think about these thoughts now while this screen is on. 58 Those in the waiting time frame were instructed to wait before playing the video game. For this condition, the instructions read: Please wait until the screen proceeds to the next before playing the game. Half of the participants in each framing condition spent 15 seconds before they played the game (short time condition), whereas the remaining half spent 1 minute and 45 seconds (long time condition). After playing the video game, participants were asked to report their immediate evaluations of the experience. They then completed a set of questions designed to measure the extent to which they savored the thought of playing the video game. As such, savoring was measured retrospectively after playing the video game instead of being measured when savoring actually occurred or right after savoring ended. Measuring retrospective savoring after completing an actual experience may not reflect the accurate savoring due to potential memory bias. However, measuring savoring prior to the actual experience - as savoring is unfolding or right after savoring is done – may have sensitized participants to the notion of savoring regardless of whether they actually savored or not, which may have subsequently impacted their evaluations. Therefore, this study adopted a retrospective measure of savoring. I address this issue again in Study 4, where savoring was measured both during the savoring episode and after the actual experience. 59 Participants also indicated liking of and frequency of playing video games in general and gender. These measures had no impact on the results and are not discussed further. Participants received a follow-up email two days later that asked them to provide their evaluations of the video game. Sixty seven percent of respondents who participated in the first stage responded to the retrospective measures. Figure 4 Screen Shot of Video Game Used in Study 2 60 Measures Dependent Variables Savoring. The extent of savoring was assessed by a five-item measure that reflects mindfulness and appreciation of pleasure. The items were adopted from the literature on mindfulness (Baer, Smith, and Allen 2004; Brown and Ryan 2003) and appreciation (Adler and Fagley 2005) but were modified to reference the experience of pleasure. The items include “I fully appreciated the pleasure I was feeling by thinking about playing the video game,” “I tried to hang onto the good feelings that the thoughts of playing the video game gave me,” “I felt joy from the thought of playing the video game soon,” “I found myself looking forward to it in ways that gave me pleasure,” “I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking about how I would play the video game” (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree). The five items were averaged to yield a measure of savoring (Cronbach’s α = .91). Immediate Evaluations of the Experience. Participants used two nine-point scaled items to indicate the extent to which they evaluate their experience of playing the video game to be fun and enjoyable (1 = not at all; 9 = a great deal). They also used three nine-point scaled items to indicate the extent which they felt happy [delighted/excited] when they were playing the game (1 = not at all; 9 = a great deal). Since these five items resulted in one factor and were highly correlated (all p’s < .001), they were averaged to yield an immediate evaluation scale (Cronbach’s α = .94). 61 Retrospective Evaluations of the Experience. Participants indicated the extent to which they judged the experience of playing the video game to be fun and enjoyable (1 = not at all; 9 = a great deal). The two items were averaged to yield an retrospective evaluation scale (Cronbach’s α =.97). Results Empirical Differentiation between Savoring and Evaluations. Chapter 2 noted that savoring is conceptually different from a judgment or evaluation of one’s experience. Savoring is a process through which one is mindful and appreciative of the pleasure one experiences now from anticipating the experience, whereas evaluations of an experience as enjoyable follow enactment of that experience. Importantly, in this dissertation, savoring is conceptualized as a mediating factor that impacts evaluations, which serve as an outcome variable. Therefore, it is important to assess whether the conceptualized distinction between savoring and evaluations (enjoyment) is indeed found empirically. First, Table 5 includes the correlations among items that measure evaluations (5 items) and savoring (5 items). As shown, inter-item correlations are much higher among items that belong to each construct than correlations across constructs although all inter-item correlations are significant (p < .05). Second, principal components analysis (CPA) was initially performed to determine the number of latent factors underlying the items. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot revealed a two-factor solution reflecting savoring and 62 evaluations as distinct constructs (eigenvalues = 4.08 and 1.56 respectively; the two factors accounted for 80.59% of the total variance). Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted and two measurement models were compared. Specifically, in the first model, the savoring and evaluations constructs (as two factors) were allowed to freely correlate (r = .28, χ 2 (34) = 98.06). In the second model, the two factors were forced to be perfectly correlated (χ 2 (44) = 123.35). The change in χ 2 revealed that the freely correlated model was significantly better in model fit than the perfectly correlated model (Δχ 2 (1) = 10.45, p < .005). This result shows that savoring and evaluations are related but distinct constructs. Other goodness of fit statistics of the freely correlated model suggest good model fit (x 2 /df = 2.88, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, IFI = .93, Standardized RMR = .068). Third, it is hypothesized that savoring mediates the effect of the manipulated variables (i.e., time available, framing of time) on evaluations. However, it would bear theoretical importance to test whether bi-directional mediation is found between savoring and evaluations. That is, can evaluations also mediate the effect of the manipulated variables on savoring? If the two constructs were distinct and the process is not bi-directional, backward mediation should not be observed. Indeed, the Sobel test revealed that evaluations did not mediate the effect of the manipulated variables on savoring (z = 1.83, p = .07 for immediate evaluations and z = 1.26, p = .21 for retrospective evaluations). The above analyses confirmed that savoring and evaluations are indeed distinct constructs. 63 Table 5 Study 2: Correlations among Items that Measure Evaluations and Savoring Evaluations Savoring Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Enjoyable 1 .894*** .809*** .726*** .768*** .291* .304** .384** .298** .264* 2. Fun .894*** 1 .757*** .618*** .690*** .237* .261* .309** .223* .211 3. Excited 809*** .757*** 1 .660*** .751*** .329** .350** .428*** .285* .331** 4. Happy .726*** .618*** .660*** 1 .851*** .203 .258* .364** .294** .258* Evaluations 5. Delighted .768*** .690*** .751*** .851*** 1 .308** .317** .405*** .394*** .362** 6. I fully appreciated the pleasure I was feeling by thinking about playing the video game. .291* .237* .329** .203 .308** 1 .720*** .689*** .568*** .626*** 7. I was trying to hang onto the good feelings that the thoughts of playing the video game gave me. .304** .261* .350** .258* .317** .720*** 1 .699*** .661*** .797*** 8. I felt joy from playing the video game soon. .384** .309** .428*** .364** .405*** .689*** .699*** 1 .561*** .663*** 9. I found myself looking forward to it in ways that gave me pleasure. .298** .233* .285* .294** .394*** .568*** .661*** .561*** 1 .828*** Savoring 10. I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking about how I would play the video game. .264* .211 .331** .258* .362** .626*** .797*** .663*** .828*** 1 *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 64 Impact on Savoring. A 2 (amount of time available to think about the future experience) x 2 (time frame: enjoy vs. wait) ANOVA on savoring yielded only a significant interaction (F(1,73) = 11.57, p < .01). As shown in Figure 5a, when participants were given more time to think about the future experience, they reported savoring more when the time was framed as enjoying time vs. waiting time (M enjoying = 6.38 vs. M waiting = 4.51, t(35) = 2.74, p <.02). However, when participants were given a shorter time to think about the experience, there was no difference between the waiting vs. enjoying time conditions on the amount of savoring (M enjoying = 4.47 vs. M waiting = 5.31; t(38) = 1.51, p = ns). These results support H4. Impact on Evaluations of the Experience. The results for immediate evaluations, which were measured right after playing the on-line video game, also conformed to the predictions. A 2 x 2 ANOVA on immediate evaluations yielded only a significant interaction between amount of time and time framing (F(1,73) = 4.45, p < .05; see Figure 5b). Consumers who were given a longer time to think about the video game experience reported more positive evaluations of the game when the time was framed as enjoying time vs. waiting time (M enjoying = 7.90 vs. M waiting = 6.76; t(35) = 3.3, p < .01). Those who were given a shorter time to think about the video game did not differ in evaluations regardless of the time frame condition they were in (M enjoying = 7.02 vs. M waiting = 7.09; t(38) = .19, p = ns). In sum, evaluations of the experience were significantly higher in the enjoying time/long time condition than in any of the remaining conditions (all p’s = ns). 65 The results on retrospective evaluations, which were measured two days after playing the on-line video game, showed patterns similar to the results found for immediate evaluations reported above (see Figure 5c). However, perhaps due to the reduction in sample size and thus less power during the second time period when retrospective evaluations were measured (a 67% response rate), the effects were weaker. A 2 x 2 ANOVA on retrospective evaluations revealed an interaction between the amount of time and time frame that did not reach statistical significance (F(1,48) = 2.14, p = .15). Individual comparisons showed that even 2-3 days after the experience, participants who were given a longer time to think about the experience remembered the experience as being more positive under the enjoying time frame than under the waiting time frame (M enjoying = 7.90 vs. M waiting = 6.65; t(22) = 1.86, p = .07). There were no differences in retrospective evaluations between the two time frame conditions when respondents were given a shorter time to think about the experience (M enjoying = 6.61 vs. M waiting = 6.64; t(26) = .07, p = ns). Thus, replicating the results for immediate evaluations, retrospective evaluations were higher in the enjoying time/long time condition than in any of the remaining conditions (all p’s = ns). 66 Figure 5 Study 2 Results: The Interaction between Amount of Time and Time Frame on (a) Savoring the Future, (b) Immediate and (c) Retrospective Evaluations (5a) Effect on Savoring the Future (5b) Effect on Immediate Evaluations (5c) Effect on Retrospective Evaluations 67 Mediation Analyses. Regression analyses showed that measured savoring increased both immediate (b = .27, t = 3.70, p < .001) and retrospective evaluations (b = .29, t = 2.47, p < .02), replicating H1. In order to understand the role of savoring more clearly, meditation analyses were conducted separately for immediate and retrospective evaluations using the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach to mediation. For immediate evaluations, savoring was first regressed on amount of time, time frame, and their interaction as the independent variables. The interaction between amount of time and time frame had a significant effect on savoring (b = 2.71, t = 3.40, p < .01). Second, when immediate evaluation was regressed on the same variables, the interaction between amount of time and time frame was significant (b = 1.22, t = 2.11, p < .04). However, the interaction became insignificant (b = .61, t = 1.03, p > .10) when controlling for savoring. The effect of savoring on immediate evaluations (b = .22, t = 2.76, p < .01) remained significant, supporting the meditating role of savoring on immediate evaluations. The results of the Sobel test also showed that savoring indeed mediated the effect of the interaction between amount of time and time frame on immediate evaluations (z = 2.50, p < .02). For retrospective evaluations, the Sobel test also showed that savoring mediated the effect of the interaction between amount of time and time frame on retrospective evaluations (z = 1.20, p < .05). Combined, these results support H2 and H3. 68 Discussion Study 2 replicated H1-H3 in a controlled environment, using a multi-item measure of savoring and a controlled consumption experience. Study 2 also supported H4, showing that more time available impacts savoring and evaluations of the consumption experience only when that time is framed as enjoying time as opposed to waiting time. One may wonder whether having the effect of the time frame obtained in this study may due to a demand effect driven by the instruction provided in the enjoying time frame condition. However, if this claim were true, a main effect of time frame would have been observed. The fact that only an interaction effect between available time and time frame, not a main effect of time frame, was found makes this concern less likely. This result indicates that it is not merely the enjoying time frame that positively impacts savoring and evaluations, but sufficient time needs to accompany the enjoying time frame to have positive impacts. The findings of this study suggest that in order to maximize one’s evaluations of and memory for a consumption experience, consumers need to fully utilize the time between now and the future experience to savor the future experience. 