Flávio Santino Bizarrias
Universidade Nove de Julho,
Brazil
E-mail: flavioxsp@hotmail.com
Jussara Goulart da Silva
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia,
Brazil
E-mail: profadmjussara.ufu@gmail.com
Marlette Cassia Oliveira Ferreira
Instituto Federal de São Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: marlettecassia@gmail.com
Submission: 12/03/2018
Revision: 26/03/2018
Accept: 10/04/2018
ABSTRACT
The
study of decision-making of people has its origins in economic theory, with a
more rational approach. However, several studies have shown that
decision-making follows also an emotional model. In great part, decisions are
influenced by information we receive through communication framing. In
education, students decisions are largely affected by the information they
receive through communication issued by the service provider. In a scenario of
service failure recovery the influence of emotional or rational messages is
little studied. The motivation of this study is the absence of works relating
attitudes to services when failure recovery occurs in higher education
services, particularly when the framing of the communication signals some
position to students, aiming to persuade them. The results showed that rational
communication was more effective than emotional ones. It was also found that
interpersonal influences tends to reduce positive responses from students to
HEI communication strategy, though a moderation process.
Keywords: Message framing; Affect and
reason; Advertisement; Service failure recovery
1. INTRODUCTION
Human
beings are not able to rationalize everything in an extremely complex
environment (SIMON, 1957). Therefore, if a decision is made logically,
maximizing the utility obtained in an economic model becomes impossible. People
choose and judge also on the basis of processes and mechanisms others than
reason solely, like emotions and feelings (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979; TVERSKY;
KAHNEMAN, 1981). Humans are both emotion and reason driven (VERWEIJ;
SENIOR; DOMÍNGUEZ; TURNER, 2015).
At
the same time, consumers have relationships with brands (FOURNIER, 1998;
FETSCHERIN; HEINRICH, 2015), and they also scrutinize them for information for
their judgments and decision making (KELLER, 2002). The task of judgment and
choice is not a routine activity. It involves the processing of a wide range of
information, sometimes more rational (MEYERS-LEVY; MALAVIYA, 1999; WEGENER;
SAWICKI; PETTY, 2009), or more affective (COHEN; PHAM; ANDRADE, 2008).
Consumers
do this through specific strategies and mechanisms, not always conscious, to
reach the objective that is sought through the purchase (TVERSKY, 1972; HOYER;
BROWN, 1990; MOWEN; MINOR, 1998; BETTMAN; LUCE; PAYNE, 199; RUSSO; CARLSON,
2006). It is observed that several other factors also can influence consumer
decision making, such as memory (BAGOZZI; GURHAN-CANLI; PARK; PRIESTER, 2002;
VIECELI; SHAW, 2010), affection (PHAM, 1998; BAGOZZI; GOPINATH; NYER, 1999),
and the consumer's self-regulation (FLORACK; SCARABIS, 2006).
In
many cases, it is decided simply by what is more familiar (COATES; BUTLER;
BERRY, 2006; THOMAS; WILLIAMS, 2013), through the mere exposure to the object
of analysis (ZAJONC, 1980). In this way, affective contacts gain relevance, and
the experience as a whole is evaluated for decision making (BRAKUS; SCHMITT;
ZARANTONELLO, 2009). A communication strategy, such as advertising, also uses
consumer decision-making models to persuade. The framing of the message will
influence how the consumer receives and processes the information, similar as
in the studies of Tversky and Kahneman
(1985), affecting its evaluations and behavior.
The
persuasive role of advertising begins with capturing the attention of the
audience. Heath, Nairn and
Bottomley (2009) suggest that rational appeals have a greater effect under
attention-grabbing than emotional appeals. This process is not always rational,
and conscious, quite the opposite. Mainly, unconscious and emotional processes
dictate the reactions to the advertisements. Geuens,
Pham, and De Pelsmaker (2011) identified that the
response to TV commercials, and their impact on attitude toward the brand, were
more influenced by the emotional and hedonic content, rather than utilitarian
content of those advertisements.
Other
studies explore that decision making is a constructive process (BETTMAN; LUCE;
PAYNE, 1998; SLOVIC; FINUCANE; PETERS; MACGREGOR, 2006), where decisions are
made on the spot at the time of purchase. In these studies the context seems to
have great relevance. In this way, in service encounters, where production and
consumption are carried out at the same time, to observe the factors that lead
to the consumer's decision to remain loyal to a service provider, even though
it has flaws, seems to be a relevant aspect to be considered. In other words,
aspects that leads to loyalty, in an environment that is difficult to evaluate,
such as services, are very important to researchers and managers.
The
main objective of this study is to analyze the influence of messages with
framing of affective or rational advertisement used by a Higher Education
Institution (HEI), in response to processes of service failure recovery,
involving current students. By our knowledge, this is the first study to
integrate these theories, even more in the education segment. The Brazilian
sector of higher education was chosen because there is a great evasion of
students over the past few years, which, besides a managerial problem, is also
a social problem. Part of this evasion is due to service failures, such as the
promise of better-than-expected education not confirmed, poor service, and
other unfulfilled promises during the course.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section a review will be done on decision making in
general, followed by decision making in the context of consumer behavior. In
the sequence, it will be observed the influence of the brand in this process,
the role of affectivity in communications and, finally, an analysis of the role
of communication as a marketing strategy.
2.1.
