Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225 – 232

Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning ☆ Elison Ai Ching Lim a,⁎, Swee Hoon Ang b a

Lecturer at Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Level 4, 161 Barry Street, Parkville, Victoria 3053 Australia b Associate Professor at the NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract This study investigates the effects of cultural conditioning, product type, and benefit claim type on attitudes and brand personality perceptions among consumers from a society that is more culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption (Shanghai, China) and an economy that is less culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption (Singapore). Our findings reveal that consumers in Shanghai preferred ads promoting utilitarian rather than hedonic products. They also rated brands of utilitarian products as more sophisticated, competent, exciting, and sincere than hedonic products. No such difference was observed among Singaporeans. These consumers preferred hedonic over utilitarian products but did not perceive them as being different from utilitarian products in terms of brand personality. Theoretical and managerial implications are forwarded, together with directions for future research. © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: Cultural conditioning; Hedonic consumption; Utilitarian consumption

1. Introduction Past research has underscored the complex relationship between culture and marketing, especially advertising (e.g., Pollay et al., 1990; Sung and Tinkham, 2005; Tse et al., 1989). In a content analysis of ads from four diverse cultures, Alden et al. (1993) found that consumers' appreciation for humorous ads varied depending on their cultural orientation. Along this line, other related works have examined the interplay between culture and product choice (e.g., McCracken, 1986; Veeck and Burns, 2005). For instance, Veeck and Burns (2005) observed that timepoor consumers prefer food options that match their traditional consumption values even though these alternatives required more time. Collectively, these findings are consistent with the notion of cultural conditioning advanced by Hirshman (1986). Cultural conditioning refers to the shaping of consumers' reactions towards (marketing) stimuli based on cultural values. Hirshman (1986) proposed that ad perceptions are influenced by

☆

The authors thank the National University of Singapore for funding this research. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.A.C. Lim). 0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.004

culture. For example, American consumers are conditioned to perceive all-verbal ads as containing utilitarian appeal, while allpictorial ads tend to be thought of as using hedonic appeal. In other (non-conditioned) cultures, such ad perceptions may differ. In a similar vein, Stern (1994) alludes to the role of cultural conditioning in establishing sex-role stereotypes that dictate the acceptability of males and females in different societal roles. Given the relationship between culture and marketing, an interesting question arises: how would a society's transition from a closed to open economy, which is usually accompanied by economic progress, influence consumer preferences/attitudes? This issue becomes even more interesting when new consumption values brought about by economic progress are inconsistent with deep-rooted cultural values associated with a closed economy. Research has demonstrated that changes in values influence the type of advertising appeals used (and vice versa). For instance, Tse et al. (1989) reported a shift from the use of utilitarian to hedonic appeals among Taiwanese ads, possibly depicting how the society has learnt to consume (hedonically). Similarly, Zhang and Shavitt (2003) found that Chinese ads targeted at the Generation X-ers focused on modernity and individualism while those targeted at the masses emphasized collectivism and traditional values, thus demonstrating a shift in values from one generation to another.

226

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

This study aims to investigate the influence of cultural conditioning on consumer attitudes and brand personality perceptions. Specifically, cultural conditioning is studied as individuals’ learned preference for utilitarian (versus hedonic) consumption, possibly as a result of long periods of slow economic progress during which the emphasis is placed on the utilitarian rather than hedonic characteristics of products. Consumption occurs mainly for functional reasons, and hedonic consumption is seldom played up. In contrast, such cultural conditioning is less likely to occur in an open economy as consumers are exposed to both utilitarian and hedonic products with no strong favorable associations for one or the other. Theoretically, cultural conditioning and hedonism versus utilitarianism have been studied individually but not collectively. While studies on brand personality perceptions of hedonic versus utilitarian products have been conducted (Ang and Lim, 2006), this study extends past work by examining brand personality perceptions under cultural conditioning. Similarly, the effect of cultural conditioning on attitudes towards hedonic/utilitarian products and their benefit claims has not been previously investigated. Further, while past research has often compared national cultures that are distinctly diverse, this research seeks to examine the finer distinctions between two Asian cultures that have rather similar cultural orientations (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Managerially, studying the influence of cultural conditioning is instructive as marketers become more attuned to the influence of culture on marketing. Such knowledge is especially important for marketers targeting consumers from diverse cultures. In this research, consumers from two culturally similar yet distinctly different cities (Shanghai in China, and Singapore) are studied. Both cities consist of mainly ethnic Chinese consumers familiar with Confucian values, are economically advanced, and register high economic growth rates. Shanghai, however, has undergone a sustained period of closed economy. Its recent and major change to becoming an open economy possibly means that some Chinese consumers may be still culturally bound to values from the pre-open economy days. As such, as the economy switched from closed to open, the ascendancy of consumerism may have imposed values contradictory to inherited cultural values. In contrast, Singapore has been an open economy since its inception. Consumerism has always been in existence and consumption values are thus more open. There is therefore less cultural conditioning towards products associated with closed economy values that may influence consumer responses towards marketing stimuli. This paper is organized as follows. We first review literature on hedonic and utilitarian consumption, and focus on discussing hedonic/utilitarian product type and benefit claim type. We next discuss the notion of cultural conditioning in Shanghai and Singapore, and how this manifests itself in consumers' preferences for hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Hypotheses are then advanced and tested. Theoretical and managerial implications, along with directions for future research, conclude this paper. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development Extant research has established that consumption can take place for hedonic or utilitarian reasons (e.g., Hirshman, 1986;