69 Study 3: The Amount of Information on Savoring the Future and Evaluations of the Consumption Experience Overview Study 3 expands on Study 2 by examining the amount of available information as a boundary factor impacting savoring the future and its effects on evaluations of the consumption experience. This study tests whether more (vs. less) contextual information is needed to help consumers savor a future experience more and thus evaluate the experience as more positive. This is particularly true when the time span between the anticipated and actual experience is longer (H5). As discussed in Chapter 3, this prediction builds on research on anticipatory self-referencing (Mrishnamurthy and Sujan 1999) and imagery processing (Kolers 1983; Singer 1978; Singer and Antrobus 1972), which demonstrated that more detailed contextual information about a future consumption episode helps consumers anticipate future situations involving the self. Study 3 examines this issue while framing time as enjoying time in all conditions. Method Participants and Design. One hundred thirteen undergraduates participated in an experiment in exchange for a $6.00 payment. A 2 (amount of time available to think about the future experience: short vs. long) x 2 (amount of information: less vs. more information) between-subjects design was implemented. The amount of 70 information was manipulated by giving consumers more or less information about the future experience. As in Study 2, the amount of time available to think about the future experience was manipulated by varying the amount of time between the announcement of the game and respondents’ playing the game (15 seconds vs. 1 minute and 45 seconds). Procedure. Upon entering the laboratory, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and were seated at a computer workstation. The video game used in Study 2 was again used as the experience in Study 3. Participants were told that the researchers were interested in knowing college students’ responses to an on-line video game. The information participants received about the video game depended upon the condition they were in. For participants in the less information condition, the following information was provided: The game you will play is an “action” game. Those in the more information condition were given additional information about the video game as well as the information presented to the less information condition. The information provided in this condition was identical to that given to participants in all conditions in Study 2. The information is as follows: The game you will play is an “action” game. You will be chased by a bull, and if you don’t run fast enough, you will be hit by the bull. So run away from the bull while jumping obstacles in the fast paced game. 71 After receiving the information about the video game, all participants were instructed to think about how much fun they would have playing the game. The remaining instructions were identical to those used in Study 2. After playing the video game, judgments of the extent to which the game was evaluated as enjoyable and the extent to which they savored the pleasure they anticipated they would experience from playing the game were measured. Two days later, participants indicated via email their evaluation of the video game. The measures were identical to those used in Study 2. All measures were reliable (Cronbach’s α = .91 for savoring; .95 and .96 for immediate 4 and retrospective evaluations respectively). Fifty four percent of respondents who participated in the first phase participated in the retrospective phase. Results Impact on Savoring. A 2 (amount of time available to think about the future experience) x 2 (amount of information) ANOVA revealed only the predicted interaction between amount of time and amount of information (F(1,109) = 8.44, p < .01; see Figure 6a). As expected, when participants had a longer time to think about the experience, savoring was greatest when consumers had more (vs. less) information about the video game experience (M more-info = 6.08 vs. M less-info = 5.02; t(56) = 2.80, p < .01). In contrast, when participants were given a shorter time to think 4 For the measure of immediate evaluations, the 2-item measure of the extent to which the experience was judged to be positive and the 3-item measure of how they felt during the experience (positive emotions) resulted in one factor and were highly correlated (all p’s < .001) as in Study 2. Therefore, the 5 items were averaged to yield the measure of immediate evaluations. 72 about the experience, there was no difference in the extent of savoring between the conditions with varying amount of information (M more-info = 5.07 vs. M less-info = 5.76; t(53) = 1.46, p = ns). These results support H5. The results also indicated that if little information was available, spending a longer time thinking about the future experience did not increase savoring compared to spending a shorter time (M longer-time = 5.02 vs. M shorter-time = 5.76; t(53) = 1.75, p = .10). In contrast, when more information was available, spending a longer (vs. shorter) time increased savoring (M longer-time = 6.08vs. M shorter-time = 5.07, t(56) = 2.36, p < .03). Impact on Evaluations. A 2 (amount of time available to think about the future experience) x 2 (amount of information) ANOVA on immediate evaluations yielded only the predicted interaction between amount of time and amount of information (F(1,109) = 4.20, p < .05) (see Figure 6b). As hypothesized, giving more time to think about the future experience increased immediate evaluations of the experience more when more (vs. less) information was available (M more-info = 7.17 vs. M less-info = 6.18, t (56) = 3.00, p < .01). The amount of information provided had no impact on immediate evaluations when the time frame was short (M more-info = 6.18 vs. M less-info = 6.51, t(53) = .58, p = ns). For retrospective evaluations, a marginally significant interaction between amount of time and amount of information was observed (F(1,57) = 3.56, p = .06) (see Figure 6c). Directional significance for the interaction is likely due to the reduction in sample size and thus less power at the second stage (a 54% response rate). As before, when the time duration was longer, consumers had more positive 73 evaluations of the consumption experience when more vs. less information about the game was provided (M more-info = 7.46 vs. M less-info = 6.57; t(26) = 2.08, p <.05). The amount of information provided had no impact on immediate evaluations when the time frame was short (M more-info = 5.71 vs. M less-info = 6.56, t(31) = 1.11, p = ns). Figure 6 Study 3 Results: The Interaction between Amount of Time and Amount of Information on (a) Savoring the Future, (b) Immediate and (c) Retrospective Evaluations (6a) Effect on Savoring the Future 74 Figure 6, Continued (6b) Effect on Immediate Evaluations (6c) Effect on Retrospective Evaluations Mediation Analyses. Regression analyses further replicated H1-H3. Savoring had a positive effect on both immediate (b = .48, t = 5.29, p < .001) and retrospective evaluations (b = .46, t = 3.27, p < .01). In order to understand the role of savoring more clearly, a meditational analysis was conducted separately for immediate and retrospective evaluations. For immediate evaluations, savoring was first regressed on amount of time, amount of information, and their interaction as the independent variables. The interaction between amount of time and amount of information had a significant effect on savoring (b = 1.75, t = 2.90, p < .01). Second, when immediate evaluation was regressed on the same variables, the interaction between amount of time and amount of information was significant (b = 1.33, t = 2.05, p < .05). However, the 75 interaction became insignificant (b = .55, t = .89, p > .10) when controlling for savoring. The effect of savoring on immediate evaluations (b = .44, t = 4.73, p < .001) remained significant, supporting the meditating role of savoring on immediate evaluations. For retrospective evaluations, the interaction between amount of time and amount of information had a marginally significant effect on retrospective evaluations (b = 1.75, t = 1.89, p = .06) perhaps due to a smaller sample size. However, the interaction became insignificant (b = 1.09, t = 1.16, p > .10) when controlling for savoring. The effect of savoring on retrospective evaluations (b = .36, t = 2.36, p < .03) remained significant, indicating the meditating role of savoring on retrospective evaluations. The Sobel test also confirmed the mediating role of savoring on the effect of the interaction between amount of time and amount of information on both immediate evaluations (z = 2.54, p < .01) and retrospective evaluations (z = 2.17, p = .03). Discussion The results of study 3 replicated H1- H3 and also lent support to H5. The amount of information serves as a boundary condition for savoring the future. Savoring is induced and it impacts consumers’ evaluations of their experiences only when they are given more (vs. less) information about the future consumption experience. As predicted, getting a feel for what kinds of experiences they will experience in advance enhances savoring and evaluations of the experience. 76 The results of Studies 1-3 support the hypothesized predictions and indicate that having more time to think about the future increases savoring and thus positively impacts evaluations if the available time is perceived as the opportunity to enjoy the moments and if sufficient information is available. However, spending more time to savor may increase one’s expectations about how good the future experience will be. Since expectations were not measured in Studies 1-3, the relationship between savoring and expectations remains unanswered. Moreover, Studies 1-3 demonstrated the positive impact of savoring on evaluations in the domain of experiences that turn out to be relatively good. Hence it is still unknown whether savoring contributes to evaluations in cases where the experience is not that good. These issues are investigated in Study 4. Study 4: Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome of the Experience Overview Study 4 tests the relationship between savoring and expectations directly by examining whether savoring will heighten expectations about a future consumption experience (H6a) and whether savoring still has an independent effect on evaluations above and beyond the effect of expectations (H6b). Study 4 also extends the context under which a positive impact of savoring is demonstrated to involve less enjoyable experiences as well. Specifically, I predict that negatively disconfirmed (H7a) or negatively confirmed (H7b) experiences will be 77 judged more favorably when consumers do versus do not engage in savoring. Particularly, whether savoring will make experiences be judged to be better even when experiences are worse than expected (H7a) serves as a critical issue. Furthermore, savoring is predicted to positively impact evaluations of positive experiences independent of expectations- that is, positively disconfirmed (H8a) or positively confirmed (H8b) experiences will be evaluated as more positive when consumers do versus do not engage in savoring. As explained in Chapter 3, my predictions differ from those posited by the expectation-disconfirmation (E-D). A possible prediction the E-D model may make is that to the extent that the experiences make heightened expectations disconfirmed, more savoring would make good (bad) experiences be evaluated as less good (worse). The fact that the results of Studies 1-3 showed positive effects of savoring on evaluations makes the expectation disconfirmation perspective seem less viable. Nevertheless, Study 4 aims to examine the role of expectations in the process and further to rule out expectations as a factor fully mediating the impact of savoring on evaluations. In order to achieve these goals, Study 4 manipulates (1) savoring, (2) expectations for a highly positive vs. less positive experience, and (3) outcomes that are actually highly positive vs. less positive (see Table 4). The joint manipulations of valence of one’s expectations and the valence of the outcome of the experience creates four conditions: positive disconfirmation (as when outcomes are more positive than expected), positive confirmation (as when outcomes are as positive as expected), 78 negative disconfirmation (as when outcomes are less positive than expected) and negative confirmation (as when outcomes are as low in positivity as expected). Importantly, expectations are manipulated after high versus low savoring is manipulated in order to create more realistic consumption contexts. Manipulating expectations first followed by savoring manipulation would not capture a realistic picture since consumers are hardly likely to savor the experiences they do not have positive expectations about. However, ample consumption situations exist where one’s savoring experience is followed by external information that creates either positive or less positive expectations. That is, one’s savoring experience can be followed by information furthering positive expectations (e.g., your friend tells you about the good experience he/she had or you read positive reviews) or information creating less positive expectations (e.g., your friend tells you about an unpleasant experience he/she had or you read negative reviews). Thus, manipulating savoring first, followed by a manipulation of expectations, allows for the independent effect of savoring on confirmed or disconfirmed experiences to be examined. Studies 1-3 measured the extent of savoring after the actual experience took place. This was done in order not to sensitize participants to the notion of savoring prior to the experience, which by itself may have impacted evaluations. However, in this study, savoring was measured right after the savoring period but before the actual experience to better capture the process. Savoring was also measured again after a substantial time (2 days after the experience). This retrospective savoring measure aimed to examine whether consumers remember the experience of savoring as well as 79 their evaluation of the experience itself. This additional retrospective savoring measure is similar to the measures used in the previous studies. Thus it allows me to show the equivalence between a retrospective savoring measure collected after the experience and the one assessed before the experience. It also allows me to show parallels between the patterns found for savoring across studies. Method Participants and Design. One hundred and thirty eight undergraduates participated in an experiment for course credit. The study employed 2 (savoring: high vs. low) x 2 (outcome of the experience: positive vs. less positive) x 2 (expectations: positive vs. less positive) between-subjects design. The latter two conditions thus manipulated whether the experience was positive as expected, negative as expected, more positive than expected, or more negative than expected. Manipulation of the Outcome of the Experience. In order to manipulate the valence of the outcome of the experience, a pretest was conducted to select two similar video games in the same genre with varying degrees of quality and graphics (high vs. low quality games). The two video games did not vary in the core content of the game (e.g., play rules, scoring system) in order to minimize any potential confounding factors. Manipulation of Savoring. Savoring was manipulated by varying both the amount of information about the future experience and the framing of the time given prior to the experience. This manipulation was designed to maximize (vs. minimize) 