Decision
making
In the mid 1960s, Simon (1957) coined the term
"limited rationality," which recognizes people's inability to process
all the information they receive, so they make decisions based on shortcuts, or
"heuristics." Following these studies, Tversky and Kahneman (1975)
deepened the concept that some specific heuristics facilitate the complex task
of decision making under risk, not without errors and biases, but in which
people are subjectively evaluating the probability of occurrence of an event,
and estimation of some numerical value.
The authors expanded their studies on the decision-making
process, contrasting the classical theory of utility maximization, proposing the
prospect theory, (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979), which suggests the certainity
effect, which establishes that people overestimate results given as certain,
relative to those perceived only as probable, in a context of gains, or
positive context (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 1979).
This effect has a reflection effect when the context
implies a decision about losses, or a negative context, that is, we choose the
alternative that implies greater certainty of losing less, but with greater
associated risk. In other words, in a positive scenario of probable gain, we
adopt a risk aversion stance, and in a scenario of "certain" losses,
we adopt a risk-seeking stance, by opting for a probable loss (KAHNEMAN;
TVERSKY, 1979).
The authors also explored the role of framing and its
influence on decision making. That is, preference reversion may occur depending
on how the problem under decision is structured and presented (TVERSKY;
KAHNEMAN, 1985).
The model of prospect theory is consistent with the
proposition that consumer decisions are made on the spot, in a constructive
process (BETTMAN; ZINS, 1977; BETTMAN; LUCE; PAYNE, 1998; SLOVIC et al., 2006).
Several other models of decision-making emerged along the axis of this
proposition, such as decision-making strategies based on elimination by aspects
(TVERSKY, 1972), decision based on lexicographic models, and compensatory
models (MOWEN; MINOR, 1998).
2.2.
Experience
and Communication
Communication strategies of organizations promote mainly
exposure to the brand. In this way, it is observed that the phenomenon of
preference for what we know previously influences our choices, and is greatly
stimulated by the communications (COATES; BUTLER; BERRY, 2006; THOMA; WILLIANS,
2013). For these authors, the priming effect of exposure to the brand leads to
the choice, unconsciously, firstly through the inclusion of these brands in the
range of options to be considered for later purchase.
In addition, as in the study by Thoma and Wilians (2013),
brand recognition has a positive influence on the choice made by the
respondents. Even in situations of unconscious exposure, brands are seen as a
factor that influences consumer decision, particularly when it arouses
affective bonds (HARRIS; MURAWSKI, 2010).
These actions of communication aim to generate familiarity
with the brand and results on sales as well, although the latter implication
causes some controversy (HOYER; BROWN 1990). The assumption is that repetition
of exposure to a stimulus increases familiarity, and arouses a favorable
attitude to the object of analysis, as opposed to the novelties that tend to
increase the perception of risk. This proposition is corroborated by Zajonc's
(1980) study, which states that mere exposure influences positive affect to an
object, even if one does not have full consciousness.
2.3.
The
role of affection
The use of affection in the decision-making process has
grown as an object of study is several areas of knowledge, an humam activity,
such as social media, (BORAH; XIAO, 2018), or in education to analyze students
rational ability, for example (FU; YU; NI; LI, 2018), although it is quite
present in the consumer behavior literature (COHEN; PHAM; ANDRADE, 2008).
Researchers point out that the initial conclusions about the influence of
affection on the decision process establish that an affective evaluation
precedes the cognitive evaluation (SLOVIC et al., 2006), and that even rational
decisions will contain some affective evaluation. The authors point out the
work of and Zajonc (1980), as one precursor of studies of the influence of
affection in the decision process.
Some studies establishes the importance of images (LURIE;
MASON, 2007), as markers that accumulate mentally, and their connection to
positive or negative feelings, which throughout life succeed, leading to
affective decisions, when a situation of choice is established. Our brain
searches in its "files" for a similar situation that can serve as a
clue to decision making. For Zajonc (1980) every decision includes some aspect
of affection.
2.4.
Communication
and framing of the message
Communications need to be congruent with the consumer's
attitude profile.In communication, framing refers to words, images, phrases,
and presentation styles used to convey information to an audience (CHONG;
DRUCKMAN, 2007). The authors also propose that the framing effect will be more
significant depending on the prevalence of the frame, what is wanted to fit the
message, the knowledge and motivation of the message receiver and the frequency
of exposure. It is also observed that the repetition of the frame will have
greater impact in individuals with less knowledge about what is presented to
them.
Other authors (NIEDRICH; SWAIN, 2003) attribute to the
pioneering market entry, mediated by the credibility of the company, and to the
previous experience of the consumer with the product, the greater preference
for a brand. So trust and brand satisfaction are very important in message
processing. Trust comes from how people treat each other (ZAROLIA; WEISBUCH; MCRAE, 2017), and satisfaction
comes though the overcoming of expectations, in service encounters.
Taken together, these aspects lead us to the first two hypothesis of this
study:
Studies on affective heuristics (SLOVIC et al., 2006)
suggests, based on the findings of Damasio (1994), that images have a central
role in the use of affection in the decision process. Damásio (1994) proposes
that thoughts are formed by images, and that people learn throughout their
lives the meaning of these images, in terms of the valence of the feelings
associated with them, and their results.
That is, images will be stored in our unconscious, forming
a stock of images, associated with positive or negative feelings, that we will
resort to in the processes of evaluation and decision that we face throughout
life. These images will then become more available in memory as exposure
increases, so that an evaluation or decision is made in an affective process,
almost automatically.
