The Functional Alibi

18 Pages·2016·0.67 MB·English

THE SCIENCE OF HEDONISTIC CONSUMPTION
The Functional Alibi
ANAT KEINAN, RAN KIVETZ, AND ODED NETZER
ABSTRACT Spendingmoneyonhedonicluxuriesoftenseemswasteful,irrational,andevenimmoral.Wepropose
thataddingasmallutilitarianfeaturetoaluxuryproductcanserveasafunctionalalibi,justifyingtheindulgentpur-
chaseandreducingindulgenceguilt.Wedemonstratethatconsumerstendtoinflatethevalue,andusagefrequency,of
utilitarianfeatureswhentheyareattachedtohedonicluxuries.Usingamixed-methodapproach,combiningarchival
data(ananalysisofover1,000onlinereviewsofhandbags)withstudiesconductedinthefieldandlaboratory,wees-
tablishthefunctionalalibieffectandshowthatitismediatedbyguiltandmorelikelytooccurwhentheluxurypur-
chaseisperceivedasfrivolousandexpensive,andwhenthepurchaseisforoneselfratherthanagift.Weexplorethe
effectofaddingafunctionalalibiinavarietyofmarketingcontexts,andweexaminevariousconsumerpopulations
representingdiversedemographics.
Everyvicehasitsexcuseready.
—PubliliusSyrus
Ithasbeenmyexperiencethatfolkswhohavenoviceshaveveryfewvirtues.
—AbrahamLincoln
M
arketers of luxury products face two major chal- Wearguethatconsumerstendtoinflatethevalueofutilitar-
lenges.Ontheonehand,marketershavetoappeal ianfeatureswhentheyareattachedtohedonicluxuries.For
to consumers’ aspirations and fantasies, connect example, consumers who never drive off-road or in harsh
withconsumers’hopes,wishes,anddreams,andsatisfycon- weatherconditionsmayjustifythepurchaseofanextravagant
sumers’emotionaldesires.Ontheotherhand,creatingade- SUVthroughitshandlingunderextremedrivingconditions.
sireoracravingforaluxuryproductisnotenough;consum- Similarly, marketers of luxury handbags flaunt protective
ersoftenfeelguiltyspendingmoneyonnonpracticalluxuries pocketsformobiledevicestohelpconsumersjustifythepur-
andavoidpurchasingthem.Thepurchaseandconsumption chaseofamulti-hundred-dollarCoachorLouisVuittonpurse.
of luxury products often seem wasteful and even immoral, Thefunctionalalibicanbeappliedtoavarietyofprod-
andconsequentlydifficulttojustify. uctcategories:advertisementsforluxurywatchesandpens
Thus, luxury marketers need to appeal to consumers’ often emphasize precision, performance, and functionally,
conscience andprovidethemwithanexcuse, oran“alibi,” framingtheseluxuryitemsaspurposefulinstruments.Sim-
thatwouldjustifytheir purchase andmake itseem“ratio- ilarly,exclusiveblackcreditcardsaremarketedasoffering
nal” and logical. Such alibis can help consumers alleviate useful and practical features, making them “the ultimate
theirindulgenceguiltandviewtheirpurchasedecisionsas buying tool.”Homeluxuries can bepositioned inasimilar
influencedbyproductfunctionalityratherthansolelybynon- manner—consumers often emphasize the increased effi-
practical,hedonisticdesires. ciencyandfunctionalityoftheirremodeledluxurykitchen
In the present research, we propose that adding a small or high-end professional cookware; in a newspaper inter-
utilitarianfeaturetoaluxuryproductcanserveasa“functional view,aconsumerindicated“cookinghealthyisabigprior-
alibi,”justifyingthe indulgentpurchaseand reducingguilt. ity”tojustifyhisrecentpurchaseofa$6,500outdoorarti-
AnatKeinan([email protected])isJakurskiFamilyAssociateProfessorofBusinessAdministrationattheHarvardBusinessSchool,Boston,MA02163.Ran
Kivetz([email protected])isthePhilipH.GeierProfessorofBusiness,andOdedNetzer([email protected])isanassociateprofessorofbusiness,
bothattheColumbiaBusinessSchool,NewYork,NY10027.Theauthorsaregratefulforhelpfulcommentsandsuggestionsreceivedfromparticipantsin
seminarsatYaleUniversity,theUniversityofPennsylvania,theInvitationalChoiceSymposium,andtheAssociationofConsumerResearchConference.
JACR,volume1,number4.PublishedonlineSeptember7,2016.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/688218
©2016theAssociationforConsumerResearch.Allrightsreserved.2378-1815/2016/0104-0002$10.00
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
480 TheFunctionalAlibi Keinan,Kivetz,andNetzer
sanpizzaoven(USAToday2010).Evenadvertisementsfor when they can serve as a functional alibi. This study, con-
luxurycars,privatejets,andyachtsmakesuretohighlight ductedatalargeshoppingcenter,furtherdemonstratesthat
superiorfunctionalityandpracticalfeatures;BMW,“theul- the functional alibi effectismediated bya decreaseincon-
timate driving machine,” stresses safety and performance, sumers’indulgenceguilt.
andAcura’s“drivenbyreason”campaignarguesthatwhile Theremainderofthearticleisorganizedasfollows.We
people rationalize their extravagant luxuries with ridicu- firstdiscussconsumers’difficultyinpurchasingluxuries,and
lous reasons,buying an Acura is a rational choice. reviewthesocialandculturaltrendsthatleadconsumersto
We use a mixed-method approach combining archival, seekafunctionalalibiwhenpurchasingsuchgoods.Thisdis-
secondarydata(contentanalysisofover1,000onlineprod- cussionleadstothepredictionthataddingasmallutilitarian
uctreviewsofhandbagsonwww.bloomingdales.com)with feature (i.e., a functional alibi) can significantly reduce the
studiesconductedinthefieldandlab.Takentogether,the guilt associated with buying luxuries and consequently in-
studiesshowthatconsumersusefunctionalalibitojustify crease the willingness to purchase, and pay for, such prod-
their indulgent choice. The functional alibi effect (i.e., the ucts.Wethenreportthefindingsfromfourstudiesexploring
tendencytoinflatethevalueofutilitarianfeatureswhenthey consumers’ tendency to inflate the value of utilitarian fea-
areattachedtohedonicluxuries)ismediatedbyindulgence tureswhentheyareattachedtohedonicluxuries.Wediscuss
guilt,and ismorelikelytooccurwhen the luxury purchase thetheoreticalandmanagerialimplicationsofthisresearch
is perceived as frivolous and expensive, and when the pur- inthefinalsection.
chaseisforoneselfratherthanagiftforothers.
Four studies demonstrate consumers’ tendency to seek SEEKING A FUNCTIONAL ALIBI
anduse functionalalibistojustify indulgentpurchases. In The luxury sector is a “dream-making” business (Keinan,
study 1, we analyze over 1,000 online product reviews of Crener, and Bellezza 2016) that reinforces and capitalizes
handbagspostedonwww.bloomingdales.com.Weexamine onanattractiveandaspirationallifestyle(Holtetal.2004).
whatdrivesmentionsofutilitarianfeaturesinhandbagre- Luxuryproductsaretypicallyassociatedwithexclusivity,ele-
viewsandfindthat,consistentwiththeproposedfunctional gance,andprestigeandhavethepowertomaketheirown-
alibieffect,consumersaremorelikelytomentionutilitarian ersfeelaccomplished(Mandeletal.2006),sociallysuperior
features(butnothedonicfeatures)whenthebagismoreex- (RuckerandGalinsky2008;Mazzoccoetal.2012),andproud
pensive.Additionally,consumersarelesslikelytomention (Bellezza and Keinan 2014). However, while luxuries are
utilitarianfeatureswhentheproductispurchasedasagift morealluringandaspirationalthannecessities,theyarealso
forsomeoneelse. moredifficulttojustifyandtendtoinduceindulgenceguilt
Buildingonthearchivaldataanalysis,study2experimen- (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998; Wertenbroch 1998; O’Curry
tally demonstrates that the functional alibi is valued more and Strahilevitz 2001; KivetzandSimonson 2002a, 2002b;
whenconsumersconsiderapurchaseforthemselvesrather Okada2005;KahnandDhar2006,2010;KivetzandKeinan
thanasagiftfortheirfriend.Thestudyexploresexpectant 2006; Kivetz and Zheng 2006; Haws and Poynor 2008;
mothers’ willingness to pay for a luxurious Coach diaper KeinanandKivetz2008;DharandWertenbroch2011).
bag,andtheeffectivenessofemphasizingautilitarianfeature Indeed,luxuriesareataninherentdisadvantagerelative
oftheluxurybag(i.e.,aninsulatedpocketforbottles).The tonecessitiessince,bydefinition,thelatterhaveahighersta-
study further demonstrates that the functional alibi effect tusinthehierarchyofneeds(Maslow1970;Frankfurt1984;
ismediatedbyindulgenceguilt. Scitovsky1992;Berry1994).Becausepracticalityandfunc-
Study3demonstratesthataddingasmallutilitarianfea- tionalityarecentralvaluesinAmericanculture(Rifkin1987),
ture (a cellphone emergency battery recharger) to an ex- spendingmoneyonunnecessaryproductsmayseemunwise
pensive luxury smartwatch can dramatically increase the and wasteful. Puritan ethics and ideas have encouraged a
willingnesstopayfortheluxuryproduct,beyondthestand- formofrationalizedcapitalisminwhichmakingmoneyand
alone“objective”valueoftheaddedutilitarianfeature.This spending it frugally is an ethical obligation (Weber 1930).
superadditivityoccurswhenthefunctionalalibiisattached Inspiredbythisprotestantworkethic,manyconsumersare
totheexpensive,luxuryproductbutnotwhenitisaddedto constantly concerned with being productive and using their
alessexpensive,andnonluxury,product. time and money efficiently andwisely,evenwhenspending
Finally,study4examineswhetherfunctionalfeaturesare theirdiscretionary time anddisposableincome(Keinanand
viewed by consumers as morehelpful and likely to be used Kivetz 2011). As a result of this “obsession” with efficiency
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume1 Number4 2016 481
and practicality, consumers may find it difficult to justify The Functional Alibi
productsthatdonotofferfunctionality,solveaproblem,or Ratherthanrelyingonjustificationmechanismsassociated
savetimeandmoney. with consumers’ past behaviors/choices or on promotions
and discounts, the present research investigates how em-
Hyperopia and Indulgence Guilt phasizing utilitarian (often minor) features or aspects of
Recent research demonstrates that these cultural values hedonicluxuriescouldhelpjustifyluxurypurchasesandre-
driveconsumerstooverlyfocusonchoosingvirtuesandne- duceindulgenceguilt.Wedefineutilitarianaspectsasprac-
cessities,deprivethemselvesofindulgence,andchronically tical, instrumental aspects of the product that fill a basic
delayhedonicexperiences.Asaresult,consumersoftensuf- needoraccomplishafunctionaltask.Weproposethatsuch
ferfromareverseself-controlproblem,involvingexcessive utilitarianfunctionalalibishelpconsumersjustifythepur-
farsightedness (hyperopia) and future-biased preferences chase and reduce their guilt.
(KivetzandSimonson2002a;KivetzandKeinan2006;Haws Importantly,becauseemphasizing oraddingsuchfunc-
andPoynor2008;KeinanandKivetz2008;Rick,Cryder,and tionalalibishelpsjustifyhighlydesired,yetguilt-riddenpur-
Loewenstein2008;Shu2008;ShuandGneezy2010). chases, we predict that consumers will inflate the value of
KivetzandSimonson(2002a)showthatpeoplewhoper- utilitarianfeaturesthatareattachedtoluxuryitems,com-
ceive themselves as suffering from hyperopia may employ paredtothe“stand-alonevalues”oftheluxuryandtheutil-
precommitments to indulgence and luxury; for example, itarian feature when considered separately. Thus, we pro-
peoplechooseluxuriesovercashprizesofequalorgreater videthefollowingdefinitionofthefunctionalalibi:
valueandexplainsuchchoicesasintendedtoguaranteethat
theawardisnotspentonnecessitiesorsavings.Buildingon FunctionalAlibi:Atendencytoinflatethevalueand
thesefindings,KivetzandKeinan(2006)showthatsuppos- importanceof(oftenminor)utilitarianaspectsorfea-
edlyfarsighted(hyperopic)choicesofvirtueoverviceevoke tures of luxury products in order to justify the pur-
increasingregretovertime.Theyfindthattheeffectoftime chaseandreduceindulgenceguilt.Suchutilitarianfea-
onself-controlregretismediatedbythedecayofguiltand turesaretypicallynotthemainreasonforbuyingthe
the intensification of feelings of missing out on the plea- productbutratherserveasanexcuseforanotherwise
suresoflife.Consistentwiththenotionofhyperopia,Shu guilt-inducingpurchase.
andGneezy(2010)demonstratethatconsumersoftenpro-
crastinateinengaginginenjoyableactivities,andHawsand The functional alibi effect is different from, and can be
Poynor (2008) show that many consumers acknowledge more effectivethan,otherjustificationmethods inseveral
theirowndifficultywithindulgence. importantways.Whilemostjustificationsareonlypresent
Hyperopia suggests that many consumers would allow andsalientatthetimeofthepurchase(e.g.,usingeffortex-
themselvestoindulgeandbuyluxuriesonlywhenthesecon- penditure,excellence,licensing,pricediscounts,promotions,
sumershaveacompellingjustification.Accordingly,research orcharitygivingasmeansforjustifications),thefunctional
hasshownthatconsumersaremorelikelytochooseindul- alibi remains with the product over time. Thus, the added
gences and luxuries based on such actions as engaging in utilitarian feature justifies not only the purchase but also
charitablebehavior(StrahelevitzandMeyers1998;Dharand theuseanddisplayoftheitem.Asopposedtootherjustifica-
Simonson1999;KhanandDhar2006),priorshoppingre- tionmethods,thefunctionalalibicanbeobservedbyothers
straint(MukhopadhyayandJohar2009),exertinghighef- andthusmaybeamoreeffectivejustificationinasocialset-
fort (Kivetz and Simonson 2002b), or excelling in a task ting;consumersmaynotalwayshavetheopportunitytoex-
(Kivetz and Zheng 2006). Additionally, recent research on plain to others that the luxury purchase was a reward for
price framing and promotions has demonstrated that dis- hardwork,obtainedatadiscount,orcontributedtocharity,
countsandpromotionsareparticularlyeffectiveindriving butconsumerscaneasilydemonstratetoothersthattheitem
purchase behavior when such discounts and promotions hasafunctionalpurpose(e.g.,thecrystalartworkisusedasa
areassociatedwithhedonicitems(KhanandDhar2010;Ki- vaseforflowersorasaservingbowl).Comparedtootherjus-
vetzandZheng2016).Whilediscountingluxurybrandscan tificationmethodsthataretypicallyassociatedwithconsum-
alleviatefeelingsofguilt andinducepurchases inthe short ers’pastbehaviors(higheffortorachievement,doingagood
term,suchdiscountsarecostlyandmighterodebrandequity deed,saving,andpriorshoppingrestraint),thefunctionalal-
inthelongterm(Thomas2007). ibiiscontrolledbythemarketer;luxurymarketerscanstra-
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
482 TheFunctionalAlibi Keinan,Kivetz,andNetzer
tegically determine and emphasize specific features of the hance the functionality and practicality of the product),
productandmentionutilitarianaspectsintheiradvertising. whentheybuyanexpensiveitemsoldbyaprestigiouslux-
Additionally, the functional alibi can be morecosteffective urybrand,comparedtowhentheybuyalowerpriceditem
comparedtootherjustificationmethodsofferedbymarket- soldbyalessprestigiousbrand.Wedonotanticipateasim-
ers:whilepricediscounts,promotions,anddonationsreduce ilarpatterninthementionsofhedonicattributes(e.g.,the
profitability,a functionalalibiincreasesconsumers’ willing- prestigeandappearanceoftheproduct/brandandthelike-
nesstopayandallowsmarketerstoincreaseratherthande- lihoodofgettingcomplimentsfromotherpeople).Thatis,
creaseprices. we predict an interaction effect between the type of attri-
Aquestionthatnaturallyarisesis:Howdoweknowthat bute mentioned (utilitarian or hedonic) and the price (or
afunctionalaspectisusedasanalibiorexcuseforaluxury luxuriousness)oftheproductpurchased.Wetestthispre-
purchase,asopposedtothefunctionalaspectbeinginher- diction in study 1 by analyzing online product reviews of
ently valued itself? Accordingly, to test the alibi-granting handbags representing a wide range of prices and brands.
nature of functional aspects, we employ several different Thus, our firsthypothesis is:
research methodologies that demonstrate that consumers
tendtoinflatethevalueandimportanceofutilitarianfea- H1:Consumerswouldbemorelikelytomentionutili-
tureswhentheyareattachedtohedonicluxuriesthatcon- tarian(butnothedonic)attributesoftheproductwhen
sumersconsiderpurchasing.Asdiscussedbelow,thesemeth- buyingmoreexpensiveandmoreluxuriousbrands.
odologiesinclude:(i)ananalysisofonlinereviewsorluxury
items;(ii)acomparisonofconsumers’willingnesstopayfor To further examine consumers’ tendency to inflate the
a luxury item and the added utilitarian feature when sold valueofutilitarianfeaturesthatareattachedtoluxuryitems,
together rather than offered separately; and (iii) explicitly weexaminethewillingnesstopay(WTP)forproductsandfea-
asking consumers how important is a functional feature; tures that are sold separately and compare them (between-
we predict that the importance of the functional feature subjects)totheWTPforthesameproductsandfeatureswhen
will be inflated when the feature is described as part of a soldasabundleofaluxuryproductandautilitarianfeature
luxury item that consumers consider purchasing, rather (i.e.,whentheproductconsideredforpurchaseisbundled
thanwhenthatfunctionalfeatureisofferedseparately,be- with a functional alibi). Contrary to the extant literature
causeintheformercasethefeature servesasafunctional on bundle pricing, which suggests that the bundle should
alibi for the luxury purchase. bepricedatadiscount(SimonandWuebker1998),wepre-
Additionally,weexploretheunderlyingmechanismand dictsuperadditivityinconsumers’WTP,suchthattheWTP
demonstratethemediatingroleofreductioninindulgence forthebundleofaluxuryproductandafunctionalalibiwill
guiltassociatedwiththeluxurypurchase.Wealsoexamine be higher than the combined WTP for the components of
several moderators and boundary conditions that show thebundle(theluxuryandtheutilitarianfeature)whenof-
thatfunctionalfeaturesaremoreappealingwhenconsum- fered separately. Such superadditivity is predicted because
ers are looking for a justification, for example, when the theutilitarianitemorfeatureservesanadditionalpurpose
luxuryispurchasedforoneselfratherthanasagift.These byprovidingafunctionalalibiorjustificationforpurchasing
moderators also help rule out alternative explanations for theluxury.Thus,oursecondhypothesisis:
theattractivenessofthefeaturesservingasafunctionalal-
ibi, such as complementarity and usefulness of the added H2:Addingasmallutilitarianfeaturetoaluxurypur-
feature. For example, while the alternative explanation can chasewillcreateafunctionalalibieffect,suchthatcon-
predict a main effect of the functional alibi, these rival ac- sumerswillincreasetheirWTPbeyondthestand-alone
countscannotexplaintheinteractionsobservedinallstud- valueoftheutilitarianaddition.Thatis,theWTPfora
ies;suchinteractionsdemonstratethattheaddedfunctional luxuryproductbundledwithafunctionalalibiwillbe
featuresarenotuniversallyimportantandvaluable. higherthanthecombinedWTPforeachproductorfea-
Theempiricalsectionofthisarticlestartsbyexamining turesoldseparately.
how consumers describe expensive luxury items—com-
pared to inexpensive products—that they purchased. We Weargue thatby inflating thevalue and importance of
predict that shoppers would be more likely to mention utilitarianfeaturesattachedtoluxuryitems,consumersal-
theutilitarianfeaturesoftheproduct(i.e.,featuresthaten- leviatesomeoftheguilttheyfeelaboutspendingmoneyon
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume1 Number4 2016 483
luxuries.Tofurthertestwhetherutilitarianaspectsserveas salesandmarketshare(NowlisandSimonson1996).Thus,
ajustification,andtoexplorethepsychologicalmechanism our fifth hypothesis is:
driving consumers to inflate the value of utilitarian fea-
tures,weexaminethemediatingroleofindulgenceguiltas- H5: The functional alibi effect will occur when the
sociatedwiththepurchase.Relatedly,ourthirdhypothesis utilitarian feature is added to a hedonic luxury but
is: not when itis added to a practical necessity.
H3:Thefunctionalalibieffectwillbemediatedbyre- Inadditiontotheaforementionedmoderators,inthelast
ductioninfeelingsofindulgenceguiltassociatedwith studyweexamineanotherboundaryconditionforthefunc-
the purchase of luxury products. tionalalibieffect,namelyconsumers’abilitytoaffordthelux-
ury item. Adding a functional alibi could potentially nudge
Wefurtherexploremoderatorsandboundaryconditions wealthyconsumerswhoareabletoaffordsuchproductsbut
thattestwhethertheseutilitarianfeaturesaremoreappeal- is less likely to affect consumers who view these products
ing when the consumer needs a justification for the pur- asclearlybeyondtheirmeans.Next,wetesthypotheses1–
chase.Specifically,weexplorewhetheraddingafunctional 5usingamixed-methodapproach,combininganalysesofar-
alibi is more effective when buying a product for oneself chivaldatawithexperimentsconductedinthefieldandinthe
versus as a gift for someone else. Recent research demon- laboratory.Thevariousstudiesshowconsumers’tendencyto
stratesthatpurchasingagiftforothersevokesadifferent inflatethevalueofutilitarianfeatureswhensuchfeaturesare
mind-set and highlights different product attributes (Bas- attachedtohedonicluxuriesandoperateasfunctionalalibis.
kin et al. 2014; Steffel and LeBoeuf 2014). Based on the The studies also examine the underlying psychological pro-
notionthatbuyingaluxuryforoneselfinducesmoreguilt cessesanddemonstratetheeffectivenessoffunctionalalibis
thanbuyingthesameluxuryasagiftforsomeoneelse(Ki- inreducingconsumers’indulgenceguilt.
vetzandSimonson2002a;KivetzandZheng2016),wepre-
dictthatfunctionalalibiswillbemoreeffectiveininducing STUDY 1: WHAT DRIVES MENTIONS OF
purchases, and will be more valued, when consumers are UTILITARIAN AND HEDONIC FEATURES
buying the product for themselves. When consumers pur- IN HANDBAG ONLINE REVIEWS?
chasealuxuryasagiftforanotherperson,theutilitarianad- Study1examinestherelationshipbetweenthepriceofhand-
dition could even backfire and detract from the perceived bagsandthenumberofutilitarianandhedoniccomments
valueoftheproduct.Thatis,whentheobjectiveistopam- mentioned in online reviews of such products. Based on
perafriend,thefunctionalfeaturecouldhaveareversedef- ourconceptualization,wepredictthatconsumerswillinflate
fect.Accordingly,ourfourthhypothesisis: thevalueofutilitarianfeatureswhensuchfeaturesbelongto
moreexpensivehandbags.Thatis,shopperswouldbemore
H4:Addingafunctionalalibiwillbeeffectiveinmo- likely to mention the utilitarian features of a product (i.e.,
tivating purchases when consumers consider buying featuresthatenhancethefunctionalityandpracticalityofa
a luxury for themselves but not when buying a gift product)whentheybuyanexpensiveitemfromaprestigious
for others. luxury brand, compared to when they purchase a cheaper
itemfromalessprestigiousbrand.Wedonotpredictsuch
Inaddition,becausepurchasingpracticalnecessitiesiseasy a difference between purchasers of expensive and cheaper
tojustifyanddoesnotevokeguilt,wepredictthatthefunc- bagsintheirmentionsofhedonicattributes(e.g.,thepres-
tional alibi effect will only occur when the utilitarian fea- tige and appearance of the product/brand and the likeli-
tureisaddedtoahedonicluxuryandnotwhenitisadded hoodofgettingcomplimentsfromotherpeople).Thus,con-
to a practical necessity (e.g., the functional alibi effect is sistent with hypothesis 1, we predict an interaction effect
predicted to occur when a utilitarian feature is attached betweenthetypeofattributesmentioned(utilitarianorhe-
toadesignerbagbutnotapracticalpieceofluggage).These donic)andthepriceoftheproductpurchased.
predictions are consistent with research on new product
features; such research demonstrates that the characteris- Method
ticsoftheproductstowhichnewfeaturesareaddedareim- Wetested hypothesis1by analyzing 1,034 online product
portant determinants of the impact of these features on reviewsofhandbagsrepresentingawiderangeofpricesand
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
484 TheFunctionalAlibi Keinan,Kivetz,andNetzer
brands. The analysis included all the handbag product re- complimentsassoonasIstepoutofthehouse,”“everyone
viewsthatappearedonbloomingdales.com(accessedonAu- who saw it just raved about it,” “I’ve gotten more compli-
gust17,2015).Therewere1,850handbagsavailableonthe mentsonthisbagthanI’vegottenwithmyotherdesigner
Bloomingdale’swebsite,and14%(263bags)werereviewed bags”). The 1,034 online reviews were also coded with re-
byatleastonecustomer.Forbagswithmultiplereviews,we gard to whether they explicitly mentioned that the bag
limitedthenumberofreviewsperbagto20,tomakesure waspurchasedasagiftforsomeoneelse(e.g.,“Ipurchased
thattheresultswerenotbiasedbytheidiosyncraticquali- thisasagiftformydearsister.Sheabsolutelyadoredit.”;“I
ties of a few specific bags (for bags with more than 20 re- boughtthisformydaughter-in-law,themotherofa2yrold,
views, we analyzed the 20 most recent reviews). Overall, anditisgreatforallherandhisneeds!!Nottomention,it
theonlinereviewswereverypositive,andonly10%ofthe lookssogood!!”;“thebagandcolorlookbetterinperson!too
reviewsreceivedlessthan5or4stars(themaximumrating baditwasgivenasagift.IwishIgotitformyself.Therecip-
was5stars).Themodalpriceforahandbaginourdatawas ientloved it.”;“My niece recently turned 16and thispurse
$195,suggestingthatthispricelevelconstitutesanimpor- wasnumber1onherwishlist.Madeitsoeasyforustomake
tantthresholdinthewillingnesstospendonhandbags,pos- herhappysinceweknowwecantrustthequalityandstyleof
sibly because it is difficult to justify spending more than MarcbyMarcJacobs”;“Iboughtthisformydaughterwhois
$200onabag.Theaveragenumberofreviewsperhandbag incollege.Shelikesitanditlooksgoodonher.Irecommend
was3.9reviews.SeeappendixA(apps.A–Favailableonline) it for people who have little to carry around”; “gift for a
fordescriptivestatisticsoftheonlinereviewdata. daughterwhoisabusymom.Sheabsolutelylovedthestyle
For each of the 1,034 online reviews, two independent andflexibility.Greateverydayhandbag.”).
coders,whowereunawareoftheresearchquestionandhy-
potheses,codedthenumberofhedonicandutilitarianattri- Results
butesmentionedinthereview.Adetaileddescriptionofthe We first report a repeated-measures ANOVA analysis ex-
codingmethodandexamplesofverbatimonlinereviewsare ploring our main hypothesis (an interaction effect), and
provided in appendix B. Comments coded as mentioning thenreportaregressionanalysisexploringadditionalvari-
utilitarianattributesdiscussedthehandbags’functionality ablesthatmayinfluencethetypeofattributesmentioned.
and practicality (e.g., “easy to clean,” “sturdy,” “the strap is To test the interaction between a handbag’s price and the
adjustable,”“fitsmylaptop,”“lightweight,”“sidepocketshold typeofattributesmentionedintheonlinereview(i.e.,he-
water bottle and everything you need to throw at them”). donicvs.utilitarian),weusedarepeated-measuresANOVA
Commentscodedasmentioninghedonicattributesdiscussed withpricelevelasanindependentvariable,discretizedinto
the handbags’ aesthetic and symbolic value (e.g., “trendy,” seven levels (up to $100, $101–$200, $201–$300, $301–
“cute,”“gorgeous,”“beautiful,”“greatlooking,”“veryfashion $400, $401–$500, $501–$600, more than $600) to allow
forward,” “definitely an eye catcher wherever I go,” “I get forvisualizationandnonlinearpriceeffects(seefig.1).The
Figure1.Study1results—numberofutilitarianandhedonicattributesmentionedinonlinereviewsofhandbags.
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume1 Number4 2016 485
number of utilitarian and hedonic comments is a repeated attributes and instead highlight utilitarian aspects of the
measure because for each review we coded both measures bag.Thisarguablycounterintuitivepatternprovidesstrong
of the number of utilitarian and hedonic comments. Both support for our conceptualization. The regression also
main effects as well as the interaction effect were statisti- demonstratesthatmorepositivereviewsmentionmorehe-
cally significant. Online reviews of more expensive hand- donic attributes (t(807) 5 2.34, p 5 .019) and that, over-
bagsmentionedahighernumberofattributes(maineffect all,thenumberofhedonicattributesmentionedisalsocor-
of price: F(6, 1027) 5 11.4, p < .001). Further, the online related with the number of utilitarian aspects mentioned
reviews were generally more likely to mention utilitarian (t(820) 5 2.50, p 5 .012). The remaining variables were
rather than hedonic attributes (main effect of comment not significant(p >.10).
type: F(1, 1027) 5 117.3, p < .001). More importantly,
andsupportinghypothesis1,therewasasignificantinter-
actionbetweenthetypeofattributementioned(utilitarian Gift versus Self-Purchase
or hedonic) and the price of the purchased handbag (F(6, Nextweconductedarepeated-measuresANOVAanalysisto
1027) 5 2.4, p < .05). Consistent with the operation of a examinetheinteractionbetweenthepurchase’spurposeor
functional alibi, for the relatively high price ranges (above recipient(i.e.,buyingforselfvs.asagiftforsomeoneelse)
$300), the number of utilitarian attributes mentioned in- andcommenttype(i.e.,utilitarianvs.hedonic).Bothmain
creasedwithhigherpriceswhilethenumberofhedonicat- effects, aswellastheinteraction,werestatistically signifi-
tributesmentioneddecreased. cant. Importantly, the main effect of attribute type (F(1,
Additionally, we conducted a regression analysis exam- 1032)57.49,p<.01)andthemaineffectofpurchaseforself
ining the nonlinear relationship between price and men- versusasagift(F(1,1032)533.08,p<.001)werequalified
tions of hedonic attributes. The regression analysis allows by a significant interaction between the type of attributes
us to: (i) include additional control variables; (ii) avoid the mentioned (utilitarian or hedonic) and whether the item
discretizationofpricetogainadditionalpower;and(iii)le- was purchased as a gift (F(1, 1032) 5 13.487, p < .001).
veragearandomeffectanalysistocontrolforthefactthat As shown in figure 2, when buying for oneself, customers
somebagshadmultiplereviews,thuscontrollingforunob- weremorelikelytomentionutilitarianattributescompared
servedheterogeneityacrosshandbags.Thedependentvar- tohedonicattributes(F(1,969)5160.82,p<.001).Incon-
iableintheregressionanalysiswasthenumberofhedonic trast,whentheproductwaspurchasedasagiftforothers,
attributesmentionedinthereview.Theregressionincluded the online reviews mentioned directionally more hedonic
thefollowingindependentvariables:(1)priceofhandbag(a thanutilitarianfeatures(F(1,63)5.46,NS).Theseresults
continuousvariable,mean-centered foreaseofinterpreta- areconsistentwithhypothesis4andourconceptualization.
tion); (2) price-squared (testing for a nonlinear relation- More specifically, because purchasing a luxury for oneself
ship); (3) the number of utilitarian attributes mentioned induces more guilt than buying the same luxury as a gift
inthereview(includedasacovariate);(4)theoverallrating for someone else, functional alibis are more effective and
providedinthereview(i.e.,1–5hearts),whichallowsusto valued when consumers buy a luxury product for them-
controlfornegativereviews;and(5)adummyvariablein- selvesasopposedtoasagiftforsomeoneelse.
dicating whether the reviewer gifted the bag to someone Inconclusion,study1demonstratesthatwhenconsum-
else(64ofthe1,034onlinereviewsindicatedthatthecon- ersreviewmoreexpensive,luxuryitemsthattheyhadpur-
sumer purchased the product as a gift for someone else); chased, theyaremorelikelytoelaborate ontheutilitarian
and(6)thereviewer’sage(includedasanadditionalcovar- benefitsoftheproductbutarenotmorelikelytoelaborate
iate).Importantly,assomeofthehandbagsreceivedmore onthehedonisticbenefitsoftheitem.Moreover,consum-
thanonereview,theregressionswereestimatedwithhand- ers are more likely to elaborate on the utilitarian features
bagrandomeffectstoaccountforunobservedheterogene- when they purchase the luxury product for themselves as
ity across handbags. Both the price and the price-squared opposedtoasagiftforothers.Theseresultssupporthypoth-
variables were statistically significant (t(138) 5 3.08, p 5 esis1andareconsistentwiththeoperationoffunctionalal-
.002, and t(253) 5 22.17, p 5 .031), confirming the ob- ibi,wherebyconsumersemphasizetheutilitarianfeaturesof
served nonlinear relationship between price and the num- luxuryproducts,particularlywhentheitemispurchasedfor
ber of hedonic attributes (see detailed results in app. D). oneselfratherthanasagiftforothers(hypothesis4).
This pattern (illustrated in fig. 1) suggests that reviews of One possible alternative explanation for the positive
moreexpensivebagstendtoputlessemphasisonhedonic correlation between the price of the bag and the number
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
486 TheFunctionalAlibi Keinan,Kivetz,andNetzer
Figure2.Study1results—acomparisonofonlinereviewsofhandbagspurchasedforoneselfversusasagiftforsomeoneelse.
of utilitarian attributes mentioned is that more expensive purchasedbagsasgiftsforothers,inthenextstudy,weex-
productsmightincludemorefeatures,includingmoreutil- perimentallytesthypothesis4bymanipulating,ratherthan
itarianfeatures.Contrarytothisalternativeexplanation,it measuring,thepurchaserecipient(i.e.,selfvs.other).
isinterestingtonotethatwedonotobserveanincreasein While results of study 1 are consistent with the opera-
thenumberofmentionsofhedonicattributesforthemore tion of the function alibi, because we cannot fully rule
expensive bags,even thoughmoreexpensive bagsare typ- out all alternative explanations using archival (secondary)
ically more luxurious and possess more hedonic attributes data,weexperimentallytestourhypothesesintheremain-
(e.g.,nicerdesigns,moredesirablebrandnames).Addition- ing studiesin thisarticle (i.e., studies 2–4).
ally, the utilitarian attributes that online reviewers men-
tioned most frequently were common across all the price STUDY 2: HOW DO FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
ranges(e.g.,size,whatfitsinthebag)andarenotnecessar- AFFECT THE WILLINGNESS TO
ily the type of additional features that might be provided PAY FOR A LUXURY BAG?
onlyathigherpricepoints.Finally,ifmoreexpensiveprod- Study 2tests hypothesis4and examines the effectiveness
uctsweretocontainmoreutilitarianfeatures,thenwewould ofaddingafunctionalalibiwhenmakingaluxurypurchase
have expected to see a similar increase in the number of foroneselfversuswhenbuyingaluxuryasagiftforafriend.
mentions of utilitarian attributes with higher prices both Specifically,thisstudyexploreshowaddingafunctionalalibi
forhandbagsthatarepurchasedforoneselfandforhandbags affectsexpectantmothers’willingnesstopayforaluxurious
purchasedasagiftforothers.However,contrarytothisalter- Coachdiaperbag.Wetestwhetheraddingasmallutilitarian
nativeexplanation,thenumberofmentionsofutilitarianfea- featuretoaluxurybrandcanalleviatesomeoftheguiltmoth-
tures did not increase with higher price, for products pur- ers feel when spending on themselves. Thus, study 2 also
chasedasagift. testshypothesis3,wherebythefunctionalalibieffectispre-
Theresultsregardingthegiftpurchasesarealsoconsis- dicted to be mediated by feelings of indulgence guilt ema-
tentwithrecentresearchondeceptioninproductreviews, natingfromthepurchaseofluxuryproducts.
demonstratingthatreviewsaremorelikelytomentionfea- A pilot study with 25 expectant mothers in advanced
turessuchasthefitorfeelofitemswhenthereviewerac- pregnancystagesconfirmedthatmotherstendtofeelguilty
tuallypurchasedtheproduct(AndersonandSimester2014). aboutspendingmoneyonthemselves.Consistentwiththe
It is possible that reviewers who gave the bag as a gift to notion of hyperopia (e.g., Kivetz and Simonson 2002a),
others were less likely to mention utilitarian attributes be- whilemostrespondentsbelieveditisimportanttooccasion-
cause they did not have direct experiences with using the ally spend time or money on things they want for them-
bags.Toruleoutthisalternativeexplanationforthelowfre- selves,themajorityofrespondentsalsoindicatedtheywould
quencyofutilitarianattributesmentionedbyconsumerswho feelguiltydoingso.Respondentswereasked:“Doyouthink
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume1 Number4 2016 487
that,asanewmother,youwouldfeelguiltyaboutspending theyaremakingthepurchaseeitherforthemselvesorasa
time or money on things that you want for yourself?” Re- gift for a friend. Based onhypothesis 5, wepredicted that
sponseswereprovidedona7-pointscalerangingfrom“will consumers buyingthe luxury bagas agiftfor a friendwill
notfeelguiltyatall”(1)to“willfeelveryguilty”(7).There- feellessguiltyaboutthepurchaseandwillbelesslikelyto
spondents were also asked: “Do you think it is important look for a functional alibi to justify the purchase.
thatnewmothersoccasionallyspendsometimeormoney
onthingsthattheywantforthemselves?”Responseswere
provided on a similar scale ranging from “not important Method
atall”(1)to“veryimportant”(7).Therespondentswerealso Theparticipantswere91expectantmothersatanadvanced
askedtoexplaineachoftheiranswers.Amajorityofthere- stage of their pregnancy. Participants were randomly as-
spondents(i.e.,68%)indicatedthatitisveryimportantthat signedtooneoffourconditionsina2(functionalalibivs.
new mothers occasionally spend some time or money on noalibi)(cid:1)2(buyingforselfvs.asagiftforsomeoneelse)
things that they want for themselves (selected 5 or above between-subjectsdesign.Participantsweregivenadescrip-
onthe7-pointscale)andexplainedtheiranswersusingsuch tionofaCoachdiaperbagandwereaskedtoindicatewhatis
verbatimresponsesas:“itisimportantthatmomsfeelgood themaximumpricetheywouldbewillingtopayforthislux-
aboutthemselvestohelpthembegoodmothers,”“itisim- urybag.Inallconditions,thebagwasdescribedas:“thestyl-
portantformentalandemotionalwell-being,”“itisimpor- ishCoachdiaperbag,usedbycelebritymomslikeJennifer
tant to not forget about yourself because you will be un- Garner.”Theproductdescriptionincludedapictureofthe
happy in the long run,” and “a mother needs to feel like a bagandapictureofJenniferGarner.Inthenoalibicondi-
persontoo.” tion,participantsweregivennoadditionalinformationabout
However,consistentwithresearchonhyperopiaandre- the product. In the functional alibi condition, the product
search on maternalguilt (e.g., Seagram and Daniluk2002; alsoincludedasmallutilitarianfeature.Specifically,partici-
Rotkirch 2009), a majority of respondents (i.e., 64%) also pants were told that the Coach bag includes an insulated
indicatedthatspendingonthemselveswouldresultinstrong pocket for bottles and cups, and the description included
feelingsofguilt(selected5oraboveonthe7-pointscale).Re- an additional small picture of a toddler happily drinking
spondents explained their answers using such verbatim re- fromhissippycup(seeapp.E).
sponses as: “I’ll probably be thinking that money could be Participants were told that they were making the pur-
betterusedfordiapers,collegefunds,etc.,”“Iwouldfeellike chase either for themselves or as a gift for a friend. After
Icould’vegottensomethingmybabyneeds,”“inthefirstyear indicatingtheirwillingnesstopayfortheCoachdiaperbag,
thebabyisgrowingandlearningandIwouldfeelguiltytak- all participants were asked to indicate whether they would
ing time or money away from that purpose,” and “baby’s or would not feel guilty about the purchase and were also
needsaremoreimportantthanmom’swants.” asked to complete the following sentence: “I would / would
The main study (reported next) examines the dilemma notfeelguiltyaboutbuyingtheCoachdiaperbagbecause...”
facedbymotherswhoneedtonegotiatebetweentheirown,
and their children’s, needs and wants, and tests whether
adding a functional alibi can assuage some of the guilt in- Results
volvedinthistrade-off.Weexaminethewillingnesstopay Aspredictedbyhypothesis4,therewasasignificantinter-
foraluxuriousproduct(astylishCoachdiaperbag)andtest actioneffectonwillingnesstopaybetweenthepurpose,or
whetheraddingasmallutilitarianfeature(aninsulatedpocket recipient,ofthepurchaseandtheavailabilityofafunctional
forbottlesandcups)canserveasafunctionalalibiforpur- alibi(F(1,87)55.9,p<.05).Ananalysisofsimpleeffects
chasingtheluxury-brandedbag.Diaperbagssoldbypopular indicated thataddingafunctionalalibiwas moreeffective
babyproductbrandssuchasFisher-PriceandGerbertypi- inincreasingthewillingnesstopayfortheCoachbagwhen
cally cost $30. We test whether expectant mothers would thepurchasewasforoneselfratherthanasagiftforsome-
bewillingtopaymoreforadesignerbagthatismorestylish oneelse(seefig.3).WhenbuyingtheCoachbagforthem-
andsoldbyaluxurybrandwhenafunctionalalibiisadded selves, participants were willing to pay more when the
tothebag. product description included the insulated pocket for bot-
Toexaminewhetherthefunctionalalibieffectisstron- tles and cups compared to when it did not ($93 vs. $63,
gerforguilt-inducingpurchases,participantsweretoldthat F(1, 45) 5 3.41, p 5 .07). A different result was observed
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
488 TheFunctionalAlibi Keinan,Kivetz,andNetzer
Figure3.Study2results—theimpactofaddingautilitarianfeatureonthewillingnesstopayforaluxurybag.
whentheCoachbagwaspurchasedasagift;interestingly, “baby’sneeds,”whichwasidentifiedinourpilotstudy.Par-
addingthefunctional feature tothe giftseemedtoreduce ticipants who considered buying the luxury bag for them-
itsattractiveness.Participantswerewillingtopaydirection- selves and were not provided with a functional alibi pro-
allylessfortheCoachbagasagiftwhenthedescriptionin- vided such open-ended verbatim responses as: “it would
cludedtheutilitarian featurecomparedtowhenitdidnot beabout‘my’statusandhowIlookandnotgettingpracti-
($69 vs. $98, F(1, 42) 5 2.53, NS). These results suggest cal needs for the baby—the bag is called a diaper bag be-
that when the purchase requires justification, a functional cause it is for the baby not me,” “it’s too much to spend
alibi can increase the purchase likelihood of the product. onmyself,”“Ican’tjustifybuyingaproductthatisthesame
However, when the purpose of the purchase is to pamper priceasacrib,”and“IwouldbefeelingrealguiltybecauseI
afriend,afunctionalfeatureislesseffectiveandmighteven can usethat money ondiapers.”
reducethepurchaselikelihoodofthegift. A mediated moderation analysis tested the mediating
Consistentwithhypothesis3,thisinteractioneffectwas role of indulgence guilt. The three regressions reported in
mediatedbyfeelingsofguiltaboutspendingontheCoach appendixFshowthatthepurpose,orrecipient,ofthepur-
bag.Theinteractioneffectonindulgenceguiltbetweenthe chase(i.e.,forselfvs.asagiftforsomeoneelse)moderates
purpose (or recipient) of the purchase and the availability theeffectofaddingafunctionalalibionwillingnesstopay,
of a functional alibi was statically significant (z 5 2.1, p < and thatthis moderation is mediated by feelings of indul-
.05).Ananalysisofsimpleeffectsindicatedthatthemajor- genceguilt.AshighlightedinappendixF,allconditionsfor
ityofparticipantswhoconsideredbuyingthebagasagift amediatedmoderationweresatisfied.Theseresultsarecon-
didnotfeelguiltyineithercondition(i.e.,withorwithout sistentwithhypothesis3andsupportthenotionthatadd-
a functional alibi). Only 29% and 39% indicated that they ing a functional alibi (e.g., a small utilitarian feature) to a
felt guilty about the purchase (as a gift for their friend) luxury product can serve as a guilt-reducing mechanism
withoutorwiththeutilitarianfeature,respectively.Thedif- and consequently enhance the willingness to purchase the
ference in indulgence guilt between these two conditions product.
wasnotstatisticallysignificant.Incontrast,theindulgence In summary, study 2 revealed an interaction between
guiltofparticipantswhoconsideredbuyingtheluxurybag the need to justify the purchase and the availability of a
for themselves was significantly reduced by the functional functional alibi. Without the functional alibi, consumers
alibi,with82%feelingguiltywithouttheutilitarianfeature feelthatbuyingaluxurybrand’sbagforthemselveswould
versusonly52%feelingguiltywiththisfeatureadded(z5 beaselfishandguilt-riddenpurchase,whereaswithafunc-
2.3, p <.05). tional alibi the purchase feels more justified. The results
Participants’ open-ended guilt explanations discussed also suggest that, although functional alibis are effective
the dilemma or trade-off between “mother’s wants” and in increasing the attractiveness of products purchased for
This content downloaded from 160.039.034.159 on October 06, 2016 19:20:37 PM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).