80 savoring induction by combining the two manipulations (time frame and amount of information about the future experience) that were shown to increase savoring and its effect on evaluations in Studies 2 and 3. Specifically, respondents in the high savoring condition received (1) an instruction that framed the time available before the experience as ‘enjoying time’ (i.e., think about how much fun they will have while playing the video game) as in Study 2 and (2) more information about the video game experience as in Study 3. Those in the low savoring condition received (1) an instruction that framed the time available before the experience as ‘waiting time’ and (2) less information about the video game experience. The information given to the high savoring conditions (i.e., more information about the video game experience) is as follows. Have you ever played any indoor sports games such as table tennis, billiards, and foosball with your friends? The game you will play is an on-line version of the popular arcade air hockey game. In this game, you’ll play against a computer player. You must use the paddles to smack the puck into the opposite side of the table to score points. Use the mouse to control the paddles and defend your goal from your opponent. Be careful not to miss the puck so that you earn more points than the opponent. In contrast, respondents in the low savoring condition received only the following information about the video game experience. The game you will play is a sports game. 81 Unlike earlier studies, however, Study 4 did not manipulate the time spent prior to the experience. Instead, participants across all conditions spent the same amount of time (i.e., 50 seconds) before engaging in the experience. Manipulation of Expectations. Expectations were manipulated using a methodology adapted from Geers and Lassiter (1999, 2002) and Patrick, MacInnis, and Park (2007). Respondents were given information about the game that was either very positive or less positive so as to create different levels of expectations about the future experience. The following positive information about the game play was used for the high expectations condition. This video game is very popular and has received a lot of praise from other students who have played it. 90% of students who played the video game said that they liked this game. Here is a sample comment from students: “This game is very exciting!” (Bill, Senior [Business]) Respondents in the less positive expectations condition received the following information. This video game is not very popular among students who have played it. 15% of students who played the video game said that they liked this game. Here is a sample comment from students: “This game is rather boring.” (Bill, Senior [Business]) Procedure. Upon entering the laboratory, participants was randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions and seated at a computer workstation. The cover story was identical to that used in Studies 2 and 3. Half of the participants received more 82 information about the video game. To these participants, the time before playing the game was also framed as “enjoying time” as was the case in Study 2 (high savoring conditions). The rest of the participants received less information about the video game. To them, the time was framed as “waiting time” (low savoring conditions). All participants spent 50 seconds after reading the information and then indicated the extent to which they savored the future experience. Next, participants were provided with either positive (high expectations conditions) or less positive information (low expectations conditions) about the experience depending upon the expectations conditions. On the next screen, they rated the extent to which they thought they would enjoy the experience. Then participants played either a positive or less positive video game depending upon the outcome conditions (see Figure 7). After playing the video game, participants indicated the extent to which they liked playing the video game. They also rated the extent to which the experience was worse versus better than their initial expectations. Finally, two days later, participants indicated via email (1) the extent to which they judged the experience of playing the video game to be enjoyable and (2) the extent to which they remembered having savored the experience before playing the video game. The latter measure was added to this study to examine whether the extent of savoring is also remembered after a time delay. Fifty two percent of respondents who participated in the first phase responded to the retrospective measures. 83 Figure 7 Sequence of Manipulations in Study 4 Measures Savoring. The extent of savoring was assessed by a three-item measure instead of the five-item measure used in Studies 2 and 3. This was done so as to reduce the likelihood that the measure would sensitize participants to the idea of savoring (in this study savoring was measured prior to the experience). The items were “I fully appreciate how much pleasure I am feeling right now from the prospect of playing the game,” “I am feeling joy from the prospect of playing the game,” “I am aware that I am feeling good right now at the thought of playing the video game” on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree). A measure of savoring was created by averaging the three items (Cronbach’s α = .92). The savoring items measured 2 days after playing the video game included “Before playing the video game, I felt joy from the idea of playing it soon” and “Before playing the video game, I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking 84 about playing the video game” on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree). These items were averaged to create a remembered savoring scale (Cronbach’s α = .79). Expected Evaluations. 5 Expected evaluation was measured using 2 items. Participants indicated how enjoyable [fun] they expected playing the video game would be (1 = not at all enjoyable [fun]; 9 = very enjoyable [fun]). The two items were averaged to yield an expected evaluation scale (Cronbach’s α = .95). Immediate and Retrospective Evaluations. The 5-item measures for immediate evaluations and the 2-item measures of retrospective evaluations were identical to those used in Studies 2 and 3. The multiple items were averaged to yield an evaluation scale (Cronbach’s α = .97 and .96 for immediate and retrospective evaluations respectively). Confirmed (vs. Disconfirmed) Expectations. The extent to which the experience confirmed expectations was indicated by a single item, “Compared to what you envisioned before playing this video game, how would you rate the experience of playing this game?” (1= worse than expected; 9= better than expected). 5 A factor analysis of the 3-item measure of savoring and the 2-item measure of expected evaluation yielded two distinct factors – savoring and expected evaluation respectively (eigenvalues 3.37 and 1.56 respectively). 85 Results Savoring. A 2 (outcome of the experience: positive vs. less positive) x 2 (savoring: high vs. low) x 2 (expectations: positive vs. less positive) ANOVA on savoring revealed only a main effect of savoring (M H-savoring = 5.99 vs. M L-savoring = 4.96; F(1,130) = 13.52, p < .001), indicating that savoring was successfully manipulated. In addition, participants still remembered their savoring experience differently two days after they played the video game in the lab. The same analysis on retrospective savoring also revealed only a main effect of savoring (F(1,65) = 5.50, p < .03) such that participants in the high savoring condition (M H-savoring = 5.62) reported savoring the experience more than those in the low savoring condition (M L-savoring = 4.81). Table 6 illustrates the means and ANOVA results on savoring and other dependent measures reported below. Expected Evaluations. The manipulation of expectations was also successful. 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA on expected evaluations revealed a main effect of expectations (M H-expectation = 6.06 vs. M L-expectation = 4.10; F(1,130) = 48.39, p < .001). This analysis also found a main effect of savoring (M H-savoring = 5.47 vs. M L-savoring = 4.69; F(1,130) = 7.75, p < .01), indicating that participants in the high savoring conditions had more positive expectations about the experience than those in the low savoring conditions. I discuss this finding further in the section below titled The Relationship between Savoring, Expectations, and Evaluations. Confirmed (vs. Disconfirmed) Expectations. A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA on confirmed (vs. disconfirmed) expectations revealed a main effect of outcome. 86 Participants in the positive outcome conditions (M more-positive = 5.21) reported that the experience was better than those in the less positive outcome conditions (M less-positive = 3.89; F(1,130) = 16.04, p < .001). Impact on Evaluations. A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA on immediate evaluations yielded main effects of savoring (F(1,130) = 10.47, p < .01) and outcome (F(1,130) = 18.63, p <.001) and a marginally significant main effect of expectations (F(1,130) = 2.79, p < .10) (see Figure 8). In general, participants who savored more (vs. less), who had positive (vs. less positive) expectations, and who had a positive (vs. less positive) experience reported having enjoyed the experience more than their counterparts. Importantly, these main effects were qualified by a significant three- way interaction (F(1,130) = 3.98, p < .05). Examining the significant three-way interaction, separate 2 (savoring: high vs. low) x 2 (expectations: positive vs. less positive) ANOVAs were run for the positive versus less positive outcome conditions. For the less positive outcome conditions, the analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of savoring (F(1,67) = 3.02, p < .09), qualified by the significant interaction between savoring and expectations (F(1,67) = 7.03, p < .02) (see Figure 8a). As predicted, even when the experience was negatively disconfirmed (i.e. positive expectations/less positive outcome condition), participants who savored more evaluated the experience to be much better than those who savored the experience less (M H-savoring = 5.14 vs. M L-savoring = 3.16; t(33) = 2.58, p < .02), supporting H7a. That is, positive expectations by themselves did not increase evaluations, but savoring was crucial. Interestingly, when expectations were initially 87 Table 6 Study 4: ANOVA results and Means (The Impact of Savoring, Expectations, and Outcome on Dependent Measures) *p <.10, **p <.05, ***p <.01 The table depicts only interactions with significant effects. Constructs Main Effects and Interactions MEANS Positive Experience Less Positive Experience Positive Expectations (positive confirmation) Less Positive Expectations (positive disconfirmati on) Positive Expectations (negative disconfirmatio n) Less Positive Expectations (negative confirmation) ME of Savoring ME of Expectation ME of Outcome Savoring * Expectation Expectation * outcome 3-way Interaction High Savoring Low Savoring High Savoring Low Savoring High Savoring Low Savoring High Savoring Low Savoring Savoring (a = .92) 13.52** 5.97 5.41 6.13 4.83 6.07 4.44 5.78 5.15 Remembered Savoring (a = .79) 5.50** 5.11 4.60 5.70 4.81 6.00 4.29 5.67 5.55 Expected Evaluations (a = .95) 7.75** 48.39*** 6.62 5.89 4.72 3.91 6.16 5.56 4.39 3.39 Confirmation- Disconfirmation 16.04*** 5.38 5.14 5.19 5.13 4.26 3.56 3.50 4.22 Immediate Evaluations (a = .97) 10.47*** 2.79* 18.63*** 3.24* 3.03* 3.98** 6.65 5.46 5.64 4.33 5.14 3.16 3.97 4.38 Retrospective Evaluations (a = .96) 3.12* 2.65* 6.29 5.00 5.30 4.25 5.50 4.07 3.89 4.64 88 less positive and the experience was also less positive (negative confirmation), savoring did not impact evaluations; there was no difference in evaluations between those in the negative confirmation condition who savored more versus those in the same condition who savored less (M H-savoring = 3.97 vs. M L-savoring = 4.38; t(34) = .85, p = ns). Contrary to H7b, savoring did not have a positive impact on evaluations when expectations were low and the experience confirmed low expectations. For the positive outcome conditions, a 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed only main effects of savoring (F(1,63) = 8.22, p < .01) and expectations (F(1,63) = 6.02, p < .02) (see Figure 8b). Participants in the high savoring conditions evaluated the experience to be more enjoyable than those in the low savoring conditions (M H-savoring = 6.14 vs. M L-savoring = 4.89) and those in the positive expectations conditions evaluated the experience to be more enjoyable than those in the less positive expectations conditions (M P-expectation = 6.05 vs. M N-expectation = 4.98). More specifically, in the less positive expectations conditions (and thus positive expectation disconfirmation conditions), greater savoring led participants to judge the experience to be better compared to less savoring (M H-savoring = 5.64 vs. M L-savoring = 4.33; t(30) = 2.08, p < .05), supporting H8a. Likewise, in the positive expectations conditions (and hence positive expectation confirmation conditions), greater savoring led to more positive evaluations of the experience compared to less savoring (M H-savoring = 6.65 vs. M L-savoring = 5.46; t(33) = 1.97, p = .05), supporting H8b. Therefore, regardless of the difference in initial expectations, savoring positively impacted evaluations when the experience was positive. 89 Figure 8 Study 4 Results: Effect of Savoring and Expectations on Immediate Evaluations (8a) Immediate Evaluations for Less Positive Experience (8b) Immediate Evaluations for Positive Experience The results for retrospective evaluations revealed patterns similar to the results found for immediate evaluations (see Figure 9). However, perhaps due to the reduction in sample size and thus less power at the second stage (a 52% response rate), the effects were much weaker for retrospective evaluations. A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of savoring (F(1,65) = 3.12, p < .10) and expectations (F(1,65) = 2.65, p = .10). The 3-way interaction did not reach statistical significance (F(1,65) = 1.29, p = .26). Separate 2 x 2 ANOVAs for the less positive and positive outcome conditions also revealed patterns similar to those observed for immediate evaluations yet with 90 weaker effects. For the less positive experience, the analysis yielded a marginally significant interaction between savoring and expectations (F(1,32) = 2.87, p = .10) (see Figure 9a). Individual comparisons revealed that there was a directional difference between the high and low savoring conditions under positive expectations although it did not reach statistical significance (M H-savoring = 5.50 vs. M L-savoring = 4.07; t(14) = 1.38, p = .19). The results for the negative expectation confirmation conditions replicated the results found for immediate evaluations (M H-savoring = 3.89 vs. M L-savoring = 4.64; t(18) = .94, p = .36), which serves as a boundary condition of the impact of savoring on evaluations. For the positive experience, a 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of savoring (F (1,33) = 4.35, p <. 