The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian

Combining theories of the goal-derived product evaluation and holistic versus analytic thinking style, the authors investigate the effects of adding novel attributes on new product evaluation. While one may predict that adding novel attributes may be appealing to consumers as it provides new benefits, the authors propose that, in some cases, it may not. The current research investigates consumers’ view of new attribute addition depends on the novel attribute’s goal congruence with the consumption goals of the base product, which may be hedonic or utilitarian in nature. Further, consumers’ holistic versus analytic thinking style moderates the effect of such goal congruence. Study 1 examines the asymmetric evaluation towards new products when a goal-incongruent (vs. congruent) attribute is added to either a hedonic or a utilitarian base product. When the base product is hedonic (vs. utilitarian) by nature, consumers show lower evaluations for new products with the addition of goal-incongruent (utilitarian) attributes compared with the addition of goal-congruent (hedonic) attributes. Study 2 examines the moderating role of thinking style. The results indicate that in promoting products with novel goal-incongruent (vs. congruent) attributes, using a holistic thinking style effectively increases product evaluations compared with using an analytic thinking style. Study 3 replicates studies 1 and 2 to prove the generalizability of the effects by using different stimuli. These findings have implications for new product positioning and promotion strategies.


Ⅰ. Introduction
Firms differentiate or improve their products by adding novel attributes to the base product (Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001).For example, a toothpaste manufacturer may add herbal mint flavor to toothpaste, or a product manager of chocolate may add proteins to a chocolate bar.
Products can be primarily hedonic or utilitarian (Baltas, Kokkinaki, and Loukopoulou 2017;Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000).The consumption goals associated with the hedonic or utilitarian base product and the added attribute are a way to conceptualize the nature of additions (Gill 2008).Adding new features to the base product could result in hedonic or utilitarian goal congruence or incongruence.For example, while adding a sensory (functional) attribute to the hedonic (utilitarian) base product would be goal congruent, adding a functional (sensory) attribute to the hedonic (utilitarian) base product would be goal incongruent.Product "benefits" function as consumption goals (Van Osselaer et al. 2005;Van Osselaer and Janiszewski 2012).Thus, the match or congruence between the product benefits and the goals plays a crucial role in product evaluation (Klein and Melnyk 2016).When goal-incongruent functionalities are added to the base products, the "asymmetric additivity effect" could occur (Gill 2008;Noseworthy and Trudel 2011).
This research finds that consumers show more negative evaluation for a new product when a goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attribute is added to the hedonic base than to the utilitarian base.This result is in line with the previous research result of Gill (2008) and Noseworthy and Trudel (2011).
Consumers naturally strive for internal consistency (Sirgy 1982).So, the goal congruence between the base product and novel attribute would enhance consumers' product evaluations (Klein and Melnyk 2016).However, when goal-incongruent attributes are added to the base products, the effect of adding novel attributes to the existing product would differ by the context (e.g., culture, thinking style, arousal, positioning, pricing, or advertising of the products) or by the consumer characteristics (e.g., cognitive closure, thinking style, selfconstrual, or trait innovation newness level) (Chung and Lee 2019;Gill 2008;Jain, Desai, and Mao 2007;Lalwani and Shavitt 2013;Ma, Gill, and Jiang 2015;Monga and John 2007;Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001;Noseworthy and Trudel 2011;Noseworthy, Di Muro, and Murray 2014).
Among these variables, in the present research, we focus on the role of thinking style.Thinking style influences every aspect of a human being's decision-making process consciously or unconsciously.The differences in thinking style result in even differences in cultures (Choi, Koo, and Choi 2007;Choi, Nisbett, and Norenzayan 1999;Markus and Kitayama 1991).When The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 3 people make purchase decisions, thinking style plays a significant role in price-quality judgment (Lawani and Shavitt 2013), brand extension evaluation (Monga andJohn 2007, 2008), mental accounting system (Hossain 2018), and new product evaluation (Chung and Lee 2019).
When consumers evaluate a new product, they may adopt one of two thinking styles (Chung and Lee 2019;Epstein et al. 1996;Escalas and Bettman 2005;Hossain 2018;Jain, Desai, and Mao 2007).While evaluating objects, holistic thinkers demonstrate flexibility in categorization and emphasize the relationships across categories.On the other hand, analytic thinkers assign objects to unique categories and evaluate them concerning the categoryspecific attributes.Holistic thinkers have connected-thinking orientation and show deviation from categorization norms.On the contrary, analytic thinkers have discrete thinking orientation and institute a well-defined structure within their categorization norms (Choi et al. 2003;Choi, Koo, and Choi 2007;Hossain 2018;Kühnen and Oyserman 2002;Lalwani and Shavitt 2013;Monga and John 2007, 2008, 2010).
In this research, we seek to examine how different thinking styles (holistic vs. analytic) influence consumers' product evaluations when novel attributes (sensory or functional) are added to the base products (hedonic or utilitarian).We suggest that the effectiveness of adding novel attribute depends on (1) the (hedonic vs. utilitarian) goal congruence of added attributes to the base products and (2) (holistic vs. analytic) thinking style.We expect the differences in new product evaluation between holistic versus analytic thinking styles will be evident when the goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products.Compared with using an analytic thinking style, using a holistic thinking style may enhance positive product evaluation of new products.
The following section provides the relevant theoretical background on the hedonic versus utilitarian consumption goals, the goal-congruence versus goal-incongruence of novel attributes, holistic versus analytic thinking style, and predicted interaction effects.Next, we report three studies.In particular, in study 1 and 3, we examine asymmetric product evaluation towards adding a goal-congruent versus a goal-incongruent attribute to the hedonic versus utilitarian base.Study 2 and 3 manipulates thinking style (holistic vs. analytic) and examines how consumers evaluate the new products when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products.
Finally, the findings of our research are discussed with suggestions for future research.