Hirshman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1984). Broadly, products used for consumption purposes can be categorized as hedonic or utilitarian. Hedonic products are primarily consumed for sensory gratification and affective purposes (Woods, 1960) or for fun and enjoyment (Holbrook, 1986). Thus, hedonic products generate emotional arousal (Mano and Oliver, 1993) with benefits that are evaluated primarily on aesthetics, taste, symbolic meaning, and sensory experience (Holbrook and Moore, 1981). In contrast, utilitarian products possess a rational appeal and are less arousing as they generally provide cognitively oriented benefits (Hirshman, 1980; Woods, 1960). Further, both hedonic and utilitarian products may possess benefits that are hedonic or utilitarian in nature. A hedonic benefit claim describes an affective benefit that satisfies hedonic needs for sensory pleasure, while a utilitarian claim concerns a pragmatic benefit. How would consumers evaluate ads/brands for different product types (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian) that promote different benefit claim types (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian)? We postulate that ads promoting utilitarian (hedonic) products with hedonic (utilitarian) benefit claims will be preferred over ads which promote utilitarian (hedonic) products using utilitarian (hedonic) benefit claims. When hedonic/ utilitarian products are promoted using hedonic/utilitarian benefit claims, there is some liking for the ad because of the congruity between product type and benefit claim type (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). However, such liking may be enhanced when there is a product/benefit type mismatch. In particular, a moderate level of mismatch is likely to be perceived as novel and stimulate elaboration (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Mandler, 1982). The resolution of such moderate incongruity (i.e., when hedonic products are promoted using utilitarian benefit claims, or when utilitarian products are promoted using hedonic benefit claims) produces favorable responses as consumers are delighted when they are able to make sense of the moderate incongruity. Hence, H1(a) and H1(b) encapsulate the above discussion: H1(a). Ads promoting utilitarian products should result in more favorable ad/brand attitudes when they use hedonic rather than utilitarian benefit claims. H1(b). Ads promoting hedonic products should result in more favorable ad/brand attitudes when they use utilitarian rather than hedonic benefit claims. In considering the influence of culture on consumers' preference for hedonic/utilitarian consumption, we next discuss the notion of cultural conditioning (Hirshman, 1986; Stern, 1994). In the context of marketing, cultural conditioning refers to the influence of cultural values on preferences/attitudes towards marketing stimuli. Hirshman (1986) predicted a preference for culturally conditioned stimuli over other options, even if it is not the best available alternative. Consistent with this, Veeck and Burns (2005) observed that some time-poor consumers continue to prefer using fresh produce over processed food when cooking because they associate fresh ingredients with the tradition

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

of cooking, as well as the maintenance of important social relationships, both of which are central elements of the Chinese culture. Hence, the preference for fresh produce remains strong despite the convenience of processed food. As an economy progresses, consumption typically shifts from being utilitarian to hedonic (Tse et al., 1989). In China's instance, however, such changes may be limited by consumers' conditioning towards utilitarian consumption. In one study, Levy (1996) found that 88% of Chinese consumers relied on facts rather than feelings when making purchase decisions. The deep-seated values of thrift and frugality further suggest that most Chinese consumers make purchase decisions based on a product's functional benefits (Tse, 1996). Consistent with these traditional Chinese values of thrift, frugality, and practicality, content analyses showed that Chinese ads tend to consist mainly of utilitarian appeals (Pollay et al., 1990; Tse et al., 1989), implying that Chinese consumers may have been conditioned to prefer utilitarianism/functionality rather than hedonism. Along this line, recent market research findings reveal that Chinese consumers buy branded clothing because they perceived these to be of higher product quality (83%) rather than because the branded clothing made them feel good (65%) (Lane et al., 2006). Compared to China, Singapore's open economy has exposed its consumers to a wide assortment of product options from its inception in 1965. Thus, there should be little/no cultural conditioning towards hedonic/utilitarian consumption. Summarizing the above discussion, Chinese consumers thus represent a group that has undergone a higher level of cultural conditioning (towards utilitarian consumption) relative to Singaporeans. We predict that being culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption would lead Chinese consumers to prefer utilitarian over hedonic products, whereas such preference is absent for the less culturally conditioned Singaporean consumers. Hence, H2(a) and H2(b) predict: H2(a). Consumers who are more culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption should hold more favorable ad/brand responses towards utilitarian than hedonic products. H2(b). Consumers who are less culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption should hold similar ad/brand attitudes towards utilitarian and hedonic products. Extending the above discussion on cultural conditioning, we ask: do the effects due to cultural conditioning extend to consumers’ perceptions towards brand personality? Extant literature has acknowledged the role of culture in influencing brand personality perceptions (Aaker et al., 2001; Sung and Tinkham, 2005). Like human personalities, brand personalities can grow and evolve over time (Aaker, 1997). Further, the process of developing brand personality involves a “transfer of cultural meaning” whereby meanings of social and cultural symbols are transferred onto the brand (McCracken, 1986). Hence, consumers from a culture that has been conditioned towards utilitarian consumption should confer more favorable associations for brands that promote utilitarian rather than hedonic products. Conversely, when cultural conditioning is less prevalent, socialization and exposure to

227

utilitarian and hedonic products would result in personality perceptions that are less different. Based on this, H3(a) and H3(b) posit the effects for more culturally-conditioned and less culturally-conditioned consumers respectively: H3(a). Consumers who are more culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption should perceive brands of utilitarian products as having more favorable brand personality traits, i.e., more sophisticated, sincere, competent, and exciting, than those of hedonic products. H3(b). Consumers who are less culturally conditioned towards utilitarian consumption should hold similar brand personality perceptions for brands of utilitarian products and those of hedonic products. 3. Experiment 3.1. Experimental design, stimuli, and procedure A 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design is used. Cultural conditioning towards utilitarian consumption (more vs. less) and benefit claim type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) were between-subjects variables, while product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) served as the within-subjects factor. To examine the effects of cultural conditioning on hedonic/ utilitarian consumption, we selected Shanghai as the primary city of interest for the following reasons. First, China as a country has experienced a rapid transition from the pre-1979 closed-door economy to the reformed market of today. Many of its consumers have “learnt to consume” (Tse et al., 1989). Second, Shanghai is China's most cosmopolitan city and its consumers have experienced more consumerism than consumers in other parts of China. MNCs such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, General Motors, Starbucks, and Nokia have established themselves in Shanghai. Thus, Shanghai represents a city where its consumers have recently switched from being a closed economy to open consumerism. The closed economy culturally conditioned Chinese to favor utilitarianism. However, with the opening of the economy, Chinese are exposed to hedonic consumption which may be inconsistent with previous consumption values. In contrast, Singapore, another city with many ethnic Chinese citizens, has always been an open economy with exposure to both utilitarian and hedonic products. Both cities are similar economically and enjoy modern amenities. Experimental ads were created to represent hedonic and utilitarian product types, as well as hedonic and utilitarian benefit types. Two products – hedonic (deodorant) and utilitarian (bar soap) – from one product category (i.e., personal care) were used to minimize the effects on personality perceptions arising from different product categories. Both products were similarly familiar to the participants ( p N .1). Benefit claim type was manipulated by the description of the benefit offered by the product. For the hedonic product (deodorant), “makes you feel lovable” was used as the hedonic attribute, and “hides body odor” was selected as the utilitarian attribute. For the utilitarian product (bar soap), the hedonic attribute was “for a fresh fragrance,”

228

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

whereas the utilitarian attribute was “for protection against bacteria.” Based on pre-test results, these claims were rated similarly in importance ( p N .1). None of the participants in the pre-tests and main experiment expressed doubts about the believability of the benefit claims used. In total, 275 tertiary students took part in the main study. Each participant saw print ads for one hedonic product (deodorant) and one utilitarian product (bar soap). Both ads promoted either hedonic or utilitarian benefits. The ads were counterbalanced to reduce order effects. After seeing each ad, participants were asked to indicate their responses. Twenty questionnaires were incomplete and thus removed from further analyses. The final sample thus consisted of 255 participants (120 from Shanghai, China and 135 from Singapore).

products. Specifically, participants were asked to think of the brand as if it were a person and rate how much they agree/ disagree (on seven-point scales) that a given trait describes the brand. For each brand personality dimension, four traits were used (sophistication — “glamorous,” “pretentious,” “charming,” “romantic”; competence — “reliable,” “responsible,” “dependable,” “efficient”; excitement — “daring,” “spirited,” “imaginative,” “up-to-date”; sincerity — “domestic,” “honest,” “genuine,” “cheerful”). “Cheerful” was dropped as it had a low item-to-total correlation with the sincerity dimension. Each set of items had high reliability for the brand personality dimension it measured (all α's N .7). The scores for the items measuring each brand personality dimension were averaged to yield means for sophistication, competence, excitement, and sincerity; the higher the scores, the stronger the brand personality perceptions.

3.2. Measures 4. Results 3.2.1. Attitude towards the Ad (Attad) and attitude towards the brand (Attbrand) Four seven-point semantic differential scales anchored by Not appealing/Very appealing, Not interesting/Very interesting, Dislike it/Like it, and Bad/Good were each asked for the ad and the brand. As the Cronbach alpha scores were high (all α's N .9), average scores were computed where the higher the value, the more favorable were the attitudes. 3.2.2. Brand personality perceptions Aaker's (1997) brand personality scale was used to measure perceptions of brand personality of the hedonic and utilitarian

4.1. Manipulation checks 4.1.1. Product type Participants were asked to rate the products on four sevenpoint disagree/agree items (Batra and Ahtola, 1990). Two of these – “practical” and “rational” – measured the utilitarian value of the products (Pearson correlation = .68; p b .01), while two others – “beauty” and “vanity” – measured hedonism (Pearson correlation = .67; p b .01). On a seven-point scale, the results showed that bar soap (a utilitarian product) was perceived to be more utilitarian than deodorant (a hedonic

Table 1 Attitudes towards Ad and brand (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Descriptive statistics Cultural conditioning

Product type

More cultural conditioning (Shanghai) N = 120

Benefit type

Hedonic

Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

Utilitarian Less cultural conditioning (Singapore) N = 135

Hedonic Utilitarian

Attbrand

Attad 3.84 (.20) 3.67 (.21) 4.72 (.20) 3.78 (.21) 4.72 (.19) 4.62 (.19) 4.77 (.20) 4.15 (.19)

a

3.82 (.18) 3.69 (.19) 4.19 (.18) 3.53 (.18) 4.53 (.17) 4.46 (.17) 4.12 (.17) 3.95 (.17)

ANOVA Attbrand

Attad Between-subjects effects

df

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

Cultural conditioning (C) Benefit claim type (B) C×B Error

1 1 1 251

40.27 26.54 1.19 3.16

12.74 8.40 .38

b.0001 b.005 ns

26.69 8.48 2.41 2.55

10.45 3.32 .95

b.005 ns b ns

Within-subjects effects

df

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

Product type (P) P×C P×B P×C×B Error

1 1 1 1 251

2.54 15.93 12.90 .53 1.90

ns b.005 b.05 ns

4.04 10.12 3.04 1.38 1.42

a b

Numbers in parentheses represent standard errors. p N .05.

1.34 8.40 6.80 .28

2.84 7.11 2.13 .97

ns b.01 ns ns

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

product) (M = 5.90 vs. 5.46; t = 5.47, p b .001). On the other hand, deodorant was reported to be used more for hedonic purposes compared to bar soap (M = 5.09 vs. 4.58; t = 5.05, p b .001). Taken together, the product type manipulation was successful.

229

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that we conduct a MANOVA test. A separate set of analyses were run using repeated measures MANOVA by treating product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and attitude (attitude towards ad vs. attitude towards brand) as within-subject factors. The pattern of results obtained was similar to those observed under ANOVA analyses. Specifically, the product type × benefit claim type interaction remained significant (F (1, 251) = 5.23, p b .05) and this was not qualified by attitude type (F (1, 251) = 2.85, p N .05). Further, the product type × cultural conditioning interaction was also significant (F (1, 251) = 9.45, p b .005). This interaction was also not qualified by attitude type (F (1, 251) = .55, p N .4). H1(a) and H1(b) predicted that ads promoting utilitarian products should result in more favorable attitudinal responses when hedonic (vs. utilitarian) benefit claims are used, whereas ads promoting hedonic products will produce more favorable evaluations when utilitarian (vs. hedonic) benefits are used. To test H1(a), H1(b):(b), the Product Type × Benefit Claim Type interaction was examined. The results revealed a significant interaction between product type and benefit claim type for Attad (F (1, 251) = 6.80, p b .05). Further, this interaction did not involve cultural conditioning (product type × benefit claim type × cultural conditioning: F (1, 251) = .08, p N .5). Follow-up analyses for Attad indicated that ads promoting utilitarian products were better liked when hedonic, rather than utilitarian, benefit claims were used (Mhedonic benefit = 4.74 vs. Mutilitarian benefit = 3.97, p b .0001). On the other hand, ads promoting hedonic products were similarly

4.1.2. Benefit claim type Three seven-point items (rational, practical, and functional) were used to assess the extent to which a claim was utilitarian. With high Cronbach alpha scores for both the hedonic and utilitarian benefits (α's = .88 and .87 respectively), average scores were computed. Follow-up comparisons showed that for both products, the hedonic claim was rated less utilitarian than the utilitarian claim (bar soap: M = 4.69 vs. 5.73, t = 12.64, p b .001; deodorant: M = 4.49 vs. 5.82, t = 15.30, p b .001). Thus, our manipulation of hedonic and utilitarian claims worked accordingly. 4.2. Hypotheses testing 4.2.1. Attitude towards the Ad (Attad) and attitude towards the brand (Attbrand) As reported in Table 1, significant main effects of cultural conditioning and benefit claim type were observed for Attad (both F's N 8, both p's b .005). For Attbrand, only the main effect of cultural conditioning was significant (F (1, 251) = 10.45, p b .005). The descriptive statistics and the ANOVA results relating to attitudes towards the ad and the brand are presented in Table 1. Table 2 Brand personality perceptions (descriptive statistics and ANOVA) Descriptive statistics Cultural conditioning

Product type

More cultural conditioning (Shanghai) N = 120

Hedonic Utilitarian

Less cultural conditioning (Singapore) N = 135

Hedonic Utilitarian

Benefit type Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

Sophistication 3.80 (.18) 3.35 (.19) 4.87 (.19) 3.82 (.20) 4.23 (.17) 3.62 (.17) 4.50 (.18) 3.69 (.18)

a

Competence

Excitement

Sincerity

4.00 (.15) 3.81 (.15) 4.51 (.15) 4.18 (.16) 4.09 (.14) 4.17 (.14) 4.29 (.15) 4.03 (.14)

3.90 (.17) 3.89 (.18) 4.32 (.17) 4.01 (.18) 4.12 (.16) 4.28 (.16) 4.02 (.16) 4.02 (.16)

4.06 (.15) 3.96 (.16) 4.56 (.16) 4.27 (.17) 4.15 (.15) 4.10 (.15) 4.37 (.15) 3.93 (.15)

ANOVA Sophistication

Competence

Between-subjects effects

df

MS

F

p-value

MS

Cultural conditioning (C) Benefit claim (B) C×B Error

1 1 1 251

.36 68.02 .04 2.84

.13 23.97 .02

ns b b.0001 ns

.05 3.79 .89 2.09

F .02 1.82 .43

Excitement

Sincerity

p-value

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

ns ns ns

.82 .21 1.78 2.70

.31 .08 .66

ns ns ns

.68 6.07 .07 2.17

.31 2.80 .03

ns ns ns

Within-subjects effects

df

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

MS

F

p-value

Product P×C P×B P×C×B Error

1 1 1 1 251

28.14 11.40 5.14 1.36 1.38

20.34 8.24 3.72 .99

b.0001 b.005 ns ns

7.03 5.40 1.93 .35 .67

10.57 8.12 2.91 .53

b.005 b.01 ns ns

.28 6.46 1.78 .14 .87

.32 7.46 2.06 .16

ns b.01 ns ns

5.94 4.53 2.56 .28 .91

6.56 5.00 2.83 .31

b.05 b.05 ns ns

a b

Numbers in parentheses represent standard errors. p N .05.

230

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

liked regardless of the type of benefit claim made (Mhedonic benefit = 4.28 vs. Mutilitarian benefit = 4.14, p N .4). Even though the product type × benefit claim type interaction was not significant for Attbrand (F (1, 251) = 2.13, p N .1), follow-up analyses revealed a similar pattern of findings as that observed for Attad. Brands of utilitarian products were preferred when hedonic, rather than utilitarian, benefit claims were used (Mhedonic benefit = 4.15 vs. Mutilitarian benefit = 3.74, p b .05). Conversely, brands of hedonic products were similarly liked regardless of the type of benefit claim (Mhedonic benefit = 4.18 vs. Mutilitarian benefit = 4.07, p N .5). Hence, H1(a) is strongly supported but H1(b) is not supported. H2(a) predicted that culturally-conditioned (Shanghai) consumers will hold more favorable ad/brand responses towards utilitarian products, and less favorable ad/brand responses towards hedonic products. H2(b) suggested that less culturallyconditioned (Singaporean) consumers should respond similarly to utilitarian and hedonic products. Our analyses revealed a significant product × cultural conditioning interaction for both Attad (F (1, 251) = 8.40, p b .005) and Attbrand (F (1, 251) = 7.11, p b .01). Subsequent comparisons revealed that while participants from Shanghai found ads more appealing when they promoted utilitarian, rather than hedonic, products (Mutilitarian product = 4.25 vs. Mhedonic product = 3.75, p b .01), they reported similar levels of attitudes towards the brand (Mutilitarian product = 3.86 vs. Mhedonic product = 3.75, p N .5). Thus, H2(a) was supported for Attad, but not for Attbrand. Singaporean participants, on the other hand, held similar attitudes towards ads involving hedonic or utilitarian products (Mhedonic product = 4.67 vs. Mutilitarian product = 4.46, p N .2), but preferred brands of hedonic products (Mhedonic product = 4.50 vs. Mutilitarian product = 4.03, p b .005). Thus, H2(b) was supported for Attad, but not for Attbrand. 4.2.2. Brand personality perceptions (sophistication, competence, excitement, sincerity) The descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for brand personality perceptions are summarized in Table 2. The product × cultural conditioning interaction was significant for sophistication (F (1, 251) = 8.24, p b .005), competence (F (1, 251) = 8.12, p b .01), excitement (F (1, 251) = 7.46, p b .01), and sincerity (F = 5.00, p b .05) perceptions. H3(a) and H3(b) hypothesized that culturally-conditioned (Shanghai) consumers should confer more favorable brand personality perceptions for utilitarian than hedonic products, while less culturally-conditioned (Singaporean) consumers should report similar perceptions towards utilitarian and hedonic products. Our analyses revealed that participants from Shanghai and Singapore held different brand personality perceptions towards hedonic and utilitarian products. Participants from Shanghai rated the utilitarian product as being more sophisticated (Mutilitarian product = 4.34 vs. Mhedonic product = 3.57, p b .0001), more competent (Mutilitarian product = 4.35 vs. Mhedonic product = 3.90, p b .0001), more exciting (Mutilitarian product = 4.16 vs. Mhedonic product = 3.89, p b .05), and more sincere (Mutilitarian product = 4.41 vs. Mhedonic product = 4.01, p b .005) than the hedonic products. Thus, H3(a) was supported. In contrast, less culturally conditioned (Singaporean) participants reported similar ratings for brand personality dimensions for hedonic and

utilitarian products (sophistication: Mhedonic product = 3.93 vs. Mutilitarian product = 4.10, p N .2; competence: Mhedonic product = 4.13 vs. Mutilitarian product = 4.16, p N .7; excitement: Mhedonic product = 4.20 vs. Mutilitarian product =4.02, p N .1; sincerity: Mhedonic product = 4.12 vs. Mutilitarian product = 4.15, p N .8). Thus, H3(b) was also supported. 5. Discussion This study found that while the use of hedonic benefit claims enhances consumer attitudes towards utilitarian products, the use of such benefit claims has no effect on attitude towards hedonic products. Thus, our prediction that attitudes would be enhanced when there is a product/benefit type mismatch was true only for utilitarian products with hedonic benefit claims. Managerially, these findings suggest that contrary to conventional wisdom that utilitarian products should be promoted based on functional benefits, brand managers should confer utilitarian products with hedonic benefits to enhance their aesthetic aspects, so as to set their brands apart from other competitors'. Marketers of hedonic products, however, are unlikely to gain from using functional benefit claims. Overall, the findings relating to hedonic/utilitarian consumption make important theoretical contribution by clarifying the distinction between hedonic/utilitarian product and benefit claim types. By examining the effects of promoting hedonic/utilitarian products using hedonic/utilitarian benefit claim, this research demonstrated that there are two levels on which hedonic/utilitarian consumption can be defined. Future research may examine the underlying mechanisms of why attitudes are enhanced when hedonic benefits are used together with utilitarian products, but not when they are used with hedonic products. Tentatively, the observed asymmetric effects may be due to the novelty of seeing a utilitarian product being promoted as delivering hedonic benefits. Alternatively, this may result from the addition of the hedonic benefit to the utilitarian product's expected functional benefit, thus enhancing its overall perceived value. In contrast, hedonic products possessing utilitarian benefits may be perceived as being less incongruent and/or deemed less novel. This may account for the ceiling effect observed when hedonic benefit claims are used with hedonic products. With regards to the effects of cultural conditioning, the results from this research showed that Shanghai consumers were likely to hold more favorable attitudes towards ads promoting utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products. As predicted, Singaporeans did not report differential preference for ads promoting either product type. These findings are thus consistent with our predictions about the effect of cultural conditioning on ad attitudes. Intuitively, since China is one of the fastest growing economies, Shanghai consumers should increasingly express greater preference for ads involving hedonic products. Instead, our findings show that ads promoting utilitarian products are still preferred over those featuring hedonic products, an observation that is consistent with the inherent cultural conditioning towards utilitarian consumption. This finding is even more intriguing since the participants were tertiary students who were familiar

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

with modern consumption options. The fact that they still held strong ad preferences towards utilitarian products further underscores the importance of cultural conditioning. Interestingly, the results for brand attitudes hinted at the growing impact of economic progress among these young consumers: while Shanghai consumers were indifferent towards hedonic and utilitarian brands, consumers in Singapore indicated a stronger preference for hedonic brands. While these findings are generally consistent with Tse et al. (1989) observation that as economies become more sophisticated, preferences for products typically progress from utilitarian to hedonic, our findings suggest that such adoption may be limited by the presence of cultural conditioning. Our findings relating to the effects of cultural conditioning on brand personality perceptions were intriguing. While the less culturally conditioned (Singaporean) consumers rated hedonic and utilitarian brands as being similar in terms of brand personality perceptions, the more culturally conditioned (Shanghai) consumers reported brand personality differences between hedonic and utilitarian products. Consistent with their preference for utilitarian products, Shanghai consumers rated brands of utilitarian products as scoring higher on all the four brand personality dimensions examined. Specifically, they saw brands of utilitarian products as being more sophisticated, more competent, more sincere, and more exciting. The findings from this study thus extend Ang and Lim's (2006) work by showing that culture influences brand personality perceptions for hedonic and utilitarian products. At a broad level, these also suggest that seemingly opposing brand personality traits can co-exist in consumers’ minds. This notion is theoretically interesting and managerially relevant. Theoretically, this not only points to the existence of a multi-dimensional brand personality much like how (opposing) mixed emotions can co-exist peacefully (Williams and Aaker, 2002), but also that cultural conditioning can significantly influence evaluation of hedonic consumption. Managerially, marketers should consider combining different traits when targeting consumers from diverse cultures so as to create a unique yet appealing personality for their advertised brands. While the present study focused on cultural conditioning towards utilitarian consumption, future studies may be extended to markets where cultural conditioning is geared towards hedonic consumption. This would furnish a more rigorous test of the cultural conditioning hypothesis. Further, future research can examine the underlying processes of cultural conditioning effects. More interesting, how enduring are the effects of cultural conditioning? Does newly conditioned responses (e.g., towards hedonic consumption) offset or add to those formed under old cultural conditioning (e.g., towards utilitarian consumption)? To address these issues, future research may collect longitudinal data that track changes in consumption patterns and values over time. Alternatively, future research using qualitative techniques involving inter-generational respondents from the same family may reveal important insights as well. Several more avenues for future research are possible. While this study was conducted in Shanghai, the most cosmopolitan Chinese city, consumers from other Chinese cities may also be examined in future research. Compared to that in Shanghai, the

231

transition to consumerism may be even more dramatic in other Chinese cities due to the presence of more deeply entrenched values. Thus, the effects of cultural conditioning may be even more evident. Future research may extend the current study to other product categories so as to improve the generalizability of the findings obtained. Besides the attitudinal responses used in this study, future studies should include behavioral measures to yield a more complete understanding of the relationship between cultural conditioning and actual consumption. References Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark Res 1997;34:347–56 [August]. Aaker JL, Benet-Martinez Veronica Garolera J. Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;81:492–508 [March]. Alden DL, Hoyer Wayne D, Lee C. Identifying global and cultural-specific dimensions of humor in advertising: a multinational analysis. J Mark 1993;57:64–75 [April]. Ang SH, Lim EAC. The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. J Advert 2006;35:39–53 [Summer]. Batra R, Ahtola O. Measuring hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Mark Lett 1990;2(April):159–70. Heckler SE, Childers TL. The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: what is congruency? J Consum Res 1992;18: 475–92 [March]. Hirshman EC. Attributes and layers of meaning. In: Olsen Jerry, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 7. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research; 1980. p. 101–18. Hirshman EC. The effect of verbal and pictorial advertising stimuli on aesthetic, utilitarian and familiarity perceptions. J Advert 1986;15:27–34 [Summer]. Hirshman EC, Holbrook MB. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts methods and propositions. J Mark 1982;46:92–101 [Summer]. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005. Holbrook MB. Emotion in the consumption experience: towards a new model of the human consumer. In: Peterson Robert A, Hoyer Wayne D, Wilson William R, editors. The role of affect in consumer behavior: emerging theories and applications. MA: Lexington Books; 1986. p. 17–52. Holbrook MB, Moore William L. Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial representations. J Consum Res 1981;8:103–13 [June]. Holbrook MB, Hirschman Elizabeth C. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies feelings and fun. J Cons Res 1984;9:132–40 [September]. Lane Kevin St-Maurice I, Dyckerhoff Claudia S. Building brands in China. The McKinsey quarterly 2006 special edition: serving the new Chinese consumer; 2006. p. 35–41. Levy Gina R. Consumer marketing in china: chasing billions, catching millions. Hong Kong: Economist Intelligence Unit; 1996. Mandler G. The structure of value: accounting for taste. In: Clark MS, Fiske ST, editors. Affect and cognition: the 17th annual carnegie symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1982. p. 3–36. Mano H, Oliver RL. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. J Consum Res 1993;20:451–66 [December]. McCracken G. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of meaning of consumer goods. J Consum Res 1986;14: 71–84 [June]. Meyers-Levy J, Tybout AM. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. J Consum Res 1989;16:180–97 [June]. Pollay RW, Tse David K, Wang ZY. Advertising propaganda and value change in economic development: the new cultural revolution in China and attitudes towards advertising. J Bus Res 1990;20:83–95 [March].

232

E.A.C. Lim, S.H. Ang / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 225–232

Stern BB. Advertising to the ‘other’ culture: women's use of language and language's use of women. In: Levy Sidney J, Frerichs George R, Gordon Howard L, editors. Marketing managers' handbook. Third Edition. Chicago: Dartnell Press; 1994. p. 1231–47. Sung Y, Tinkham SF. Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: common and culture-specific factors. J Consum Psychol 2005;15 (4):334–50. Tse D. Understanding Chinese people as consumers: past findings and future propositions. In: Bond Michael Harris, editor. The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 352–63. Tse D, Belk RW, Zhou N. Becoming a consumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the

People's Republic of China, and Taiwan. J Consum Res 1989;15:457–72 [March]. Veeck A, Burns AC. Changing tastes: the adoption of new food choices in postreform China. J Bus Res 2005;58:644–52 [May]. Williams P, Aaker JL. Can mixed emotions peacefully co-exist? J Consum Res 2002;28:636–49 [March]. Woods WA. Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. J Mark 1960;24:15–9 [January]. Zhang J, Shavitt S. Cultural values in advertisements to the Chinese Xgeneration. J Advert 2003;32:23–33 [Spring].