05) (see Figure 9b). Individual comparisons showed that the differences between the high and low savoring conditions under less positive expectations (M H-savoring = 5.30 vs. M L-savoring = 4.25; t(16) = 1.23, p = .24) and under positive expectations (M H-savoring = 6.29 vs. M L-savoring = 5.00; t(17) = 1.82, p < .09) were only directional. 91 Figure 9 Study 4 Results: Effect of Savoring and Expectations on Retrospective Evaluations (9a) Retrospective Evaluations for Less Positive Experience (9b) Retrospective Evaluations for Positive Experience The Relationship between Savoring, Expectations, and Evaluations. Earlier it was reported that the manipulation of savoring also affected expectations. One of the important goals for Study 4 was to examine the relationship between savoring, expectations, and evaluations of the experience. Specifically, one may wonder whether the effect of savoring on evaluations is mediated by expectations that the experience will be more or less positive. If so, it is possible that savoring merely serves as an antecedent to expectations of the valence of experiences whereas expectations are the real creator of positive judgments. 92 Following the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach to mediation, a set of regression analyses was conducted to examine whether expectations fully explain the effect of savoring on evaluations or whether savoring still has an independent effect above and beyond the effect of expectations. First, when measured expectations were regressed on the manipulated variables (i.e., outcome, savoring, and expectations), the expectations manipulation (i.e., expectations that the experience is more or less positive) had a significant effect on measured expectations (b = 1.95, t = 7.06, p < .001). The savoring manipulation also had a significant effect on expectations (b = .79, t = 2.83, p < .01), indicating that savoring tends to increase expectations about the valence of the future experience. This result replicates the ANOVA results on expectations reported above. Second, measured expectations had a significant effect on immediate evaluations (b = .40, t = 4.68, p < .001). Third, immediate evaluation was regressed on the same manipulated variables and their interaction terms. Significant two-way interactions between savoring and expectations (b = 2.24, t = 2.54, p = .012), between savoring and outcome (b =1.77, t = 1.97, p = .05), and between expectations and outcome (b = 2.25, t = 2.40, p = .018) were observed. Importantly, a significant three-way interaction (b = -2.41, t = -1.90, p = .06) replicates the results obtained from ANOVA reported earlier. Fourth, immediate evaluation was regressed on the manipulated variables and their interactions terms as well as measured expectations (the full model). This step of the analysis allows us to examine changes to the manipulation variables when the 93 model takes measured expectations into account. If expectations mediate the effect of the manipulated variables (especially those involving savoring) on evaluations, the effect of the manipulated variables should become less significant or non-significant while the effect of expectations should remain significant. However, the results reveal that the two-way interactions between savoring and expectations (b = 2.48, t = 2.93, p = .004), between savoring and outcome (b = 1.90, t = 2.20, p = .03), and between expectations and outcome (b = 2.48, t = 2.76, p = .007) became more significant after controlling for expectations. Most importantly, the three-way interaction became highly significant (b = -2.69, t = -2.20, p = .03). Therefore, although expectations have an independent effect on evaluations (b = .34, t = 3.46, p = .001), they do not mediate the effect of savoring on evaluations. To sum, savoring (as manipulated) has a strong effect in affecting evaluations while expectations play a substantial, yet independent role in influencing evaluations. These results support H7. The Mediating Role of Savoring. The analyses reported above demonstrated that expectations do not mediate the effects of the manipulated variables (i.e., outcome, savoring, and expectations) on evaluations. In order to show that savoring mediates the relationship between manipulated variables on evaluations, separate regression analyses were conducted using the same Baron and Kenny (1986) method of testing mediation. 94 First, when measured savoring was regressed on the manipulated variables, the savoring manipulation had a significant effect on measured savoring (b = .1.03, t = 3.70, p < .001), replicating the ANOVA results on savoring reported earlier. Second, measured savoring had a significant effect on immediate evaluations (b = .33, t = 3.26, p < .01). Third, immediate evaluation was regressed on the same manipulated variables and their interaction terms. Significant two-way interactions between savoring and expectations (b = 2.24, t = 2.54, p = .012), between savoring and outcome (b =1.77, t = 1.97, p = .05), and between expectations and outcome (b = 2.25, t = 2.40, p = .018), and importantly a significant three-way interaction (b = -2.41, t = -1.90, p = .06) were observed. As a final step, evaluations were regressed on the manipulated variables and their interactions terms as well as measured savoring (the full model). If savoring were to mediate the effects of manipulated variables on evaluations, the effect of the manipulated variables should become less significant or insignificant while the effect of savoring should remain significant. Indeed, this was what the results revealed. The two-way interactions between savoring and expectations (b = 2.09, t = 2.39, p = .019), between savoring and outcome (b = 1.69, t = 1.90, p = .06), and between expectations and outcome (b = 2.09, t = 2.25, p = .026) became less significant or non-significant after controlling for expectations. Most importantly, the three-way interaction became non-significant (b = -2.16, t = -1.71, p = .09) while savoring still remained significant 95 (b = .20, t = 1.97, p = .05). Therefore, savoring is found to mediate the effect of manipulated variables on evaluations. Discussion By independently manipulating savoring and expectations and directly measuring expectations, this study tested the relationship between savoring and expectations. As predicted, savoring led consumers to have more positive expectations about the experience (i.e., the experience to be more positive). However, savoring still impacts evaluations independent of expectations. While earlier studies (Studies 1-3) focused only on very positive experiences, this study examined less positive experiences as well to construct a complete picture of the role of savoring on the experiences with different outcomes. In fact, the independent manipulation of expectations and outcome of the experience created different expectation confirmation or disconfirmation conditions. As expected, savoring enhanced evaluations of a positively disconfirmed (H8a) or positively confirmed (H8b) experience. Thus, when the experience was positive, savoring led to more positive evaluations regardless of whether expectations were positive or less positive. Most importantly, the impact of savoring on evaluations was observed even when an experience that was worse than expected (i.e., negatively disconfirmed expectations). That is, savoring still protected consumption evaluations from the less positive experience and further made the experience to be judged more enjoyable (H7a). Interestingly though, savoring had no impact when experiences were 96 negatively confirmed. When the experience was as bad as expected, savoring did not provide any added benefits on evaluations. It is also noteworthy that participants remembered the experience of savoring as well as their evaluation of the experience itself. The fact that savoring was still held in memory offers an interesting insight that remembered savoring may influence their retrospective evaluations of the experience. Combined, this study provides stronger evidence for the positive and consistent effect of savoring on evaluations, thereby nicely complementing Studies 1-3. Four empirical studies presented in this chapter showed converging evidence for the positive effect of savoring the future on evaluations such that the more consumers savored a future consumption experience, the more enjoyable they evaluated it to be and the more enjoyable they remember it to have been. These studies also identified interesting boundary conditions for the positive effect of savoring the future. 97 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This dissertation spotlights savoring the future as a relevant and important consumer behavior construct. A novel conceptual model explores factors that impact the extent to which consumers savor future experiences and examines the consequences of savoring the future. Four empirical studies (one survey and three experiments) show that savoring a future consumption experience leads to more positive evaluations of the experience both in the short and long term. Further my findings show that while having enough time to think about a future experience is necessary for savoring to occur, perceiving and using this time as enjoying (vs. waiting) time is a critical facilitator of savoring. It is also critical to have sufficient information regarding a future experience in order to fully savor it. Interestingly, while one could imagine savoring heightening expectations and thus lowering evaluations due to greater disappointment, my results argue against an overwhelming effect of expectation-disconfirmation. Although savoring heightened expectations about the valence of the future experience, savoring still has an independent, positive effect on evaluations above and beyond what expectations contribute. Savoring is also found to make even a less positive experience to be judged as more enjoyable in cases where the experience is worse than expected. Further, savoring leads to more positive evaluations of a good experience regardless of whether expectations are positively disconfirmed or confirmed. 98 Building on the conceptual model and findings presented in this research, the current chapter outlines the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of this research and suggests future directions for research. Contributions and Implications Given the limited work on savoring and particularly on savoring the future, this dissertation makes significant theoretical contributions. First, it conceptualizes savoring as comprising key properties (i.e., mindfulness and appreciation of the pleasure or positive emotions). Second it presents a reliable measure of savoring that reflects these core properties. Third, this research also develops and tests a conceptual model of savoring the future that identifies antecedents (amount of time, time frame), consequences (immediate and retrospective evaluations), and moderators (amount of information, outcome of the experience, expectations about the positivity of the experience) of savoring the future. Fourth, this research finds that although savoring the future may make an experience seem more positive and these expectations about the valence of future experiences can impact actual experiences, savoring the future contributes to evaluations of an actual experience beyond the impact derived from heightened expectations. It is notable that the factors identified in the conceptual model are not only theoretically important but are also highly relevant from a managerial perspective. For example, theme parks such as the Universal Studios already utilize tactics that are conducive to savoring a theme park ride. Instead of distracting consumers in line with 99 entertaining stimuli irrelevant to the ride, the Simpsons ride, for example, provides consumers with a snippet of the actual ride, showing cartoons featuring the Simpsons family taking this very ride. In fact, this so-called “pre-show” utilizes savoring inducing conditions which were identified in this paper. The pre-show, may help frame the time spent prior to the ride as enjoying rather than waiting time by providing the sufficient information (in this case, via visual input) relevant to the future experience. Firms managing various service encounters where a wait cannot be avoided may benefit from adopting similar savoring inducing strategies. Moreover, considerable managerial insights can be garnered from the findings that savoring not only makes a good experience better (regardless of the initial expectations) but makes a bad experience better when experiences do not meet the expectations. In this regard, firms that create ample opportunities to maximize consumers’ savoring experience prior to purchase or service encounter may be building up resources that can buffer negativity in case of service mishap or minor failure. A boundary condition found in this research is also interesting in that savoring does not seem to have added benefits if consumers had less positive expectations about the future experience and the experience was indeed not very positive. For example, a consumer who has savored a dinner in a fancy restaurant before his or her visit may happen to read negative reviews and thus have less positive expectations about the experience. The finding of this research suggests that if the experience was indeed not positive, savoring is not likely to have any added effect on evaluations. 100 However, the context under which this boundary condition occurs seems quite limited in the marketplace. Particularly as far as hedonic consumption is concerned, situations under which experiences are less positive than expected seem to be more common than the contexts where less positive experience are not positive as expected. This is so since consumers tend to have a rosy view of the future which should incline them toward expecting experiences to be more (vs. less) positive (Carroll 1978; Trope, Gervey, and Liberman 1997; Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, and Cronk 1997). As such, the contexts where the positive effect of savoring may be observed are quite prevalent. Future Research This research examines only two levels of time available to think about the future experience (short vs. long) and of the amount of information presented to consumers (less vs. more). I proposed that within a reasonably moderate threshold, consumers are more likely to savor more when a longer (vs. shorter) time is available. However, the positive effect may be eventually leveraging off after a very long period (i.e., inverted-U curve). The same logic applies to the amount of information variable. Although the current findings indicate that more (vs. less) information induces a greater degree of savoring and more positive evaluations, too much detailed information may eventually dampen savoring and lower evaluations. In addition, the optimal level of time and amount of information may greatly vary depending upon the product/experience categories and individual threshold of savoring capabilities. 