Ⅱ. Theoretical Background and
Hypothesis Development

Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Consumption Goal
Consumers purchase and use products or services with different goals and motives: (1) consummatory hedonic gratification from sensory attributes, and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons (Batra and Ahthola 1990, p.159;Botti and McGill 2011;Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003, p.130).This product categorization is "a function of the relative salience of its hedonic and utilitarian attributes" (Chernev 2004, p.143).Hedonic products are associated with sensory, experiential, and enjoyment-related attributes.On the other hand, utilitarian products are associated with functional, practical, and tangible attributes.People consume and evaluate utilitarian products primarily on the basis of functional, instrumental, and practical benefits (Chernev 2004;Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008;Gill 2008).
The criteria for product evaluation may differ systematically between hedonic and utilitarian products (Chernev 2004;Holbrook and Hirschman 1982;Melnyk, Klein, and Vӧlckner 2012).
People consume hedonic products for sensual or aesthetic pleasure (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000).Thus, consumers evaluate hedonic products on the basis of the experiential or holistic meaning of the products rather than individual product attributes (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) They also found that the effect of arousal on positive and negative emotion is greater for hedonic rather than utilitarian descriptions.Pham (1998) contends that affect is used as information in making evaluative judgments.
Consumers' reliance on such feelings is greater under hedonic motives than under utilitatian motives (Chaudhuri, Aboulnasr, and Ligas 2010).
According to Gill (2008), when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products, consumers' evaluation of the new product depends on the valence of the The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 5 contrast.For new products with a utilitarian base, adding an incongruent hedonic attribute leads to a positive contrast (Gill 2008).In addition, because hedonic attributes are perceived as more fun and pleasurable than utilitarian attributes (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982), adding a hedonic attribute to a utilitarian base provides more fun and pleasure.Therefore, adding a hedonic attribute to the utilitarian base results in a positive contrast effect (Gill 2008;Keller and McGill 1994;MacInnis and Price 1987).In contrast, for new products with a hedonic base, adding an incongruent utilitarian attribute is negatively contrasted (Gill 2008).
Utilitarian attributes are more practical and instrumental, and these benefits are perceived as less pleasurable and fun than hedonic attributes (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982).
Although there are perceived benefits from utilitarian attributes, the associated loss in hedonic benefits of the base products results in a negative contrast effect (Gill 2008;Noseworthy and Trudel 2011).Thus, we propose that the effect of adding goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes will be more negative when the base product is hedonic (vs.utilitarian) by nature.

The Goal Congruence vs. Incongruence of Novel Attributes
Goals are "abstract benefits sought by the consumer that are available through the (abstract or concrete) features of a product class that offer fulfillment of those goals (Martin and Stewart 2001)."Consumers usually evaluate a product based on the benefits.
These benefits that a product provides function as consumption goals (Friedman, Savary, and Dhar 2018;Van Osselaer and Janiszewski 2012).
Thus, product evaluation depends on the congruence between consumers' consumption goals and products' benefits (Klein and Melnyk 2016).Previous research defined the term "congruence" as the "extent to which associations of one object share content and meaning with another object's association (Keller 1993;Melnyk, Klein, and Vӧlckner 2012).
The consumption goals of using hedonic and utilitarian products are different (Chernev 2004;Klein and Melnyk 2016).This research investigates the goal-congruence effect of adding novel attributes to the hedonic versus utilitarian base.Consumers pursue more pleasurerelated goals for hedonic products, whereas they pursue more functionality-related goals for utilitarian products (Chernev 2004;Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008).Here, the goal congruence between the added attribute and the base product is defined as the extent to which the novel attribute and the base product share similar/different goals in terms of their hedonic versus utilitarian benefits.For example, ice cream with added chocolate or dish detergent with added baking soda would be considered goal-congruent.In contrast, ice cream with added chlorella or dish detergent When goal-congruent attributes are added to the bases, the new attributes will be assimilated to the base products due to the similarity in consumption goals.However, when goalincongruent attributes are added to the bases, the new attributes will be contrasted with the existing base product due to the dissimilarity in consumption goals.Thus, the assimilation versus contrast effect will affect how consumers evaluate the new product (Gill 2008).Further, depending on consumers' (holistic vs. analytic) thinking style, their product evaluation would be different.
First, when goal-congruent attributes are added to the base, consumers will easily understand the benefits of the new products (Jhang, Grant, and Campbell 2012) evaluate the products more favorably.Because the novel attributes' and the base products' consumption goals are already related to each other, (holistic vs. analytic) thinking style will not make any differential impact on the perceived relatedness (between the base products and added attributes) and product evaluations.
Second, when goal-incongruent attributes are added to the base, consumers' evaluation of the new product will depend on their thinking style.Thinking style determines most of the cognitive processing and decision-making process (Choi, Koo, and Choi 2007;Hossain 2018;Nisbett et al. 2001).Holistic thinking fosters similarity perception and intuitive reasoning, whereas analytic thinking prompts dissimilarity perception and logical reasoning (Fӧrster 2009).
Thus, when the goal-incongruent attributes are added to the existing products, their dissimilarity perception will increase when people use analytic thinking compared with holistic thinking.On the contrary, when people evaluate a product with goal-incongruent attributes, their similarity perception would increase by using holistic thinking rather than using analytic thinking.This will lead to higher perceived relatedness of the consumption goal between the base product and added novel attributes.Thus, consumers' evaluation of the new product with goal-incongruent attributes will be more favorable when they use holistic thinking compared with analytic thinking.In the next section, we will review the prior research on thinking style.Monga andJohn 2007, 2008).

The
The previous research suggests that the holistic thinkers view the world as composed of connected elements, whereas the analytic thinkers view the world as isolated elements (Nisbett et al. 2001).
Holistic versus analytic thinking detects different kinds of connections between objects (Monga and John 2010, p.81).While holistic thinking fosters the tendency to find thematic interdependencies and similarities between objects, analytic thinking enhances the tendency to find categorical memberships and dissimilarities between objects (Fӧrster 2009;Melnyk, Klein, and Vӧlckner 2012).Holistic thinkers reported greater degrees of association than analytic thinkers when they are asked about the degree of association among objects (Choi, Koo, and Choi 2007;Hossain 2018).
The previous literature suggests that holistic versus analytic thinking differentially impact evaluations of brand extension (Hossain 2018).
Holistic thinkers' perceived fit among a parent brand and the extended product category was greater compared to analytic thinkers (Monga and John 2007).Further, thinking style also differentially influences price-quality judgments.3.1 Study 1.

Pretest
In order to check the validity of stimuli, we To determine base product type manipulation, we asked the respondents to rate these two product categories according to their hedonic or utilitarian benefits.We used the threedimensional multi-item measures from Voss, The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 9 Spangenberg , and Grohmann (2003).Hedonic benefits were measured by asking respondents to rate the products in terms of "fun" (1 = not at all fun at all, 9 = very fun), "delightful1" (1= not delightful at all, 9 = very delightful) and "enjoyable" (1 = not enjoyable at all, 9 = very enjoyable) (Hedonic benetfit_Chocolate's α = .750;Hedonic benetfit_Toothpaste's α = .899).Utilitarian benefits were measured by asking participants to rate the products concerning "useful" (1 = not at all useful at all, 9 = very useful), "functional" (1 = not functional at all, 9 = very functional), "practical" (1 = not practical at all, 9 = very practical) (Utilitarian benefit_Toothpaste's α = .899;Utilitarian benefit_Chocolate's α = .822).

Experiment
Study 1 examines whether the type of base product (hedonic vs. utilitarian) has a differential impact on new product evaluation by varying the added attribute's goal congruence (congruent vs. incongruent).

Participants and Design
A total of one hundred and thirty-nine participants (46% male, 20-29 years old 57.6%, White/Caucasian 82.7%, more than bachelor's degree 55.4%) from Prolific participated in this survey.A 2 (goal congruence: congruent vs.

Procedures and Measures
After accepting to participate in this study, The base products' hedonic benefits were measured using "1 = fun / delightful / enjoyable at all, 9 = very fun / delightful / enjoyable) (α = .841).The base products' utilitarian benefits were measured using "1 = not at all useful / functional /practical at all, 9 = very useful / functional /practical) (α = .709).
The dependent variable for study 1 was product evaluation.Product evaluation was measured using five 9-point scale items -the extent to which subjects considered the product to be bad/good, not at all desirable/desirable, unattractive/attractive, negative/positive, don't like it at all/like it very much (Thompson and Hamilton 2006) (α = .964).
Novel attribute's goal congruence to the base product was measured using "How similar is the goal associated with (base product: toothpaste/chocolate) and (added attribute: herbal mint/fluoride, sweet caramel / rich protein)?(1 = not at all similar, 9 = very similar) (Friedman, Savary, and Dhar 2018).
In addition, single-item of 9-point scales were used to gauge involvement (how important) and familiarity (how familiar) with the product category.Demographic information, including gender, age, race, education, and income, was also collected.

Manipulation Check
The manipulation check confirmed that the chocolate was more hedonic than the toothpaste (M chocolate_hedonic = 7.51, M toothpaste_hedonic = Finally, the results of a one-way ANOVA showed that familiarity and involvement with the product category did not differ across base type conditions (all p's > .10).Thus, they were dropped from further statistical analyses.

Moderating Effects of Goal Congruence on New Product Evaluation
A 2 (goal congruence: congruent vs.
incongruent) x 2 (base type: hedonic vs. utilitarian) ANOVA revealed a significant interaction on the product evaluation (F (1, 135) = 216.59,p = .000).As H1 predicted, adding goal-incongruent attributes to the base resulted in asymmetry in new product evaluation.
For a new product with a hedonic base (chocolate), adding a goal-congruent attribute (sweet caramel) resulted in greater product evaluation (7.21 vs. 3.14; t (67) = 15.73,p < .001)than adding a goal-incongruent (rich protein) attribute.On the contrary, consumers' new product evaluation was greater when adding a goal-incongruent attribute (herbal mint) to the utilitarian base (toothpaste) than a goal-congruent attribute (fluoride) (6.29 vs. 5.77; t (68) = 2.11, p = .038).These results supported H1.Table 1 shows the results for product evaluation of four products of study 1.

Discussion
The results of study 1 showed that the added attribute's goal-incongruence (vs.congruence) led to lower product evaluation for the new product with a hedonic base than the new product with a utilitarian base.Study 1 showed the asymmetry in new product evaluations by the base product's nature, which supports H1.
In study 2, to test the boundary condition of the impact of goal congruence on new product evaluation, we conducted an experiment in the addition of thinking style.
<Table 1> New Product Evaluation as a Function of Base Product Type and Goal Congruence (Study 1)

Study 2
Study 2 examines whether the consumers' thinking style (holistic versus analytic) has a differential impact on new product evaluation when a goal-congruent versus a goal-incongruent attribute is added to base products.

Participants and Design
A total of two hundred and seventy-eight participants from Prolific participated in this survey (male 47.8%, 20-29 years old 53.6%, White / Caucasian 80.2%, and 54 % more than bachelors' degree).A 2 (goal-congruence: congruent vs. incongruent) x 2 (thinking style: holistic vs. analytic) between-subject experiments were conducted in order to demonstrate the moderating effect of thinking style on the evaluation of the new product.
Specifically, it was proposed that holistic (vs. analytic) thinking will result in more favorable product evaluations when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base.The instrument for this manipulation was adapted from Baltas, Kokkinaki, and Loukopoulou (2017), Gill (2008), and Hossain (2018).

