Consumers satisfaction of attributes in online product design
Yüklə 1,25 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Relationship between attributes and online process satisfaction
- Relationship between satisfaction with co-designing process and willingness to pay
- The effect of the moderators
- Summary of the results
4.3 ResultsThe analysis chosen for this study is the regression analysis which allows fitting of a predictive model to a dataset and uses the model to predict values of the dependent variable from one or more independent variables (Field, 2005). Considering that a positive relationship was expected for each hypothesis proposed in the current study, the one-tailed test was performed. Therefore several regression analyses were conducted to have a better insight about the relationship of the pre-established variables. Relationship between attributes and online process satisfactionThe first relationship that will be relieved is the effect of the chosen attributes on the online process. Several researchers opine that information systems as well as interaction systems play a critical role in online co-creation. In essence, the notion among researchers and practitioners is that website attributes like navigability and design will have a positive effect on the online process (Loiacono et al, 2002, Rimer Tots 2001, Wolfingar & Gilly, 2001, Novak et al. 2000). As mentioned earlier, evolving customer into the co-designing process is a competent way of serving individual customers both individually and efficiently. Piller (2004) clarifies that the co-design process covers the demands of each individual customer with regard to certain product features. Basically, all actions needed are executed within a solution space, characterized by stable but still flexible and responsive processes. Therefore the expectation is that high levels of these attributes will affect the online co-creation process in a positive manner. In order to have a better impression of the impact of the attributes, the website attributes as well as the toolkit attributes are included in order to test the effect on process satisfaction. Hence, it is to be expected that the respondents’ satisfaction with each attribute of online co-creation will have a positive influence on their satisfaction with the process. Based on this notion, H1 and H2 were proposed whereby the Process Satisfaction was the dependent variable and Navigation, Design, Complexity, Control and Enjoyment were the independent variables. Table 3 shows the results of the regression in order to investigate the above mentioned relationships.
The preliminary results show significant correlations between the attributes and the process satisfaction, indicating the existence of a positive linear relationship. Furthermore, the model indicated that 56.9 % of the variation in the respondents’ level of satisfaction is being explained by their evaluation of the different attributes of online co-creation, the chosen web and toolkit attributes. The results show us that Website Navigability and Design are not significant, while the toolkit attributes are significant at a level of 5 %. To be more specific, you could say with a 95 % certainty that the relationship between these website attributes and the satisfaction with the co-designing process did not occur by chance and that in fact the toolkit complexity, enjoyment and control have a statistically significant effect on their ultimate satisfaction with the co-designing process and are positively influencing the process satisfaction. Hence, there is some distinction to make for the attributes, specifically the website attributes and toolkit attributes. To examine if there is some relationship of the attributes separately on the online co-designing process, a regression is conducted for website attributes and toolkit attributes. The results are shown in table 4 and 5.
Table 4 shows the regression with only website attributes. The initial result that is obtained shows high correlations between the website attributes and the degree of satisfaction with the co-creation process, indicating a positive linear relationship. Furthermore, the model showed that 36,8 % of the variation in the respondents’ degree of satisfaction with the co-creation process is being explained by Website navigability and Website design. Table 5 shows the result of the regression with only the toolkit attributes. Also in this analysis shows high correlations between the toolkit attributes and the degree of satisfaction with the co-creation process, indicating a positive linear relationship. Furthermore, compared with the table 4, this model showed that 52,8 % of the variation in the respondents’ degree of satisfaction with the co-creation process is being explained by Toolkit complexity, enjoyment and control. However, when assessed separately (Table 4), the result showed that the website navigability and the web design were significantly contributing to the respondents’ satisfaction with the process at a 5% level. An explanation is that when it comes to the online process the toolkit attributes overwhelm the effect of the website attributes. This is mainly initiated because respondent spent more time on the toolkit attributes while designing their product. On the other end, when placing all the attributes together, the results showed that the navigability aspect of the web site and the design aspect do not have a significant influence on the process satisfaction. In other words, the results obtained in the present study could not statistically prove that the navigability and the web design contributing in a significant way to the level of satisfaction of the process by the consumers.This fact means that according to the findings there is no relationship between the chosen website attributes and the satisfaction they experience while designing their own skin for their mobile phone. Hence, most of the time spent for the co-designing process takes place at the solution space provided for creating your own product. Although there could be a mediation effect of the toolkit attributes on the website attributes. According to these results, the toolkit attributes could mediate the effect of the Website Navigability and Design. When dividing the attributes whereas the website navigability and toolkit complexity contributing to the utilitarian value and the website design, toolkit enjoyment and toolkit control contributing to the hedonic value, the results shows a mixed conclusion. To be more explicable, the toolkit attributes are in essence the main attributes that are significantly influencing the respondents’ degree of satisfaction derived from the process of online co-creation, whereby the perceived hedonic value plays a possible clearance. This means that the more enjoyable users evaluate the toolkit and the more control they perceive they had on it, the more satisfied they are with the customization process. The results about complexity come on the contrary with the existing literature. On the other hand, previous findings of past researches about the two other attributes are supported (Dellaert & Dabholkar 2009; Schreier 2006). In conclusion, the results of the regression do not allow the confirmation of hypothesis 1, but do allow the confirmation of hypothesis 2. Relationship between satisfaction with co-designing process and willingness to payThe second type of relationship that is proposed in this study suggests a positive influence of the degree of satisfaction with the co-design process on the willingness to pay for the ultimate design. A linear regression was conducted in order to test the hypothesis 3, regarding the relationship between Process Satisfaction (independent variable) and WTP (dependent variable). Traditionally, customization is connected to the possibility of charging premium prices because of the added value of a customized solution meeting the specific needs of a customer. (Chamberlin 1962). Products that require matching physical dimensions often allow a higher price premium than products that customize just on design patterns (Berger and Piller2003). Franke and Piller (2003) presented an equation that represents customer decision making process for customized products. The expected returns have to exceed the expected costs. WTP, as a measurement, is connected with satisfaction in the current literature in both offline and online shopping environments and recently also in the mass customization environment. Hypothesis 3 suggests that there is a positive relationship between the process satisfaction and the WTP and therefore high level of satisfaction will positively affect the WTP. The regression model (Table 6) resulted a substantial coefficient of determination, explaining 13,9 % of the variation of WTP. Considering the unstandardized coefficients of the regression model, WTP is increased 0.373 units when process satisfaction is increased by one unit. Although, the result is significant (p< 05), the amount of explained variance for Willingness to Pay was relatively low (R2 =, 139).
To explore this low variance, an additional regression is conducted. Table 7 present the results of the regression analysis when the factors of the website attributes and toolkit attributes are included. As it is demonstrated below, only one of the independent variables explain significantly the variation on WTP, namely Enjoyment. This is underpinning to Csikszentmihalyi (1996), who pointed out that it is likely that users enjoy the design process due to a "flow" experience and the joy of performing an artistic and creative act. The components of Process Satisfaction are derivate of emotional experiences during online co-creation. Marketers know there is a better chance of winning customers if they "feel good." Positive affect speeds consumer decision making and enhances product recall with positive associations (Lee and Sternthal, 2000). These feeling states could have important effects on purchase intent and loyalty. For example, the degree of delight and positive or negative affect experienced by consumers can strongly affect their intent to buy (see Oliver, Roland, and Varki 1997) and therefore their WTP. Also observing the result, we can explain that the more enjoyment the respondents perceive on it, the more satisfied they are with the customization process and therefore are willing to pay for the designed product. According to the results of table 6, we can conclude that hypothesis 3 is supported.
The effect of the moderatorsFranke and Piller (2003) presented an equation that represents customer decision making process for customized products. The expected returns have to exceed the expected costs. Only in that case mass customization will be employed. According to those academicians, the returns have two dimensions; the rewards from the unique shopping experience, as satisfaction with the fulfillment of a co-design task (Dellaert and Stremersch 2003), and the increment of utility from the better fitting to specific needs of a co-designed product, in other words, the value of product customization. The close relationship between the co-designing process and product is also been supported by Riemer and Totz (2003), who stated that satisfaction with the co-designing process impacts product satisfaction. In similarity, this can be seen in research showing that customers’ perceptions of retail environments can have an influence on buying behavior (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), which is closely related to the WTP. This part portrays the effects of product satisfaction and transaction capability on the WTP. Hence, it is to be expected that the respondents’ satisfaction with the online co-designing process has two moderators, when examine the effect on WTP. In order to investigate of Product Satisfaction and Transaction Capability act like moderators in the relation between the Process Satisfaction and WTP, several regression analyses were conducted. The first type of relationship that conducted is the direct effect of the moderators on the WTP. Since the customized product or design is a direct result of the co-creation experience, consumers’ satisfaction with the process of co-creation will positively influence their satisfaction with the customized product or design (Franke & Piller 2003; Dellaert & Stremersch 2005; Riemer & Totz 2001). The self-designed product is unique and it has been found that people assign greater value to products that are unique than the standard products, with keeping the objective value being equal (Brock 1968; Fournier 1991). In addition to the process, the output of the customization process might also be of high value. In a similar way, this is also supported in empirical studies conducted by Franke and Piller (2004) and Schreier (2006), who suggest that the users intention to pay for self-designed products can be much higher than in case of the standard products. Consumers are likely to engage in relational behavior to achieve greater efficiency in their decision making and to reduce the perceived risks associated with future choices (Seth & Parvatiyar 1995). In the online co-design process the consumer creates, while not thinking of the transaction capability. Based on previous studies, consumers’ perception of transactional capability could influence their satisfaction with online co-designing and therefore their perception to WTP. Based on this notion, a significant relationship is proposed between WTP and Product Satisfaction (H4a) and secondly between WTP and Transaction Capability (5a). The primarily results are shown in the table below.
The model explains 18% of the variance of product Satisfaction (R² = 0.180). In the current regression model, as long as the value of the significant variable is positive it can be said that there is a positive relationship between the predictors and the outcome. Hence, in this model only product Satisfaction is significantly influencing the WTP. Therefore, if Product Satisfaction is increased by one unit and the other predictors stay constant, then our model predicts that WTP is expected to increase 0.421 units. Unfortunately, according to the literature and proposed hypothesis, a positive relationship was expected between Transaction Capability and WTP. In addition, when conducted a regression separately, Transaction Capability becomes significant. Table 9 and 10 present the additional results, whereby the relationship between the moderators and WTP is conducted separately.
The preliminary results in table 9 showed significant correlations between Transaction Capability and WTP, indicating the existence of a positive linear relationship. Although the effect of Transaction Capability on WTP explains just 4.5 % of the variation, the relationship of Transaction Capability on WTP is significant (P=0.33) at a level of 5%. Table 10 shows that the model explains 17.6% of the variance of product Satisfaction (R² = 0.176). According to the unstandardized coefficient β the relationship between this one significant predictor and the outcome is positive, as the value itself is positive. Every unit increase in Product Satisfaction causes an increase of 0.419 units of WTP. To be more specific, the more respondents are satisfied with the product they have designed on the website, the more they are likely to pay for the product, which supports hypothesis H4a, but unfortunately reject H5a. Although, the direct effect of the moderators is investigated, the current study expects that Product Satisfaction and Transaction capability interact between the relationship of Process Satisfaction and WTP. Secondly, in order to understand the relationship a regression is conducted whether there is a mediation effect of the two moderators. Mediating variables are often contrasted with moderator variables, which pinpoint the conditions under which an independent variable exerts its effects on a dependent variable. Mediation occurs when a direct causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable is affected by another variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Product Satisfaction might also be a mediator variable in that it explains why there is a relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP. When you remove the effect of Product Satisfaction, the relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP disappears. A regression is conducted whether there is a mediation effect of the two variables. The results are shown in the tables below.
Tables 11-14 shows the mediation theory is substantiated for the Product Satisfaction, but not for Transaction Capability. Prior to conducting the regression analysis, the respondents’ satisfaction with the co-creation process was correlated with their satisfaction with the design in order to assess whether a positive linear relationship was present (table 11). The results showed that the respondents’ satisfaction with the co-creation process is highly correlated with their satisfaction with the design, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two. However, when examine both effects on WTP, only the respondents’ satisfaction with the co-designed product has proven to be a statistically significant predictor at a 5% level to the WTP. The perception for product satisfaction need to affect the WTP and process satisfaction, and the significant effect of process satisfaction on WTP is disappeared when the effect of Product satisfaction on WTP is tested as well. Hence, the argument made by researchers and practitioners in previous studies that satisfaction with the co-designing process positively influences the satisfaction with the design was also conducted in this regression. It can be concluded, consumers who are satisfied with the co-designing process will consequently be satisfied with their customized design as well. Table 13 confirms that Product Satisfaction mediates the effect of process satisfaction on WTP. Process satisfaction was found to have a significant effect on the dependent variable (p = .000) when Product Satisfaction is not included in the model. To be more specific, the more respondents are satisfied with the product they have designed on the website, the more they are likely to pay for the product. It can be concluded that satisfaction judgment in this situation is resulting from the evaluation of physical and emotional feelings of the product, not specific the attributes of the product. The more the product meets the expectation of these respondents based on online co-creation, the higher will be their level of satisfaction towards the process and therefore a greater influence on WTP. On the other side, according to table 14, the Transaction Capability is proven to be insignificant predictor of the mediation effect. However table 12 showed that 37.3 % of the variation in the respondents’ WTP is being explained by the Process Satisfaction and Transaction Capability included in the analysis. When examined separately, both variables found to be significant predictors of the WTP. To be more specific, the results indicated that only Process Satisfaction is significantly contributing or influencing the respondents’ WTP. The result shows in table 14 shows partially that there is a negative effect of Transaction Capability (Standardized coefficient = -, 029). As discussed in previous chapters and according to the prior research (Elliot and Fowell, 2000; Szymanski and Hise, 2000), as perception of security risk, privacy concerns and lack in trust, the Transaction Capability could also have a negative effect on the process. This result might be representative of an overall lack of experience of participants with paid online content. When facing the task of assigning some monetary value to the content being examined, participants could not rely on previous similar tasks, having never before paid for content. In other words, the respondents’ WTP is for the most being influenced by the process satisfaction. In essence, it is statistically proven that Transaction Capability does not mediate the relationship between Process Satisfaction and WTP. Nevertheless, this could not be statistically proven in the present study. Another way to think about this issue is that a moderator variable is one that influences the strength of a relationship between two other variables, and a mediator variable is one that explains the relationship between the two other variables. Consider the relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP. Product Satisfaction might be a moderator variable, in that the relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP could be stronger for consumers that are satisfied with the product and less strong or nonexistent for consumers that are not satisfied with the product. This model is also applies for the Transaction Capability. Consumers are likely to engage in relational behavior to achieve greater efficiency in their decision making and to reduce the perceived risks associated with future choices (Seth & Parvatiyar 1995). In the online co-design process the consumer creates, while not thinking of the transaction capability. Therefore consumers’ perception of transactional capability could influence their satisfaction with online co-designing. Based on these notions, a significant interaction effect of the Product Satisfaction and Transaction Capability is proposed (H4b and H5b) Last but not at least, the interaction effect of the two variables was examined. The result of the regression analysis is shown in the tables below.
The initial results in table 15 showed that the model indicated just 18,9 % percent of the variation in the respondents’ perceived value of WTP is being explained by Product Satisfaction, Process satisfaction and the interaction effect of both included in the analysis. Nevertheless, according to the result, only Product Satisfaction is found to be significant on WTP. To be more specific, the interaction effect of Product Satisfaction, in that the relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP is stronger, is not significant or does not exist. These results simply show that a possible effect of Product Satisfaction as a moderator on the relationship between Process Satisfaction and WTP could not be statistically proven (P>0,5) in the present research. One possible explanation is that the chosen product for co-designing in this study is not a decisive factor and therefore the link or pattern between the respondents’ value for the product and WTP could not be established in the present study. On the other hand, table 16 presents the results of the interaction effect of Transaction Capability. Hence, again, it could be say that the Transaction Capability does not occur like a moderator, since it is not significant. However, only Process Satisfaction was found to be significant predictor of WTP. Summary of the resultsThe objective of this chapter was to present the analysis of the data collected for the current research and the description and interpretation of the findings. Nine factors were identified, after conducting a factor analysis; Website Design, Website Navigability, Toolkit Complexity, Toolkit Enjoyment and Toolkit Control, Process Satisfaction, Product Satisfaction and WTP. These factors were used to run several regression analyses in order to test the hypotheses formed based on the literature review. In summary, the results in the current research confirm most of the previously proposed hypotheses. First, it can be concluded that the toolkit attributes have a statistically significant influence on the process satisfaction. The results showed that the toolkit complexity has a significant negative influence on Satisfaction process. Note that when it comes to the statements meant to measure consumers’ satisfaction were reversed in the questionnaire that was sent to the respondents (Appendix A). However, when analysed the attributes separately, the same can be concluded for the website attributes. Based on previous research, the expectation was that the navigability of the website as well as the design would have a statistically significant influence on the process satisfaction. Indeed, the website navigability and design are significant when excluding the toolkit attributes in the regression .An possible explanation could be that the toolkit probably mediates the website attributes when examine the effect on Process Satisfaction. Furthermore, it was expected that the satisfaction with the process will have a positive effect on WTP for the customized product. The results obtained in the current study could validate the above assumption. Third, the results showed that the Product Satisfaction has a significant positive influence on WTP. The mediation effect exists in the relationship between the process satisfaction and WTP. Nevertheless, the influence of transaction was not significantly proved. When it comes to the interaction effect of Product Satifaction and Transaction Capability, we can conclude that the Product Satisfaction is a moderator. In other words, the stronger the satisfaction is with the product, the stronger the relation between Process Satisfaction and WTP for consumers that are satisfied with the product and less strong or nonexistent for consumers that are not satisfied with the product. To be more specific, when a consumer is satisfied with the co-designed product and with the process, the higher they are willing to pay for the product. On the other hand, although, the expectation was that the Transaction Capability would have a similar effect, the present study could not validate this assumption. The results show that there is no interaction effect of this variable. An overview of the above mentioned results is shown below.
Yüklə 1,25 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||