101 Future research may extend the efforts by considering a wider spectrum of time span and amount of information that may differently impact savoring and evaluations. Future research should also test the process through which the positive effect of savoring on evaluations occurs. Savoring may heighten the sensory experience itself and thus make the on-line experience more enjoyable, thereby generating more positive evaluations. Alternatively, evaluations may be influenced both by the consumption experience and memory traces of positive emotions experienced during the process of savoring. The latter process would suggest that savoring and the consumption experience contribute to evaluations additively. It is also possible the two models can work co-actively such that the on-line experience itself is made enjoyable and memory traces developed through the process of savoring is also incorporated into evaluations along with the heightened consumption experience. The current framework of savoring the future can be extended to include other marketing-relevant antecedents to savoring. One such antecedent may involve whether or not consumers share an anticipated experience with others (e.g., by talking to others or writing a blog article about their upcoming trip to Hawaii or their plan to buy a new iPhone). Prior research suggests that shared current experiences or reminiscing with others about past experiences increase positive emotions and evaluations of the experience (Raghunathan and Corfman 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007; Pasupathi and Carstensen 2003; Havighurst and Glasser 1972; Langston 1994). However, research on the effect of social interaction prior to engaging in an experience is lacking. It would be important to examine whether and 102 to what extent pre-consumption experience sharing can impact savoring the future and subsequent post-experience evaluations. This research provides evidence that even after a substantial time delay consumers remember the extent to which they savored the future experience. This result bears importance because it opens up interesting questions as to the role of remembered savoring on retrospective evaluations. Remembered savoring may serve as a source of a positive experience itself. Earlier it was speculated that savoring is likely to create strong traces of the affect, which in turn may infiltrate retrospective evaluations. Building on the findings of this research that savoring enhanced evaluations, future research may further investigate whether the memory of the savoring experience is incorporated to evaluations, and if so, how. Future research may also examine the duration of the consumption experience as a potential boundary condition of savoring. In real life positive consumption experiences can last a long time (e.g., a 2-week vacation) or a short time (e.g., roller coaster ride). In either case, consumers can have varying opportunities to savor a positive experience. In other words, a two week vacation or a ride on a roller coaster might both be preceded by greater or lesser savoring. One wonders how the amount of time spent on savoring relative to the duration of the experience would influence how enjoyable the experience is evaluated and remembered. It is possible that savoring has a greater impact on evaluations of short experiences thus counteracting the fleeting nature of the short-lived experience. Investigating this idea may present an interesting boundary condition of savoring and further provides managerial 103 insights whether savoring (and subsequent more positive evaluations) depends upon the length of the consumption experience. Another interesting extension can be made with respect to the dependent variables. This research focuses on evaluations (i.e., immediate and retrospective) as a consequence of savoring. One can examine the impact of savoring on the accuracy of memory. Mackiewicz, Sarinopoulos, Cleven, and Nitschke (2006) found that mere anticipation of the upcoming aversive experience enhances the memory of the actual experience. Anticipation of aversive pictures activated both the amygdala, the area associated with the formation of emotional memories, and the hippocampus, the area associated with long-term recollections. If Mackiewicz et al. (2006)’s findings were to apply to positive experiences, people who savor a pleasant future experience for a longer time may remember their experience more accurately due to the activation of brain regions related to long-term memory. It would be left to empirical tests to examine whether more accurate encoding of the pieces of the experience also enhances one’s liking in both immediate and retrospective evaluations. Prior literature has found that anticipated consumption may cause people to shift their reference point to the future consumption, causing one to feel relative deprivation and thus to immediate impulsive behavior (Ruderman 1986; Loewenstein 1988). For example, one who imagines a nice dinner at an up-scale restaurant in the future would feel relatively deprived with his or her current status and may fall into overeating now. Although this research does not deal with a feeling of deprivation (perhaps experienced along with savoring), it would be interesting to examine when 104 immediate deprivation would loom large at the savoring phase. When the time prior to the experience is prolonged too much or the stimulus activates a strong visceral reaction, consumers may currently experience intense deprivation more than savoring. Therefore future research may explore how mixed emotions felt prior to the experience (e.g., pleasure from savoring and deprivation or frustration) impacts evaluations of the experience. Finally, in the psychology literature, appreciation, happiness, and sensitivity to reward (as part of motivational system) are shown to be highly correlated (Tucker 2007). Since appreciation of positive emotions is a key component of savoring, consumers who tend to appreciate more in broader domains may also tend to savor more. Based on the literature, it is also likely that those who are more sensitive to reward may be able to savor more than those who are not. It would be interesting to see whether this speculation may extend beyond a discussion of individual differences. Future research may examine whether inducing (vs. measuring) consumers to become sensitive to reward or making them believe that they are may increase their capability to savor more. 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler Mitchel G. and N. S. Fagley (2005), “Appreciation: Individual Differences in Finding Value and Meaning as a Unique Predictor of Subjective Well-Being,” Journal of Personality, 73 (1), 79-114. Alba, Joe and Lynn Hasher (1983), “Is Memory Schematic?” Psychological Review, 93 (March), 203-231. Armor, D. A. and S. E. Taylor (1998), “Situated Optimism: Specific Outcome Expectancies and Self-regulation,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, M. P. Zanna, Ed. Vol. 30. New York: Academic Press. Baker, Julie and Michaelle Cameron (1996), “The Effects of the Service Environment on Affect and Consumer Perception of Waiting Time: An Integrative Review and Research Propositions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (4), 338–349. Barclay, Craig R. and Henry M. Wellman (1986), “Accuracies and Inaccuracies in Autobiographical Memories,” Journal of Memory and Language, 25 (February), 93-103. Bertocci, P. A. and R. M. Millard (1963), Personality and the Good: Psychological and Ethical Perspectives, New York: McKay. Billings, Douglas W. and William Revelle (2000), “Savor the Flavor and Cope with the Mope: Explicating the Asymmetric Associations between Personality and Daily Mood,” in Proceedings of the 11 th Conference of the International Society for Research on Emotions. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 7-27. Braun-LaTour, Kathryn A., Michael S. LaTour, Jacqueline E. Pickrell, and Elizabeth F. Loftus (2004), “How and When Advertising Can Influence Memory for Consumer Experience,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (4), 7-25. Brown, Kirk W. and Richard M. Ryan (2003), “The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 822-848. 106 Bryant, Fred B. (1989), “A Four-Factor Model of Perceived Control: Avoiding, Coping, Obtaining, and Savouring, Journal of Personality, 57, 773-797. —— (2003), “Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A Scale for Measuring Beliefs about Savouring, Journal of Mental Health, 12 (2), 175-196. —— and Joseph Veroff (2007), Savoring: A New Model of Positive Experience, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ——, Colette M. Smart, and Scott P. King (2005), “Using the Past to Enhance the Present Boosting Happiness through Positive Reminiscence,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 227-260. Burk, Marian Chapman and Julie A. Edell (1989), “The Impact of Feelings on Ad- Based Affect and Cognition,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (1), 69-83. Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1984), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed. Tomas Kinnear, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 673-675. Carmon, Ziv (1991), “Recent Studies of Time in Consumer-Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 703–705. Caroll, John (1978), “The Effect of Imagining an Event on Expectations for the Event: An Interpretation in Terms of the Availability Heuristic,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 88-96. Chang, E. C. (2004), “Distinguishing between Ruminative and Distractive Responses in Dysphoric College Students: Does Indication of Past Depression Make a Difference?” Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 845-855. Chew, Soo Hong, and Joanna L. Ho (1994), “Hope: An Empirical Study of Attitude toward the Timing of Uncertainty Resolution,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 267-88. Christensen, Tamlin Conner, Joanne V. Wood, and Feldman Barrett, L. (2003), “Remembering Everyday Experience through the Prism of Self-esteem,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 51-62. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. and Carol Surprenant (1982), “An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 491–504. 107 Coleman, Peter G. (1974), “Measuring Reminiscence Characteristics from Conversation as Adaptive Features of Old Age,” International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 5, 281-294. Cowley, Elizabeth (2007), “How Enjoyable Was It? Remembering an Affective Reaction to a Previous Consumption Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4, December), 494-505. Craik, Fergus I. M. and Robert S. Lockhart (1972), "Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1975), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. —— (1999), “If We Are So Rich, Why Aren’t We Happy?” American Psychologist, 54, 821-827. Dube, Laurette, Bernd H. Schmitt and France Leclerc (1991), “Consumers’Affective Response to Delays at Different Phases of a Service Delivery,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 Durrande-Moreau, Agnes (1999), “Waiting for Service: Ten Years of Empirical Research,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (2), 171– 189. Edell, Julie A. and Marian Chapman Burke (1987), “The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3), 421-433. Elster, Jon and George Loewenstein (1992), “Utility from Memory and Anticipation,” In G. Loewenstein and J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over Time (pp.213-234). New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Emmons, Robert A. and Michael E. McCullough (2003), “Counting Blessings versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-being in Daily life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389. Escalas, Jennifer Edson and Mary Frances Luce (2004), “Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 274-285. 108 Fallot, R. D. (1980), “The Impact on Mood of Verbal Reminiscing in Later Adulthood,” International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 10 (4), 385-400. Flaherty, Michael G. (2003), “Time Work: Customizing Temporal Experience,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 17-33. Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Daniel Kahneman (1993), “Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 45-55. Geers, Andrew L. and G. Daniel Lassiter (1999), “Affective Expectations and Information Gain: Evidence for Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Affective Experience,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 349-413. —— and —— (2002), “Effects of Affective Expectations on Affective Experience: The Moderating Role of Optimism-Pessimism,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (8), 1026-39. —— and —— (2003), “Need for Cognition and Affective Expectations as Determinants of Affective Experience,” Basic and applied social psychology, 25 (4), 313-325. —— and —— (2005), “Affective Assimilation and Contrast: Effects of Expectations and Prior Stimulus Exposure,” Basic and applied social psychology, 27 (2), 143-154. Gilbert, Daniel T. and Timothy D. Wilson (2007), “Prospection: Experiencing the Future,” Science, 317 (7), 1351-4. Havighurts, R. J. and R. Glasser (1972), “An Exploratory Study of Reminiscence,” Journal of Gerontology, 27, 245-253. Hayes, Steven C., Strosahl, Kirk D., Wilson, Kelly G., Bissett, Richard T., Pistorello, Jacqueline, Toarmino, Dosheen et al. (2004), “Measuring Experiential Avoidance: A Preliminary Test of a Working Model,” The Psychological Record, 54, 553-578. Helson, Harry (1964), Adaptation Level Theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Holbrook, Morris B. and Rajeev Batra (1987), “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3), 414-420. 109 —— and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132-140. —— and Robert Zirlin (1985), “Artistic Creation, Artworks, And Esthetic Appreciation: Some Philosophical Contributions to Nonprofit Marketing,” In Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, Vol 1, ed. Russell W. Belk, 1–54. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (2006), Consumer Behavior. Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin. Hughston, G. A. and Merriam, S. B. (1982), “Reminiscence: A Nonformal Technique for Improving Cognitive Functioning in the Aged,” International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 15, 139-149. Hui, Michael K., Laurette Dube, and Jean-Charles Chebat (1997), “The Impact of Music on Consumers’ Reactions to Waiting for Services,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 87–104. —— and David K. Tse (1996), “What to Tell Consumers in Waits of Different Lengths: An Integrative Model of Service Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 81–90. —— and Lianxi Zhou (1996), “How Does Waiting Duration Information Influence Customers’ Reactions to Waiting for Services?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (19), 1702–1717. Jacoby, Larry L., Colleen Kelley, Judith Brown, and Jennifer Jasechko (1989), “Becoming Famous Overnight: Limits on the Ability to Avoid Unconscious Influences of the Past,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (March), 326-338. Kahneman, Daniel, Barbara L. Fredrickson, Charles A. Schreiber, and Donald A. Redelmeier (1993), “When More Pain is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End,” Psychological Science, 4, 401-405. Katz, Karen L., Blaire M. Larson, and Richard C. Larson (1991), “Prescription for the Waiting-in-Line Blues: Entertain, Enlighten, and Engage,” Sloan Management Review, 32 (2), 44–53. Kellaris, James J. and Robert J. Kent (1992), "The Influence of Music on Consumers' Temporal Perceptions: Does Time Fly When You're Having Fun," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 365-376. 110 Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Sternthal (1984), “Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in Attitudinal Judgments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 54-64. Klaaren, Kristen. J., Sara. D. Hodges, and Timothy D. Wilson (1994), “The Role of Affective Expectations in Subjective Experience and Decision-making,” Social Cognition, 12, 77-101. Kolers, Paul A. (1983), “Perception and Representation,” Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 129-166. Krishnamurthy, Parthasarathy and Mita and Sujan (1999), “Retrospective versus Anticipation: The Role of the Ad under Retrospective and Anticipatory Self- Referencing, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 55-69. Kumar, Piyush, Manohar Kalwani, and Maqbool Dada (1997), “The Impact ofWaiting Time Guarantees on Customers’Waiting Experiences,” Marketing Science, 16 (4), 295–314. Langston, Christopher A. (1994), “Capitalizing on and Coping with Daily-life Events: Expressive Responses to Positive Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1112-1125. Larson, Richard C. (1987), “Perspective on Queues: Social Justice and the Psychology of Queuing,” Operations Research, 35 (6), 895–905. Lau-Gesk, Loraine (2005), “Understanding Consumer Evaluations of Mixed Affective Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1, June), 23-28. Le Bel, Jordan. L., and Dube, Laurette (2001), The Impact of Sensory Knowledge and Attentional Focus on Pleasure and on Behavioral Responses to Hedonic Stimuli, Paper presented at the 13 th annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Lee, Leonard, Shane Frederick, and Dan Ariely (2006), “Try It, You’ll Like It: The Influence of Expectation, Consumption, and Revelation on Preferences for Beer,” Psychological Science, 17 (12), 1054-1058. Lewis, C. N. (1971), “Reminiscing and Self-Concept in Old Age,” Journal of Gerontology, 26, 240-243. Lewis, M. I., R. N. Butler (1974), “Life-Review Therapy: Putting Memories to Work in Individual and Group Psychotherapy,” Geriatrics, 29, 165-173. 111 Lindberg, T. (2004), “Enjoying the Moment in the East and West: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Savoring,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Loewenstein, George F. (1987), “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption,” Economic Journal, 97 (September), 666-684. —— (1988), “Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice,” Management Science, 34 (February), 200-214. —— (1994), “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation,” Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 75–98. Lovallo, Dan and Daniel Kahneman (2000), “Living with Uncertainty: Attractiveness and Resolution Timing,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 179-90. Lyubomirsky, Sonja (2008), The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want, New York: Penguin Press MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4, March), 473-491. ——, Vanessa M. Patrick, and C. Whan Park (2005), “Looking through the Crystal Ball: The Role of Affective Forecasting and Misforecasting in Consumer Behavior,” Review of Marketing Research, 2. Mackiewicz, Kristen L., Issidoros Sarinopoulos, Krystal L. Cleven, and Jack B. Nitschke (2006), “The Effect of Anticipation and the Specficity of Sex Differences for Amygdala and Hippocampus Function in Emotional Memory,” Proceedings of the National Academy of science, 103 (38), 14200-14205. McMahon, A. W., Jr. and Rhudick, P. J. (1967), “Reminiscing in the Aged: An Adaptational Response,” In S. Levin and R. J. Kahana (Eds.), Psychodynamic Studies on Aging: Creativity, Reminiscing, and Dying (pp. 64-78), New York: International Universities Press. Mellers, Barbara A. (2000), “Choice and the Relative Pleasure of Consequences,” Psychological Bulletin, 126 (6), 910–924. Mick, David G. and Claus Buhl (1992), “A Meaning-Based Model of Advertising Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 317-338. 112 Mitchell, Terence R., Leigh Thompson, Erika Peterson, and Randy Cronk (1997), “Temporal Adjustments in the Evaluation of Events: The “Rosy View,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 421-448. Mussweiler, Thomas (2003a), “Comparison Processes in Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences,” Psychological Review, 110, 472–489. —— (2003b), “‘Everything is Relative’: Comparison Processes in Social Judgment,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 719–733. Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M (2002), “The Concept of Flow,” In C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 573-583). New York: Oxford University Press. Neisser, Ulric (1967), Cognitive Psychology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Nelson, Leif D. and Tom Meyvis (2008), “Interrupted Consumption: Disrupting Adaptation to Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (December), 645-664. Novemsky, Nathan and Rebecca K. Ratner (2003), “The Time Course and Impact of Consumers’ Erroneous Beliefs about Hedonic Contrast Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 507-516. Nowlis, Stephen M., Naomi Mandel, and Deborah B. McCabe (2004), “The Effect of a Delay between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 502-510. Nunes, Joseph and Nathan Novemsky (2008), “When Experience Does Not Matter: On the Non-Impact of Real-time Hedonic Experiences,” Working Paper. O’Neal, Edgar (1974), “Influence of Future Choice Importance and Arousal Upon the Halo Effect,” in Thought and Feeling, eds. Harvey London and Richard Nisbett, Chicago, IL: Aldine, 27-43. Oliver, Richard L. (1980), “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469. Park, C. Whan and Banwari Mittal (1985), “A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior: Problems and Issues,” in Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, ed. Jagdish N. Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 201-231. Pasupathi, M. and L. L. Carstensen (2003), “Age and Emotional Experience during Mutual Reminiscing,” Psychology and Aging, 18, 430-442. 113 Patrick, Vanessa M, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2007), “Not as Happy as I Thought I’d Be? Affective Misforecasting and Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (March), 479-489. Petty, Richard E. and John Cacioppo (1983), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 135-146. Raghunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August), 386-394. Ramanathan, Suresh and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Consuming with Others: Social Influences on Moment-to-Moment and Retrospective Evaluations of an Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 506-524. Ratner, Rebecca, Babara E. Kahn, and Daniel Kahneman (1999), “Choosing Less- Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 1-15. Redelmeier, Donal A. and Daniel Kahneman (1996), “Patients’ Memories of Painful Medical treatments: Real-Time and Retrospective Evaluations of Two Minimally Invasive Procedures,” Pain, 66, 3-8. Ross, Michael (1989), “Relation of Implicit Theories to the Construction of Personal Histories,” Psychological Review, 96 (2), 341-357. —— and Ian R. Newby-Clark (1998), “Construing the Past and Future,” Social Cognition, 16 (1), 133-150. Ruderman, Alice J. (1986) “Dietary Restraint: A Theoretical and Empirical Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 99 (2), 247-262. Schooler, Jonathan W. (2001), “Discovering Memories of Abuse in the Light of Meta-Awareness,” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 4, 105- 136. ——, Dan Ariely, and George Loewenstein (2003), “The Pursuit and Assessment of Happiness May Be Self-Defeating, eds. I. Brocas and J. D. Carrillo, The Psychology of Economic Decisions, Volume 1: Rationality and Well-Being (pp. 41-70) New York: Oxford University Press. 114 Schreiber, Charles A. and Daniel Kahneman (2000), “Determinants of the Remembered Utility of Aversive Sounds,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,” 129 (1), 27-42. Schueller, S. M. (2006), “Personality Fit and Positive Interventions: Is Extraversion Important?” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania. Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., and Baden, D. (2004), Nostalgia: conceptual Issues and Existential Functions, In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole and T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (pp. 200-214). New York: Guilford. Seligman, Martin E. P., Tayyab Rashid, and Acacia C. Parks (2006), “Positive Psychotherapy,” American Psychologist, 61 (8), 774-788. Sherman, Steven, Robert B. Cialdini, Donna F. Schwartzman, and Kim D. Reynolds (1985), “Imagining Can Heighten Or Lower the Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Mediating Role of Ease of Imagery,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 118-127. Singer, Jerome (1978), “Experimental Studies of Daydreaming and the Stream of Thought,” in The Stream of Consciousness: Scientific Investigations into the Flow of Human Experience, eds. Kenneth Pope and Jerome Singer, New Yrok: Plenum. —— and John Antrobus (1972), “Daydreaming, Imaginal Processes and Personality: A Normative Study,” in The Function and Nature of Imagery, ed. Peter Sheehan, New York: Academic Press, 174-232. Storm, C. and T. Storm (1987), A Taxonomic Study of the Vocabulary of Emotions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 805-816. Strack, F., Schwartz, N., and Gschneidinger, E. (1985), “Happiness and Reminiscing: The Role of Time Perspective, Affect, and Mode of Thinking,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1460-1469. Swan, John E. and I. Frederic Trawick (1981), “Disconfirmation of Expectations and Satisfaction with a Retail Service,” Journal of Retailing, 57, 49-67. Tamlin C. Christensen, Joanne V. Wood, and Lisa F. Barrett (2003), “Remembering Everyday Experience through the Prism of Self-Esteem,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (1), 51-62. 115 Taylor, Shelley E. and Sherry K. Schneider (1989), “Coping and the Simulation of Events,” Social Cognition, 7(2), 174-194. ——, Lien B. Pham, Inna D. Rivkin, and David A. Armor (1998), "Harnessing the Imagination: Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation, and Coping," American Psychologist, 53 (4), 429-439. Thoman, Dustin B, Carol Sansone, and Monisha Pasupathi (2007), “Talking about Interest: Exploring the Role of Social Interaction for Regulating Motivation and the Interest Experience,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 335-370. Thornton, S., and J. Brotchie (1987), “Reminiscence: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature,” British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 93-111. Trope, Yaacov, Benjamin Gervey, and Nira Liberman (1997), “Wishful Thinking from a Pragmatic Hypothesis-testing Perspective,” in Michael S. Myslobodsky (Ed.), The Mythomanias: The Nature of Deception and Self-deception, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrencce Erlbaum Asssociates, Inc. —— and Liberman, A. (1996), “Social Hypothesis Testing: Cognitive and Motivational Factors,” In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270). New York: The Guilford Press. Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), “Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 204–212. Tucker, Kari L. (2007), “Getting the Most out of Life: An Examination of Appreciation, Targets of Appreciation, and Sensitivity to Reward in Happier and Less Happy Individuals,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26 (7), 791-825. Tugade, Michele M. and Barbara L. Fredrickson (2006), “Regulation of Positive Emotions: Emotion regulation Strategies that Promote Resilience,” Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 311-333. Vaillant, George E. (2000), “Adaptive Mental Mechanisms: Their Role in a Positive Psychology,” American Psychologist, 55 (10), 89-98. Van Boven, Leaf and Laurence Ashworth (2007), “Looking Forward, Looking Back: Anticipation Is More Evocative Than Retrospection,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (2), 289-300. 116 Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1993), Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design principles on Product Preference. In Advances in Consumer Research, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 224-229. —— and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1008), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–394. Wegener, Duane T. and Richard E. Petty (1994), “Mood Management across Affective States: The Hedonic Contingency Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034-1048. West, Patricia M., Joel Huber, and Kyeong Sam Min (2004), “Altering Experienced utility: The Impact of Story Writing and Self-Referencing on Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 623-630. Westbrook, Robert A. (1987), “Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 258-270. Wilson, Timothy D., David B. Centerbar, Deborah A. Kermer, and Daniel T. Gilbert (2005), “The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do not Anticipate,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 5–21. ——, and Klaaren, K.J. (1992), “Expectation Whirls Me Round: The Role of Affective Expectations on Affective Experiences. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotion and Social Behavior, Vol. 14 (pp. 1–31). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. —— and Kristen J. Klaaren (1992), “Expectation Whirls Me Round”: The Role of Affective Expectations on Affective Experiences, In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Emotion and Social Behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 1-31), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ——, Lisle, D. J., Kraft, D., and Wetzel, C. G. (1989), “Preferences as Expectation- Driven Inferences: Effects of Affective Expectations on Affective Experience,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 519-530. Wirtz, Derrick, Justin Kruger, Christie Napa Scollon, and Ed Diener (2003), “What To Do on Spring Break? The Role of Predicted, On-Line, and Remembered Experience in Future Choice,” Psychological Science, 14 (5), 520-524. 117 Wood, Joanne V., Sara A. Heimpel, and John L. Michela (2003), “Savoring Versus Dampening: Self-Esteem Differences in Regulating Positive Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 566-580. Yi, Youjae (1990), “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction,” Review of Marketing, 4, 68-123. 118 Appendix 1 Prior Literature on Immediate and Retrospective Evaluations Immediate Evaluations The literature on antecedents to immediate (or experienced) evaluations are briefly reviewed and summarized in Figure 10. Moment-to-moment Affective Reactions Recent work on affective experiences has focused on how moment-to-moment affective reactions influence the overall evaluations of an experience (called immediate or experienced evaluations here). Researchers have found that these evaluations are predicted by two key moments (‘snapshots’) in the ongoing experience (Fredrickson and Kahneman 1993; Redelmeier and Kahneman 1996; Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, and Redelmeier 1993); (1) the peak (i.e., the most intense moments) and (2) the end (i.e., the final moments). They have also found that people do not give duration of the experience much weight in their overall evaluations, labeling this phenomenon as ‘duration neglect.’ However, in subsequent studies, the effect of duration has also been found to be significant and additive to the effect of intensity of the experience (additive duration effect; Schreiber and Kahneman 2000). Building on the peak-end paradigm, Lau-Gesk (2005) examined the effect of temporal proximity between positive and negative experiences and final trend of the experiences on consumers’ evaluations of mixed affective experience. 119 Affective Expectations or Misforecasting Another stream of research on experienced evaluations has examined the influence of affective expectations on evaluations. According to the affective expectation model (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, and Wetzel 1989), affective experience is a function of affective expectations (e.g., the movie will be enjoyable), and expectations can result in either assimilation or contrast in affective experience (Geers and Lassiter 1999; Wilson et al. 1989). That is, affective experiences are assimilated to affective expectations when the discrepancy is not noticed, whereas affective experiences are contrasted away from affective expectations when the discrepancy is noticed. Research has found various factors that moderate the relationship between affective expectations and experience: (1) the extent to which people carefully evaluate the experience (fine- vs. gross-unitization; Geers and Lassiter 1999), (2) prior stimulus exposure (Geers and Lassiter 2005), (3) the degree of discrepancy between expectations and experience (Wilson and Klaaren 1992), and (4) individual differences (need for cognition: Geers and Lassiter 2003; optimism or pessimism: Geers and Lassiter 2002). In a similar vein, the effect of affective misforecasting (i.e., the gap between anticipated and experienced affect) on evaluations was examined (MacInnis, Patrick, and Park 2005; Patrick, MacInnis, and Park 2007). 120 Shared Experiences Recently, consumers’ evaluations of an experience have extended to shared experiences with others. Raghunathan and Corfman (2006) found that enjoyment from sharing an experience (e.g., watching TV commercials, tasting an orange juice) depends on perceived agreement about the shared experience. Congruence (incongruence) of opinions enhances (diminishes) the enjoyment of the shared experience. Thoman, Sansone, and Pasupathi (2006) found that talking about one’s experience to others who are attentive (vs. distracted) lead one to evaluate the experience as more interesting. Ramanathan and McGill (2007) also found that a feeling of connectedness or synchrony with others has an independent effect on people’s evaluation of the experience over and above the peak and end affect. Story Writing about Experience West, Huber, and Min (2004) suggest that consumers enjoy a consumption experience more if they engage in preference enhancing activities like generating a story (vs. dialog) about a consumption object. My dissertation adds to the above literature by examining the impact of savoring (the future) on immediate evaluations. 121 Figure 10 Prior Research on Antecedents to Immediate Evaluations 122 Retrospective Evaluations Sometimes memory reconstructions are akin to what we experienced; at other times what we remember may be very different from what we experienced. Although a majority of prior research shows that memory distortions occur after a delay (e.g., Barclay and Wellman 1986; Jacoby, Kelley, Brow, and Jasechko1989; Neisser 1967), some research examined the circumstances under which immediate and retrospective evaluations converge (Novemsky and Ratner 2003, Nunes and Novemsky 2007). The literature on antecedents to retrospective evaluations of affective experiences are briefly reviewed and summarized in Figure 11. Influence of Expectations and Implicit Theories People tend to align their memory of their evaluations of the past affective experience with expectations held prior to the experience. Some research showed that retrospective evaluations were more positive than they actually were and were in line with expected evaluations (Mitchelle, Thompson, Peterson, and Cronk 1997; Wirtz, Kruger, Scoloon, and Diener 2003). Indeed pre-event expectation was found to be the strong predictor of post-event enjoyment (Wirtz et al. 2003; Klaaren, Hodges, and Wilson 1994). One reason why expectations may impact retrospective evaluations is tied to the existence of implicit theories on recollections of affective experiences (e.g., Ross 1989; Alba and Hasher 1983). Research has shown that consumers’ retrospective evaluations are guided by their learned implicit preference for variety (Ratner, Kahn, 123 and Kahneman 1999), beliefs about hedonic contrasts effects (i.e., beliefs that a consumption experience is more enjoyable when it is followed by a less enjoyable experience than when followed by a more enjoyable one) (Novemsky and Ratner 2003), consumers’ category beliefs (Nunes and Novemsky 2008) regardless of how they actually experienced it. However, when consumers had a chance to evaluate their experiences at the time they occur, their retrospective evaluations conformed to immediate evaluations (Novemsky and Ratner 2003; Nunes and Novemsky 2007). Individual Differences Another stream of research has examined the influence of individual differences on retrospective evaluations of the experience. Christensen, Wood, and Barrett (2003) found that higher (lower) global self-esteem predicted positive (negative) shifts in memory for experiences. Impact of Postexperience Behaviors or Information Research has examined how memory for past affective experiences can change given individuals’ postexperience behaviors or information. Consumers use postexperience behavior or a false cue in advertising as a proxy for their liking of the experience (Cowley 2007; Braun-LaTour, LaTour, Pickrell, and Loftus 2004). 124 This dissertation contributes to the literature on retrospective evaluations by suggesting savoring a novel antecedent that impacts these evaluations. It should also be noted that while it is possible that retrospective evaluations are affected by immediate evaluations, the relationship between these two phenomena is outside the scope of this paper. Rather, my purpose is to examine whether the impact of savoring on the immediate evaluation persists, thereby exhibiting a long-term effect over an extended time frame. 125 Figure 11 Prior Research on Antecedents to Retrospective Evaluations 126 Appendix 2-A Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the First Survey Wave (3 Days prior to Halloween) Are you going to any Halloween parties this year? Yes ________ No __________ If Yes, please write down your plans below. If you have multiple plans, please indicate all of them. 1) When and where?________________________________________________ 2) When and where?________________________________________________ 3) When and where?________________________________________________ From when did you start to look forward to (or anticipate) the first Halloween party you will be attending this year? Please check below. ________ A couple of days before the Halloween party ________ One week before the Halloween party ________ Two weeks before the Halloween party ________ Three weeks before the Halloween party ________ More than a month before the Halloween party o How much time in minutes do you think you have spent thinking about the Halloween party so far? _____________ minutes How far in advance did you plan for the first Halloween party you will be attending this year Halloween (e.g., think about attending or throwing a party; think about buying a costume)? ________ A couple of days before the Halloween party ________ One week before the Halloween party ________ Two weeks before the Halloween party ________ Three weeks before the Halloween party ________ More than a month before the Halloween party 127 o How much time in minutes do you think you have spent planning/preparing for the Halloween party? _____________ minutes o What kinds of things have you done, if any, to get ready for the Halloween party? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ The following questions concern the first Halloween party you will be going to this year. Please indicate your responses to each of the statements below. I savor the idea of enjoying the Halloween party. Not at all Neutral A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I relish the thought of enjoying the Halloween party. Not at all Neutral A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 If you provide us with your email address below and complete two short future surveys, you may be one of three people who will win a $100.00 cash prize. We will send future surveys via email. Thank you for your participation! Your email address:___________________________ Please provide us with the last FOUR digits of your student ID number. We need this number to match up your survey here with the surveys we will email you. So you will need to type these last four digits of your student ID in on-line study as well. Last four digits of your student ID: _________________________ Thank you for your participation! 128 Appendix 2-B Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the Second Survey Wave (1 Day after Halloween) Please provide us with the last four digits of your USC student ID number: _______________ Think about the Halloween party you attended yesterday (the first Halloween party you attended this year). To what extent was your Halloween party: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How did you actually feel during the Halloween party? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disappointed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Thank you for participating. We will have one very short follow up. Remember that by completing this questionnaire and the next one you may be one of the 3 people who will win a $100 prize. 129 Appendix 2-C Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the First Survey Wave (2 Weeks after Halloween) Please provide us with the last four digits of your USC student ID number: _______________ Please answer the following questions about the Halloween party you attended a week ago. If you attended multiple parties, please think about the first Halloween party you went to this year. To what extent was your Halloween party: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Please tell us about yourself: a. Your Gender: Male _______ Female _______ b. Your Age: years c. Number of years that you have lived in the U.S. __________ d. Nationality _________ e. Ethnicity _________ f. Language you speak at home ___________ Thank you for your participation. We will let you know shortly whether you have won $100 for your participation in this research project. 130 Appendix 3-A Study 2: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First Wave *Manipulation is noted in Italics. A growing number of companies are making their video games available on-line. In this study, we would like to investigate college students' response to and preference of the on-line video games. In order to get your direct feedback on a video game, we would like you to play the game for about two minutes. The game you will play is an “action” game. If you don't run fast enough, you will be hit by the bull! So run away from the bull while jumping obstacles in this fast paced game. If you are hit by the bull, just start the game over. <Enjoying Time Frame Conditions> Before you play the video game, spend a minute imagining how much fun you'll have playing the game this time. Also, focus on how good you feel, right now, about the thought of playing the game. In other words, try to enjoy the thought of playing the game before it starts up. <Wait Time Frame Conditions> Please wait until the screen proceeds to the next before playing the game. When the manipulated time passes (15 seconds for the short time and 1:45 minutes for the long time conditions), the screen automatically moves to the following screen. 131 INSTRUCTION FOR THE GAME: Control the runner using the 'arrow keys' and the 'space bar' key on the keyboard. - 'arrow keys' for the direction (forward, backward) - 'space bar' to JUMP - If you press both the arrow key and the space bar, you will jump while running forward or backward. On the next screen, click on the ORANGE COLORED ARROW to start. If your life is lost, just start the game over! Then participants played the game. To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How did you feel when you were playing the video game? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 132 We’d like to know what feelings and thoughts you had before playing the video game. Please indicate how you felt and thought while anticipating playing the video game. BEFORE playing the game, I fully appreciated the pleasure I was feeling by thinking about playing the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I was trying to hang onto the good feelings that the thoughts of playing the video game gave me. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I felt joy from playing the video game soon. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I found myself looking forward to it in ways that gave me pleasure. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking about how I would play the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree Have you played this game before? NO YES If you have played this game before, how many times have you played it? ________ When you played the video game, how many times were you hit by the bull? _______ 133 How much do you like video games in general? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 A great deal How many times a week do you play video games? ___________ How long in minutes do you usually play video games per week? _________ minutes What is your gender? Male Female What is your current age? __________ What is your year in school? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Is English the language you learned first as a child? YES NO What is your current age? ___________ We’d like to contact you about a very brief (only three questions) follow-up study in the near future. Your participation will be voluntary. Please provide us with your email address- your email address will remain confidential: ______________ Thanks for your participation! 134 Appendix 3-B Study 1: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave (2 Days after Participating in the Study) Thank you for your participation in the research session earlier this week. Please take a moment to think about your experience of playing the video game. We would like to know how you remember that experience. To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How do you feel RIGHT NOW? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disappointed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Thank you for your participation! 135 Appendix 4-A Study 3: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First Wave *Manipulation is noted in Italics. A growing number of companies are making their video games available on-line. In this study, we would like to investigate college students' response to and preference of the on-line video games. In order to get your direct feedback on a video game, we would like you to play the game for about two minutes. <Less Information Conditions> The game you will play is an “action” game. <More Information Conditions> The game you will play is an “action” game. If you don't run fast enough, you will be hit by the bull! So run away from the bull while jumping obstacles in this fast paced game. If you are hit by the bull, just start the game over. Before you play the video game, spend a minute imagining how much fun you'll have playing the game this time. Also, focus on how good you feel, right now, about the thought of playing the game. In other words, try to enjoy the thought of playing the game before it starts up. When the manipulated time passes (15 seconds for the short time and 1:45 minutes for the long time conditions), the screen automatically moves to the following screen. INSTRUCTION FOR THE GAME: Control the runner using the 'arrow keys' and the 'space bar' key on the keyboard. - 'arrow keys' for the direction (forward, backward) - 'space bar' to JUMP - If you press both the arrow key and the space bar, you will jump while running forward or backward. 136 On the next screen, click on the ORANGE COLORED ARROW to start. If your life is lost, just start the game over! Then participants played the game. To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How did you feel when you were playing the video game? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 We’d like to know what feelings and thoughts you had before playing the video game. Please indicate how you felt and thought while anticipating playing the video game. BEFORE playing the game, I fully appreciated the pleasure I was feeling by thinking about playing the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I was trying to hang onto the good feelings that the thoughts of playing the video game gave me. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree 137 BEFORE playing the game, I felt joy from playing the video game soon. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I found myself looking forward to it in ways that gave me pleasure. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree BEFORE playing the game, I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking about how I would play the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree Have you played this game before? NO YES If you have played this game before, how many times have you played it? _______ When you played the video game, how many times were you hit by the bull? _______ How much do you like video games in general? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 A great deal How many times a week do you play video games? ___________ How long in minutes do you usually play video games per week? _________ minutes What is your gender? Male Female What is your current age? __________ What is your year in school? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 138 Is English the language you learned first as a child? YES NO What is your current age? ___________ We’d like to contact you about a very brief (only three questions) follow-up study in the near future. Your participation will be voluntary. Please provide us with your email address- your email address will remain confidential: ______________ Thanks for your participation! 139 Appendix 4-B Study 3: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave (2 Days after Participating in the Study) Thank you for your participation in the research session earlier this week. Please take a moment to think about your experience of playing the video game. We would like to know how you remember that experience. To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How do you feel RIGHT NOW? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disappointed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Thank you for your participation! 140 Appendix 5-A Study 4: Procedure and Questionnaire Used in the First Wave *Manipulation is noted in Italics. A growing number of companies are making video games available on-line. This study investigates college students' responses to and preferences for on-line video games. We would like you to play a video game for a few minutes and then give us your feedback about it. <High Savoring Conditions> Have you ever played any indoor sports games such as table tennis, billiards, and fussball with your friends? The game you will play is an on-line version of the popular arcade air hockey game. You must use the paddles to smash the puck into the opposite side of the table to score points. You’ll use the mouse to control the paddles and defend your goal from your opponent. Be careful not to miss the puck so that you earn more points than the opponent. Before you play the video game, spend a minute imagining how much fun you'll have and how much you’ll enjoy playing the game. <Low Savoring Conditions> The game you will be playing is a sports game. Please wait until the screen proceeds to the next before playing the game. When 50 seconds passes, the screen automatically moves to the following screen. 141 We’d like to know what feelings and thoughts you have right now. I am fully appreciating how much pleasure I am feeling from the prospect of playing the game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree I am trying to hang onto the good feelings that the thoughts of playing the video game gives me. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree I am feeling joy from the prospect of playing it. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree I find myself looking forward to it in ways that gives me pleasure. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree I am aware that I am feeling good by thinking about how I would play the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree 142 <Positive Expectation Conditions> This video game is very popular and has received a lot of praise from other students who have played it. 90% of students who played the video game said that they liked this game. Here is a sample comment from students: “This game is very exciting!” (Bill, Senior [Business]) <Less Positive Expectation Conditions> This video game is not very popular among students who have played it. 15% of students who played the video game said that they liked this game. Here is a sample comment from students: “This game is rather boring.” (Bill, Senior [Business]) How enjoyable do you expect that playing the video game will be: 1 Not at all enjoyable 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Very enjoyable How fun do you expect that playing the video game will be: 1 Not at all fun 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Very fun INSTRUCTION FOR THE GAME: Control the paddle using the MOUSE. On the next screen, start the game. Then participants play the game. 143 To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How did you feel when you were playing the video game? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Compared to what you envisioned before playing this video game, how would you rate the experience of playing this game? -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Worse than expected As expected Better than expected Overall, my evaluation of the video game was: -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Very dissatisfied Neutral Very satisfied Have you played this game before? NO YES If you have played this game before, how many times have you played it? ________ When you played the video game, how many times were you hit by the bull? _______ How much do you like video games in general? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 A great deal How many times a week do you play video games? ___________ How long in minutes do you usually play video games per week? _________ minutes 144 What is your gender? Male Female What is your current age? __________ What is your year in school? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Is English the language you learned first as a child? YES NO What is your current age? ___________ We’d like to contact you about a very brief (only three questions) follow-up study in the near future. Your participation will be voluntary. Please provide us with your email address- your email address will remain confidential: ______________ Thanks for your participation! 145 Appendix 5-B Study 4: Questionnaire Used in the Second Wave (2 Days after Participating in the Study) Thank you for your participation in the research session earlier this week. Please take a moment to think about your experience of playing the video game. We would like to know how you remember that experience. To what extent was playing the video game: Not at all Neutral A great deal Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How do you feel RIGHT NOW? Not at all Neutral A great deal Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disappointed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How much do you agree with the following statements? Before playing the video game, I felt joy from the idea of playing it soon. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree Before playing the video game, I was aware that I was feeling good by thinking about playing the video game. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Neutral 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree Thanks for your participation!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the concept of savoring and defines it as a state of mindfulness in which consumers appreciate the pleasure they get at the very moment from an outcome or experience. Whereas past research has focused on savoring the present or the past, limited research has studied consumers savoring an experience to be consumed in the future. Focusing on the temporal dimension of the future, this dissertation contributes to the literature by (1) theoretically differentiating savoring from related constructs, (2) identifying factors that impact the extent to which consumers savor the future, and (3) examining savoring's impact on consumers' immediate and retrospective evaluations of the savored experience. It also (4) studies whether and how expectations about the valence of the future experience play a role in this process. Finally, this dissertation (5) examines whether savoring leads to more positive evaluations even when consumption experiences are worse than expected.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

How sequels seduce: consumers' affective expectations for entertainment experiences

PDF

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

PDF

Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

How do consumers use brands for identity signaling: Impact of brand prominence on consumers' choice and social interaction

PDF

How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

PDF

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

PDF

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

PDF

Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries

PDF

Understanding virality of YouTube video ads: dynamics, drivers, and effects

PDF

Empirical essays on relationships between alliance experience and firm capability development

PDF

Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences

PDF

Essays on bounded rationality and revenue management

PDF

Essays on commercial media and advertising

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Technology, behavior tracking, and the future of work

PDF

Capturing and maintaining the essence of luxury in the dynamic global marketplace

Asset Metadata

Creator Chun, Hae Eun (author)

Core Title Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 04/29/2009

Defense Date 03/12/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag anticipation,consumer emotions,memory,OAI-PMH Harvest,savor

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Diehl, Kristin (committee chair), MacInnis, Deborah J. (committee chair), Miller, Norman (committee member), Priester, Joseph (committee member)

Creator Email haechun@usc.edu,haeeun.chun@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2152

Unique identifier UC1202801

Identifier etd-Chun-2794 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-224056 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2152 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Chun-2794.pdf

Dmrecord 224056

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chun, Hae Eun

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu