case study this is a experiment

q1- case study

Objective.......

Method.........

Sample.........

Result.........

Discussion.....

q2- What does the results obtained from studies mean?

q3- How to explain these results?

EXPERIMENT 1

Experiment 1 tests the hypothesized mediating role of conversational value in the relation between purchase type and purchase-related happiness. We employ a procedure in which the focal purchase is held constant (i.e., a BBQ grill) and manipulate the way that grill owners frame it in their minds (i.e., as an object vs. an experience; Carter and Gilovich 2012; Rosenzweig and Gilovich 2012). Keeping the focal purchase constant affords us control over the na- ture of the purchase. This, in turn, avoids the possible criti- cism that our results emerge from analyses comparing nonequivalent purchasesfor example, an experiential purchase (e.g., a visit to a museum) versus a material pur- chase (e.g., a new lamp). This procedure also rules out al- ternative explanations associated with inherent characteristics of experiential versus material purchases.

Procedures

One hundred and three Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participants completed the study in exchange for financial compensation (females 14 67%; Mage 14 33.94, SD 14 11.46). The experiment was available only to partici- pants with IP addresses from the United States or Canada, and required a history of approval rate equal to or above 97%, with a minimum of 50 tasks previously approved (these criteria were used in all our studies involving MTurk participants). The materials across all our four experiments were in English. To encourage the enrollment of grill own- ers, the studys description mentioned that, We are particu- larly interested in people who have a BBQ grill at home.

The study employed a between-subjects design (BBQ grill framed as: an object vs. an experience) in which par- ticipants were first asked to think about the BBQ grill you own. To manipulate the material versus experiential frame, we encouraged participants to think and write about that BBQ grill either in terms of its material or experiential properties. Participants in the material (experiential) fram- ing condition read, Grills are something people keep (use) for some time. Naturally, when you purchased it, your goal was that during the time you own (use) the grill, you liked the object (the experience of using it). Please recall some details of that object (experience). Make sure you focus on the aspects of the object (experience). Describe specific characteristics of that object (experience) and what it is like to have that object (experience) (see web appendix A for the complete manipulation text). These instructions were given to encourage the participants to think about the purchase in the way it was framed to them.

Assessment of Focal Constructs. First, to measure purchase-related happiness, experiment 1 adopted Van Boven and Gilovichs (2003) two-item scale (When you think about that object/experience, how happy does it make you? and How much does that object/experience contribute to your happiness in life?; 1 14 Not at All; 7 14 Very Much; r 14 .701). We measured the dependent vari- able, purchase-related happiness, before the (predicted) mediating variable, conversational value, to avoid making salient to participants the (proposed) higher conversational value of experiential purchases, which could artificially nfluence their reporting of purchase-related happiness. Next, participants answered a five-item measure of conver- sational value (That object/experience makes for a good conversation; I want to talk to others about that object/ experience; That grill is a good topic to talk about; I desire to talk to people about that object/experience; I feel excited about telling others about that object/experi- ence; 1 14 Strongly Disagree; 7 14 Strongly Agree; a 14 .956). Last, participants indicated whether they had a grill at their house and provided basic demographic information.

Results

Six participants were excluded for indicating that they did not have a BBQ grill at their house, leaving a final sample of 97 participants. All results hold when these six excluded participants are included in the analyses.

Measurement Model. The measurement model posits that two separate factors account for the covariance in the measuresthat is, conversational value and purchase- related happiness. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (AMOS) and found supporting evidence for the two-factor model, as all critical criteria for model fit were met (v2(13) 14 15.8, p 14 .258, RMSEA 14 .048, TLI 14 .993, CFI 14 .996, GFI 14 .956, SRMR 14 .017; Bagozzi and Yi 2012; Hu and Bentler 1998, 1999). In contrast, a one- factor model fails to meet important criteria for model ad- equacy (v2(14) 14 41.1, p < .001, RMSEA 14 .142, TLI 14 .937, CFI 14 .958, GFI 14 .902, SRMR 14 .053). Given our theoretical model and the superior fit of the empirical two- factor model, our analyses treat conversational value and purchase-related happiness as separate constructs.

Purchase-Related Happiness. An ANOVA shows that participants who frame the BBQ grill as an experience re- port significantly greater happiness than participants who frame it as an object (Mexp 14 5.37, SD 14 1.35 vs. Mmat 14 4.66, SD 14 1.47; F(1, 95) 14 5.89, p 14 .017, Cohens d 14 .50). This result replicates the basic phenomenon of interestthe happiness superiority of experiential (vs. material) purchases.

Conversational Value Mediation. A bootstrap test (PROCESS, model 4; Hayes 2013) shows that, in the medi- ator model, purchase type influences conversational value (b 14 .84, SE 14 .30, t(95) 14 2.79, p 14 .006). In the dependent-variable model, conversational value influences purchase-related happiness (b 14 .64, SE 14 .07, t(94) 14 8.60, p < .001), whereas the previously significant effect of purchase type on purchase-related happiness (b 14 .71, SE 14 .29, t(95) 14 2.42, p 14 .017) is reduced to nonsignifi- cant (b 14 .16, SE 14 .22, t(94) 14 .73, p 14 .466). Further, re- sults confirm the indirect effect of purchase type on purchase-related happiness through conversational value (indirect effect: b 14 .53, SE 14 .20, CI 95% 14 [.166, .999]).

Discussion

Experiment 1 provides initial evidence for the proposed conversational value model. Results show that, when peo- ple frame a purchase in experiential (vs. material) terms, they attribute higher conversational value to it; conversa- tional value is positively associated with purchase-related happiness; and it mediates the effect of framing of pur- chase type on purchase-related happiness.

The approach of keeping the focal purchase constant allows experiment 1 to avoid the issue of noncomparability of the purchases participants consider and to obviate pos- sible concerns associated with particularities of experien- tial versus material purchases. Additionally, experiment 1 brings forward an important implication of this research for practitionersthat the apparently simple strategy of encouraging consumers to frame a purchase in experiential terms (e.g., Experience what it is to prepare the perfect meat) versus material terms (e.g., Get all the functional- ities and elegance you have always expected from a grill) influences consumers evaluation of the conversational value of the purchase, and, consequently, the amount of happiness they draw from that purchase. Experiment 1, however, stops short of explaining why experiences are preferred over objects as a topic of conversation. To in- quire deeper into the conversational value model, experi- ment 2 seeks an explanation for peoples preference for sharing about experiences (vs. objects).