The simple exposure to images is already capable of
providing this learning (SLOVIC et al., 2006), even with respect to aspects of the
other senses. The image used as a framing is able to establish feelings that
will be difficult to remove from people's minds, thus influencing decision
making. Images are therefore an important tool for reversing preferences.
The effect of an affective advertisement will be greater
the greater the exposure of the audience to this stimulus (HEATH; NAIRN, 2009).
Holbrook and Batra (1987) proposed a model in which the content of advertising
influences the emotions and feelings of consumers. That is, the content of the
ad will directly influence both the consumer's emotional responses to the
advertisement, and the advertiser. The figure 1 illustrates the model proposed
by the authors.
Figure 1: Emotions and consumer
response to advertising
Source: Based on Holbrook and
Batra (1987)
Holbrook and Batra (1987) have found evidence for the
mediating role of affection over advertisements and brands (particularly
excitement, pleasure, and domination), resulting in more positive assessments.
Otherwise, the attitude toward advertising can be transferred for the brand
(VAKRATSAS; AMBLER, 1999). This is corroborated by the theory of congruence
between an advertising of expression of value, or even based on utilitarianism,
or also based on expectations and beliefs about product-brand relation.
Other studies (BÜLBÜL; MENON, 2010) propose that affection
can be concrete or abstract. Concrete means that the appeals of advertisements
may be a short-term result, in which the consumer's capacity for evaluation is
more real. Or appeals may be more abstract, favoring long-term decisions and
evaluations. Advertisements can also act as a form of anticipated emotion, that
is, by establishing in advance the emotion that the consumer will feel in their
consumer experience (MELLERS; MCGRAW, 2001).
Chang (2008) adds that, from the point of view of consumer
behavior theory, when consumers evaluate hedonic aspects of products, aspects
related to affect are important. Which does not occur when evaluating
utilitarian attributes of products, where affection becomes irrelevant. This
implies that when the consumer evaluates utilitarian aspects of the products,
the valence of the affection of the advertisements does not affect the
responses of the consumers significantly.
2.5.
Failure
recovery in services
Services are characterized by a great interaction between
consumers and employees, and both seek a satisfactory experience (YIM; CHAM;
LAM, 2012). In this way the relationship between supplier and consumer gains
greater proportions in the service environment. As in every relationship, just
like interactions between people only, the relationship between organizations
and people is flawed. Even because a service organization is fundamentally a
relationship between people (BERRY; PARASURAMAN, 1993).
Services are fundamentally an experience. The satisfaction
of the consumer in services is therefore a process that does not exhaust itself
in the delivery of the service, because the interactions continue, even after
this stage is completed. The frequency of occurrence of failure in services is
an aggravation of a process that is not well managed, but that is part of a
missed first promise not accomplished. The legitimacy of the service encounter,
and the responses of the service organization can influence consumer
satisfaction (HENNIG-THURAU et al. 2006; MAGNINI; FORD; MARKOWSKI, 2007). This
can be translated in the following hypothesis:
Satisfaction of the consumer of a given service depends on
an environment of mutual satisfaction, or even trust between employee and
consumers (GRANDEY; GOLDBERG; PUGH, 2011). The relationship between affection,
as an strategy, and operational and financial results, is of paramount
importance in service relationships. Consumer satisfaction and trust is based
on the premise that satisfaction will result from a higher level of quality in
service delivery (GRANDEY; GOLDBERG; PUGH, 2011), and more identification with
the brand of the service provider, generating more interaction and relatioship.
This lead us to the following hypothesis, as satisfied consumers reward
organizations for their efforts, even if they are due to something that fell
short of expectations.
However, more possibilities for failures will also occur as
human interactions improve. Hess, Ganesan and Klein (2003) note that failures
will impact the image of the service organization. As consumer perception is a
very sensitive aspect to the influences of service interactions, they will
trust in their fellows to form their impressions about the service, as it is
difficult to evaluate services. Following this reasoning, in an educational
context, students maybe can trust other students opinions. Let’s explore these
implications in the next section.
2.6.
The
influence of social relations
In an educational environment, personal interactions are
many and of diverse nature. All information exchanged between students in their
interpersonal relationships with each other, regarding to their personal and
academic lifes are relevant to the formulation of students' opinions, attitudes
and behaviors. Students are a social group in which the influence of one member
over another is latent. The behavior of the group member (in group) is very
influenced by the behavior of the other members of the group (NETEMEYER et al.,
2004). In this way we believe that the reactions of the consumer of educational
services should be moderated by the interpersonal relations developed in the
HEI. Information from multiple sources can generate greater or lesser
confidence (ZAROLIA; WEISBUCH; MCRAE, 2017).
Mowen and Minor (1998) define personal influence factors as
being psychological processes that affect individuals engaged in acquiring,
consuming and discarding goods, services, and experiences. Among the individual
factors, the reference groups are primordial in the understanding of consumer
preferences or buying behavior (LEARY; VANN;
GROZA, 2016), both from the point of view of the individual purchase
(affected by the reference group), or in a group decision. These authors states
that reference groups act just as a reference point for individual attitudes
and behaviors.
The influence of the reference group on consumers (MOWEN;
MINOR, 1998) occurs through informational influence (1), or when the group
provides reliable normative information (2), in which the norms or rules of
influence have value (3) that is of interest to he or she. Consumers perceive
that a particular reference group has characteristic values of the consumption
process that are of interest to them. That is, the individual will make the
purchase decision, or the simple preference for something, driven by the desire
to belong to the group (MOWEN; MINOR, 1998). Consumer roles within the group,
group pressure for conforming behaviors, social comparison processes in
addition to group polarization, or group decisions, polarized at some extreme
in question, complement the group's influencing factors.
To the extent that relationships between people are a
factor influencing individual behavior, it is expected that interpersonal
influence has a significant moderating effect on the relationships between
people attitudes, and their responses. In others words, in the variables trust
and satisfaction, as atecedents of loyalty and brand equity.
People attachment style influence their behavior and how
they react to communication strategies (DAVID;
BEARDEN, 2017). In an educational scenario, as students are commonly
affected by the results of the work of the secretariat, and their
communication, this results in anticipated negative emotions on the part of the
students (Mellers and McGraw, 2001). This negative valence is then transferred
to thei evaluations of the entire service experience. Through the paradigm of
social desirability, people are expected to evaluate and behave in a projective
way and according to the expectations of the group under their actions,
therefore, as service failures are negative in nature, personal influence has
the potential to reduce the strength of brand-people relationships and loyalty.
Students may behave according to the expectations of their fellow students.
And, as all of then are frustrated with the service provided, he or she will
behave accordingly the same way. (H7a, b, c, d).
All of this taken together, results in the following
structural model tested, observed in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Structural Model
Source: Prepared by the
authors.
3. METHOD
In this section the main methodological aspects of the
study are presented. The main procedures and analysis techniques are observed
as well.
3.1.
Stimulus
Firstly, 10 students from the institution were interviewed
to assess the main flaw in the services provided by the university. A list of
attributes (n = 16) raised was then submitted to another group of students to
check the importance placed to each factor. The main aspect of service failure
evaluated by the students was the secretariat's work. Not exactly the service
itself, but the deficiency in the resolution of their requests. In this way, a
situation of failure recovery was chosen as stimulus for the study based on the
service provided by the secretariat service.
As a complement to the stimulus, and to test communicarion
strategy efficiency after the service failure, an affective response
advertisement was elaborated because the students reported that the service is
extremely "mechanical" and "dehumanized". In contrast,
another advertisement with a more rational approach was also developed. The
students themselves developed the two stimuli in two different groups.
3.2.
Collection
instrument
In the descriptive step, a questionnaire for the survey was
drawn up with Oliver's Loyalty and Satisfaction Scales (1999), Confidence was
adapted from Dowling and Staelin (1994) study, Interpersonal Influence was
based on Bearden, Netemayer and Teel (1989), Netemeyer et al. (2004), and
Attitude to the advertising was based on De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Anckaert
(2002), anchored in (1) strongly disagree, up to (7) strongly agree. Data were
collected through the internet and through face-to-face interviews, from
November 2016 to January 2017.
One group of students initially observed the emotional
framing stimulus, and another group of students observed rational framing. In
this way, this study can be classified as a quasi-experimental study, between
subjects, with only one manipulated variable (communication framing).
3.3.
Criteria
for analyzing the data
Data were analyzed in two groups by means of structural
equation modeling (SEM), through the software SmartPLS2.0M3 (RINGLE; WENDE,
2010) indicated for reduced samples, absence of normality and when the
researcher's concern is the prediction of variables, with reduction of variance
and increase of R2. Initially, multicollinearity tests were
performed to observe the variance inflation factor (VIF), as well as the Komlogorov-Smirnof
to normality test (Hair et al, 2010).
To validate the models, the criteria of convergent and
discriminant validity were adopted. The convergent validity was observed
through averaged extracted variance (AVE) of over 0.5, and factorial loads above
0.7. For discriminant validity we observed the square root of the AVE of each
variable superior to its correlation with the other variables, in addition to
the greater crossloadings in their respective constructs. Finally, the Gof
(Goodness of fit) indicator was calculated and should be higher than 0.36
(TENENHAUS et al., 2005). The significance test of the relationships was
elaborated using the bootstapping resampling technique (HAIR et al., 2014).
4. RESULTS
In this section we present the results of the study,
starting with the sample profile, and in the sequence by the results of the
models tested.
4.1.
Sample
The sample of the research was
composed by 206 students of the administration course between the 1st and the
6th semester of a private university in the city of São Paulo. The mean age was
27.4 years of age (sd = 8.07), with 125 women (60.7%), in 100 cases of rational
sample and 106 cases of emotional sample.
4.2.
Structural
model
The convergent and discriminant validity can be observed in
Tables 1 and 2, for the emotional and rational models respectively.
Table 1:
Convergent and discriminant validity, emotional model
Variable \
Indicators |
AVE |
R2 |
Cronbach's
Alpha |
Composite
Reliability |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Attitude to advertising(1) |
0,684 |
0,000 |
0,768 |
0,866 |
0,827* |
||||||
Brand equity (2) |
0,674 |
0,357 |
0,518 |
0,805 |
0,388 |
0,821* |
|||||
Confidence (3) |
0,512 |
0,271 |
0,519 |
0,756 |
0,521 |
0,245 |
0,715* |
||||
Cognitive Loyalty (4) |
0,565 |
0,622 |
0,249 |
0,715 |
0,209 |
0,371 |
0,443 |
0,752* |
|||
Satisfaction (5) |
0,610 |
0,494 |
0,784 |
0,861 |
0,703 |
0,407 |
0,278 |
0,080 |
0,781* |
||
Emotional Loyalty (6) |
0,551 |
0,817 |
0,590 |
0,784 |
0,539 |
0,345 |
0,433 |
0,582 |
0,413 |
0,742* |
|
Behavioral Loyalty (7) |
0,573 |
0,355 |
0,255 |
0,728 |
0,291 |
0,018 |
0,266 |
0,262 |
0,381 |
0,344 |
0,757* |
Source:
Research data.
* Square root
of the AVE
1- Attitude to advertising; 2-
Brand equity; 3. Trust; 4. Cognitive loyalty; 5- Satisfaction; 6-Affective
Loyalty; 7- Behavioral Loyalty.
Table 2:
Convergent and discriminant validity, rational model
Variable
\ Indicators |
AVE |
R2 |
Cronbach's
Alpha |
Composite
Reliability |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Attitude
to advertising |
0,746 |
0,000 |
0,830 |
0,898 |
0,864* |
||||||
Brand
equity |
0,656 |
0,669 |
0,738 |
0,851 |
0,733 |
0,810* |
|||||
Confidence |
0,746 |
0,597 |
0,830 |
0,898 |
0,773 |
0,717 |
0,864* |
||||
Emotional
Loyalty |
0,693 |
0,841 |
0,779 |
0,871 |
0,565 |
0,571 |
0,743 |
0,833* |
|||
Cognitive
Loyalty |
0,755 |
0,831 |
0,675 |
0,860 |
0,504 |
0,649 |
0,722 |
0,742 |
0,869* |
||
Behavioral
Loyalty |
0,702 |
0,768 |
0,587 |
0,824 |
0,636 |
0,766 |
0,770 |
0,677 |
0,752 |
0,838* |
|
Satisfaction |
0,657 |
0,606 |
0,827 |
0,885 |
0,779 |
0,795 |
0,738 |
0,655 |
0,678 |
0,762 |
0,811* |
Source:
Research data.
* Square root
of the AVE
1- Attitude to advertising; 2-
Brand equity; 3. Trust; 4. Cognitive loyalty; 5- Satisfaction; 6-Affective
Loyalty; 7- Behavioral Loyalty
Crossloading
complements the discriminant validity analysis of both rational and emotional
models and presents the remaining items in the final structural model. The
items all loaded in their respective variable. The adjustment indicators were
satisfactory for acceptance of the structural models. In both models the GoF
remained above 0.36 as suggested by the literature (HAIR et al, 2014). The VIF
indicators were all below 10 (HAIR et al, 2014). The table 3 presents the
results of the structural relationships of the structural model for emotional
framing.
Table 3:
Structural relationships, emotional framing
Hypothesis |
Relationship |
Original
Coefficient |
Average of 200 subsamples |
Standard
error |
Teste
t |
p-value |
Results |
H1a |
Attitude to advertising à
Confidence |
0,5207 |
0,5225 |
0,0695 |
7,4916 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H2
a |
Attitude
to advertising à
Satisfaction |
0,7025 |
0,707 |
0,0364 |
19,2983 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H3a |
Confidence
à
Brand equity |
0,1455 |
0,169 |
0,0937 |
1,5533 |
0,123 |
Not
Supported |
H4a |
Confidence
à
Loyalty |
0,4204 |
0,428 |
0,0887 |
4,7419 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H5a |
Satisfaction
à
Brand equity |
0,3801 |
0,3793 |
0,0819 |
4,6413 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H6a |
Satisfaction
à
Loyalty |
0,2791 |
0,2694 |
0,1005 |
2,7773 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
Source: Research data.
We
can also observe the result of the structural relations in the rational model
by means of Table 4.
Table 4:
Structural relationships, emotional framing
Hypothesis |
Relationship |
Original
Coefficient |
Average
of 200 subsamples |
Standard
error |
Teste
t |
p-value |
Results |
H2b |
Attitude to advertising à
Confidence |
0,7727 |
0,7759 |
0,0363 |
21,2708 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H2b |
Attitude
to advertising à
Satisfaction |
0,7787 |
0,7821 |
0,0391 |
19,9226 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H3b |
Confidence
à
Brand equity |
0,2862 |
0,2869 |
0,0851 |
3,3619 |
0,001 |
Supported |
H4b |
Confidence
à
Loyalty |
0,5669 |
0,563 |
0,0757 |
7,4938 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H2b |
Satisfaction
à
Brand equity |
0,5835 |
0,5844 |
0,0795 |
7,3395 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
H2b |
Satisfaction
à
Loyalty |
0,3489 |
0,3529 |
0,081 |
4,309 |
0,0001 |
Supported |
Source: Research data.
The
result of the moderating effects of the variable Interpersonal Influence, in a
hierarchical way, can be observed in Table 5.
Table 5:
Matrix of moderation effects
Trust |
Satisfaction |
Brand
equity |
Loyalty |
||||||
Variable |
Frame |
R2 |
Г |
R2 |
Г |
R2 |
Г |
R2 |
Г |
Attitude
towards advertising |
Rational
ad. |
59,70% |
0,773* |
60,60% |
0,779* |
66,90% |
- |
74% |
- |
Emotional
ad. |
27,10% |
0,521* |
49,40% |
0,703* |
19,60% |
- |
32% |
- |
|
Trust |
Rational
ad. |
- |
- |
- |
- |
66,90% |
0,286* |
73,50% |
0,567* |
Emotional
ad. |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19,60% |
0,145
** |
32% |
0,420* |
|
Trust
with moderation of Interpersonal relations. |
Rational
ad. H7(a,b) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
67,30% |
_-0,016*** (0,550)** |
79,40% |
0,180*** (0,387)*** |
Emotional
ad. H7(c,d) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
37% |
0,28
*** (-0,963)*** |
34,30% |
0,754* (-0,830)* |
|
Satisfaction |
Rational
ad. |
- |
- |
- |
- |
66,90% |
0,286* |
73,50% |
0,349* |
Emotional
ad. |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19,60% |
0,380* |
32% |
0,279* |
|
Satisfaction
with moderation of Interpersonal relations. |
Rational
ad. H7(a,b) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
67,90% |
0,215*
(0,894)* |
79,20% |
0,183*** (0,273)*** |
Emotional
ad. H7 (c,d) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
35,70% |
0,247***
(0,052)*** |
32,20% |
0,377* (-0,232)*** |
Source:
Research data.
* Significant to 5%; **
significant at 10%; ***Not significant
5. DISCUSSION AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The objective of this study was to observe the relationship
between trust and satisfaction and student responses in terms of brand value
and loyalty, having as antecedent the attitude towards the communication of a
higher education institution (HEI) in a context of service failure recovery,
when the institution uses affective or rational message framing to respond.
This objective was considered to have been achieved insofar as most of the
assumptions were confirmed. The study also allowed us to observe all these
relations simultaneously.
The use of a rational message was more effective than the
emotional message, explaining 66.9% and 74% of the variance (R2) of
Brand Value and Loyalty respectively (versus R2 = 19.6% and R2
= 32%, for the emotional message). This is further confirmed by the stronger
relationships between Attitude in relation to advertising and Trust (Г =
0.7727; t (99) = 21.273; p <0.0001 versus Г = 0.520; t (105) = 7.4916; p
<0.0001), Attitude in relation to advertising and Satisfaction (Г = 0.778; t
(99) = 19.922; p <0.0001, versus Г = 0.702; t (105) = 19.298; p <0.0001),
Confidence and brand value (Г = 0.286; t (99) = 3.361; p <0.0001, versus
non-acceptance of the relationship in the emotional model), Trust and Loyalty
(Г = 0.566; t (99) = 7.493; p <0.0001, versus Г = 0.420; t (105) = 4.741; p
<0.0001), Satisfaction and Brand value (Г = 0.583; t (99) = 7.339; p
<0.0001 versus Г = 0.381 , p <0.0001) and satisfaction and loyalty (Г =
0.348, t (99) = 4.309, p <0.0001 versus Г = 0.279, t (105) = 2.773, p
<0.001 ).
The moderating effect of interpersonal relationships was
only observed in two of the four hypotheses. This may be due to the multiple
aspect of the relationships observed in a classroom. Students differ greatly in
their opinions. Another aspect that may have caused this result is the
characteristic of the sample of having students from several semesters.
The students of the initial semesters still have both a
small group identity that they lack as a function of the group, as well as a
low relationship with the secretariat. If we take in account congruency theory
applied to message framing, it is expected that the framing of the message is
positively related to the expected behavior (GODINHO;
UPDEGRAFF; ALVAREZ; LIMA, 2017), in such a way that emotional or reason framing
should lead to correspondend attitude and behavior. It has consequences to the
strategy adopted by the HEI, when dealing with students disatisfactions..
There was also no confirmation of the relationship between
trust and brand value in the emotional framing model, H1a, (Г = 0.145; t (99) =
1.553; p = 0.123). This result seems to be due to the fact that the moderation
of interpersonal influences occurred only in a rational framing scenario in the
relationship between Trust and Value of the brand, reducing the relation to
non-significant (from Г = 0.286 to Г = -0.016, p> 0.05, Г = 0.550, p
<0.1), in a scenario of emotional communication in the relationship between
Trust and Loyalty (from Г = 0.420 to Г = 0.754, Г = - 0.830 p <0.01) and in
a scenario of rational communication in Relationship between Satisfaction and
Value of the brand (from Г = 0.286 to Г = 0.215, Г = 0.894, p <0.01).
Otherwise, when communication is rational, interpersonal
influences makes the relationship between Trust and Value of the brand
irrelevant, or diminishes the strength of the relationship of Trust and Brand
value. Although rational communication seems to explain Loyalty, Trust, and
Responses in terms of Brand Value and Loyalty rather than emotional
communication, relationships tend to deteriorate as a function of the
interpersonal influences that occur in the classroom and the student's circle
of contacts.
Emotional communication proved to be less effective than
rational communication, contrary to the what is seen in great part of
literatrure. However, it was also less unaffected by the influence of
interpersonal relationships. Together these results suggest that the HEI can
adopt a communication strategy that can have greater effects on students if it
adopts a framing based on rational approach, or neutralize the influence of
interpersonal relationships if they adopt emotional communication. The choice
of one strategy or another in a service recovery failure scenario depends on
the objectives of the HEI. Shen e Kollar
study (2015) indicated that dispositional motivation can also me a
moderrator of message framing. In other words,
It can not be denied that students will consult their
classroom fellows, will interact with other classrooms, and also with their
entire circle of contacts to contruct a decision or an attitude. In this way,
this variable is the only one that the HEI will not have influence. If the
organization's processes are more consolidated, it is suggested that a more
rational communication must be adopted, insofar as the student's responses will
be more favorable and may even bear the effects that other educational agents
have on the student.
On the other hand, more fragile service processes will be
more subject to the influence of other points of contact with the student, and
in this way, neutralizing these effects would be interesting to the HEI if it
adopts a more affective communication in a scenario of service recovery
failure.
More studies are suggested to deepen these conclusions. The
study by means of personality traits can bring important contributions to the
extent that the lifestyle, or stage of life, in which the person is currently
can affect student's responses to problems of relationship with the education
service provider.
Other aspects may contribute to the understanding of the
phenomenon observed in this study, such as the moderation of the contact
frequency of the student with the secretariat, or the mediation of the type of
contact employed by the HEI, such as digital platforms or the kind of
spokesperson.
REFERENCES
BAGOZZI, R. P.;
GOPINATH, M.; Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 27,
n. 1, p. 184-206.
BAGOZZI, R.;
GURHAN-CANLI, Z.; PRIESTER, J. (2002). The Social Psychology of Consumer Behaviour.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
BEARDEN, W. O.;
NETEMEYER, R. G.; TEEL, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 15,
n. 4, p. 473-481.
BERRY, L. L.;
PARASURAMAN, A. B. R. A. H. A. M. (1993). Building a new academic field—The
case of services marketing. Journal of Retailing,
v. 69, n. 1, p. 13-60.
BETTMAN, J. R.;
LUCE, M. F.; PAYNE, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal
of Consumer Research, v. 25, n. 3, p. 187-217.
BETTMAN, J. R.;
ZINS, M. A. (1977). Constructive processes in consumer choice. Journal
of Consumer Research, v. 4, n. 2, p. 75-85.
BORAH, P.; XIAO, X. (2018). The Importance
of ‘Likes’: The Interplay of Message Framing, Source, and Social Endorsement on
Credibility Perceptions of Health Information on Facebook. Journal of Health Communication, v. 30, n. 1, p. 1-13.
BRAKUS, J. J.; SCHMITT,
B. H.; ZARANTONELLO, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of marketing, v. 73,
n. 3, p. 52-68.
BÜLBÜL, C.;
MENON, G. (2010). The power of emotional appeals in advertising. Influence of Concrete versus
Abstract Affect on Time‐Dependent Decisions. Journal of Advertising
Research, v. 50,
n. 2, p. 169-180.
CHANG, C.
(2008). Ad framing effects for consumption products: An affect priming process.
Psychology
& Marketing, v. 25, n. 1, p. 24-46.
CHONG, D.;
DRUCKMAN, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science,
n. 10, p. 103-126.
COATES, S. L.;
BUTLER, L. T.; BERRY, D. C. (2006). Implicit memory and consumer choice: The
mediating role of brand familiarity. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, v. 20, n. 8, p. 1101-1116.
COHEN,
J. B.; PHAM, M. T.; ANDRADE, E. B. (2008). The
nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In: HAUGTVEDT, C. P.; HERR, P.
M.; KARDES, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of
Consumer Psychology. New York, NY: Erlbaum. 297-348.
DAMASIO,
A. (1994). Descartes’ Error:
Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon
DAVID,
M. E.; BEARDEN, W. O. (2017). The role of interpersonal attachment styles in
shaping consumer preferences for products shown in relational advertisements. Personality and Individual Differences,
n. 109, p. 44-50
DE
PELSMACKER, P.; GEUENS, M.; ANCKAERT, P. (2002). Media context and advertising
effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal
of Advertising, v. 31, n. 2, p. 49-61.
DOWLING, G. R.;
STAELIN, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 21,
n. 1, p. 119-134.
ENGEL, J. F.; BLACKWELL, R. E.;
MINARDI, P. W. (2005). Comportamento do
Consumidor. São Paulo: Pioneira Thomson
Learning.
FLORACK, A.;
SCARABIS, M. (2006). How advertising claims affect brand preferences and
category–brand associations: The role of regulatory fit. Psychology & Marketing,
v. 23, n. 9, p. 741-755.
FOURNIER, S.
(1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 24,
n. 4, p. 343-373.
FETSCHERIN, M.;
HEINRICH, D.(2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric
citation meta-analysis Journal of
Business Research. V. 68, n. 2, p. 380-390.
FU, L.; YU, J.; NI, S.; LI,
H.(2018).Reduced framing effect: Experience adjusts affective forecasting with
losses. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, v. 76, n. 1, p. 231-238.
GODINHO, C. A; UPDEGRAFF, J.
A.; ALVAREZ, M. J.; LIMA, M. L. (2017). When Is Congruency Helpful? Interactive
Effects of Frame, Motivational Orientation, and Perceived Message Quality on
Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal
of Health Communication, v. 22, n. 1, p. 942-950.
GRANDEY, A. A.;
GOLDBERG, L. S.; PUGH, S. D. (2011). Why and when do stores with satisfied
employees have satisfied customers? The roles of responsiveness and store
busyness. Journal of Service Research, v. 14,
n. 4, p. 397-409.
GEUENS, M.;
PHAM, M. T.; PELSMACKER, P. D. (2011). Product involvement vs. product motives
as moderators of the effects of ad-evoked feelings: an analysis of consumer
responses to 1,100 TV commercials. NA-Advances. Consumer Research, n. 38.
HAIR,
J.; WILLIAM, B.; BABIN, B.; ANDERSON, R. E
(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.
7th Ed. Prentice Hall.
HAIR Jr., J. F.; HULT, T. M.;
RINGLE, C. M.; SARSTEDT, M. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: SAGE.
HARRIS, P.; MURAWSKI, C.
(2010). Unconscious Brand Reactions Influence Financial Decision-Making.
Advances. Consumer Research, n. 37, p.
810-812.
HEATH, R. G.;
NAIRN, A. C.; BOTTOMLEY, P. A. (2009). How emotive is creativity. Emotive content in TV adverising
does not increase attention. Journal of Advertising
Research, v. 49,
n. 4, p. 450-463.
HENNIG-THURAU, T.; GROTH, M.; PAUL, M.; GREMLER, D. D.
(2006). Are all smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional
labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, v. 70,
n. 3, p. 58-73.
HESS Jr, R. L.;
GANESAN, S.; KLEIN, N. M. (2003).
Service failure and recovery: the impact of relationship factors on customer
satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 31,
n. 2, p. 127-145.
HOYER, W. D.;
BROWN, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common,
repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 17,
n. 2, p. 141-148.
HOLBROOK, M.
B.; BATRA, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer
responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 14,
n. 3, p. 404-420.
KAHNEMAN, D.;
TVERSKY, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:
Journal of the Econometric Society, p. 263-291.
KELLER, K. L.
(2002). Branding and brand equity. Handbook of Marketing, v. 151.
LEARY R. B.;
VANN R. J.; GROZA M. P. (2016) Consumer Product Evaluation Updating: The Impact
of Online and Interpersonal Social Influence on Evaluation Certainty. In: OBAL
M.; KREY N.; BUSHARDT C. (eds) Let’s Get Engaged! Crossing the Threshold of
Marketing’s Engagement Era. Developments
in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Springer, Cham.
LURIE, N. H.;
MASON, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal
of Marketing, v. 71, n. 1, p. 160-177.
MAGNINI, V. P.;
FORD, J. B.; MARKOWSKI, E. P.; Honeycutt Jr, E. D. (2007). The service recovery
paradox: justifiable theory or smoldering myth?. Journal of Services Marketing,
v. 21, n. 3, p. 213-225.
MEYERS-LEVY,
J.; MALAVIYA, P. (1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements: An
integrative framework of persuasion theories. The Journal
of Marketing, v. 63, n. 1, p. 45-60.
MELLERS, B. A.;
MCGRAW, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, v. 10, n. 6, p. 210-214.
MOWEN, J. C.;
MINOR, M. S. (1998). Consumer Behavior. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-hall.
NETEMEYER,
R.D.; KRISHNAN, B.; PULLIG, C.; WANG, G.; YAGCI, M.; DEAN, D.; RICKS, J.;
WIRTH, F. (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, n. 57, p.
209-24.
NIEDRICH, R.
W.; SWAIN, S. D. (2003). The influence of pioneer status and experience order
on consumer brand preference: A mediated-effects model. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, v. 31, n. 4, p. 468-480.
OLIVER, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The
Journal of Marketing, v. 63, n. 1, p. 33-44.
PHAM, M. T.
(1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision
making. Journal of Consumer Research, v. 25,
n. 2, p. 144-159.
RINGLE, C. M.; WENDE, S.; WILL, A. (2005).
SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).
RUSSO, J. E.; CARLSON, K. (2006). Individual
decision-making. Handbook of Marketing.
Eds. Barton Weitz, Robin Wensley,
London, UK; Sage Publications, 371-407.
SHEN,
L.; KOLLAR, L. M. M. (2015).Testing Moderators of Message Framing Effect. A
Motivational Approach.Communication Research, v. 42, n. 5, p. 626-648.
SIMON, H. A.
(1957). Models of man; social and
rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
SLOVIC,
P., FINUCANE, M. L.; PETERS, E. MACGREGOR, D. G. (2006). The affect heuristic. The construction of preference. Ed:
Sarah Linchestein, Paul Slovic,
Cambridge University Press.
TENENHAUS, M.;
VINZI, V. E.; CHATELIN, Y. M.; LAURO, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational
Statistics & Data Analysis, v.
48, n. 1, p. 159-205.
THOMAS, V.;
WILLIAMS, A. (2013). The devil you know: The effect of brand recognition and
product ratings on consumer choice. Judgment and Decision Making, v. 8,
n. 1, p. 34-44.
TVERSKY,
A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, v. 79,
n. 4, p. 281-299.
TVERSKY,
A.; KAHNEMAN, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Utility,
Probability, and Human Decision Making.
Springer Netherlands, p. 141-162.
TVERSKY,
A.; KAHNEMAN, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Environmental
Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, p. 107-129.
VAKRATSAS, D.;
AMBLER, T. (1999). How advertising works: what do we really know?. The
Journal of Marketing, p. 26-43.
VERWEIJ M.;
SENIOR T. J.; DOMÍNGUEZ, D. J. F.; TURNER, R. (2015). Emotion, rationality, and
decision-making: how to link affective and social neuroscience with social
theory. Frontiers of Neuroscience,
n. 9, p. 332
VIECELI, J.;
SHAW, R. N. (2010). Brand salience for fast-moving consumer goods: an
empirically based model. Journal
of Marketing Management, v. 26, n. 13-14, p. 1218-1238.
WEGENER,
D. T.; SAWICKI, V.; PETTY, R. (2009). Attitudes as a basis for brand
relationships. Handbook of Brand
Relationship. Ed: Deborah J. MacInnis, C.
PARK,
W.; PRIESTER, J. R. Society of Consumer
Psychology. London, UK
YIM, C. K.;
CHAN, K. W.; LAM, S. S. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service
participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. Journal
of Marketing, v. 76, n. 6, p. 121-140.
ZAJONC, R. B.
(1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, v. 35, n. 2, p. 151.
ZAROLIA, P.;
WEISBUCH, M.; MCRAE, K. (2017). Influence of indirect information on
interpersonal trust despite direct information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 112, n. 1, p.
39-57.