Procedures and Measures.
For Study 2, we used the same product categories as in study 1: chocolate as a hedonic base product and toothpaste as a utilitarian base product.Sweet caramel and herbal mint were used as sensory attributes, and rich protein and fluoride were used as functional attributes.The procedure was identical to that of study 1, with the addition of the thinking style manipulation.Since our research aimed to test differences between the holistic versus analytic thinking style, thinking style (holistic vs. analytic) was manipulated by using a priming task.Participants were asked to read a paragraph about a trip to a city and identify the pronouns in the text (Hossain 2018).In the meta-analysis where relative effects of thinking style priming, Oyserman and Lee (2008) find that the strongest impact on the cognition is exerted by the pronouncircling priming task (Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee 1999).This pronoun-circling priming task had the weakest impact on the other outcomes of self-construal, including relationality, selfconcept, and values.Besides, this priming task was found to be the most effective in enhancing the salience of the cognitive aspects of thinking style (Hossain 2018;Kühen, Hannover, and Schubert 2001;Kühnen and Oyserman 2002;Monga and John 2007, 2008, 2010).Thus, we used this priming task in study 2 to manipulate thinking style.Please refer to the Appendix for the priming task.
To check the adequacy of thinking style manipulation, participants were asked to answer two items from the analytic-holistic tendency score (AHS) scale (Choi et al. 2003;Choi, Koo, Choi 2007), including "It is not possible to understand the pieces without looking at the whole picture.","The whole is greater than the sum of its part."(α = .804).

Manipulation Check
Consistent with the previous studies, the base product type manipulation was assessed by asking participants to rate the hedonic or utilitarian benefits.The mean hedonic benefits of chocolate was significantly higher than the mean hedonic benefits of toothpaste (M chocolate_ hedonic = 7.46, M toothpaste_hedonic = 3.29; t (276) = 25.85,p < .001),whereas the mean utilitarian benefits of toothpaste was significantly higher than the mean utilitarian benefits of chocolate

Moderating Effects of the Thinking
Style on New Product Evaluation It was predicted that the thinking style would have a moderating effect on the evaluation of new products.It was proposed that the effect of goal congruence on product evaluation is greater when using holistic thinking than using analytic thinking for new products with a goal-incongruent attribute.We conducted an analysis of 2 (goal congruence: congruent vs.
incongruent) x 2 (thinking style: analytic vs. holistic) ANOVA to find out the interaction effect of thinking style and goal-congruence on new product evaluation.The results revealed a significant goal-congruence x thinking style interaction (F (1, 274) = 18.24, p = .000).See Table 2 for means and standard deviations.
As displayed in Figure 2, when goal-congruent attributes were added to the base, holistic versus analytic thinking style did not have a differential impact on the new product evaluations (6.25 vs. 5.91; t (139) = 1.72, p = .088).On the contrary, when goal-incongruent attributes were added to the base, compared with analytic thinking, holistic thinking led to higher product evaluations (5.88 vs. 4.36; t (137) = 8.95, p < .001).These results support H2.
The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 15

Discussion
The results of study 2 revealed that holistic (vs.analytic) thinking increased new product evaluation when goal-incongruent attributes were added to the base products.In contrast, there was no differential impact of thinking style on product evaluations when goal-congruent attributes were added to the bases.Overall, holistic thinking, compared with analytic thinking, fostered favorable evaluations toward additions of novel attributes to the bases.
Our results provide support for thinking style as the driver of differences in new product evaluations.Priming holistic (vs.analytic) thinking increased consumers' evaluations of new products with incongruent (vs.congruent) novel attributes.This pattern is consistent with our theorizing that styles of thinking cause differences in product evaluations when the goal-incongruent attributes are added to the base products.

Study 3.
Study 3 was conducted to prove the generalizability of the effect in study 1 (interaction of goal-congruence and base type) and study 2 (interaction of goal-congruence and thinking style) by using different stimuli.(baking soda) (5.65 vs. 5.86; t (116) = 1.63, p = .105).These results supported the asymmetric evaluations of adding goal-incongruent attributes to the base proposed in H1.Table 3 and Figure 3 shows the results for product evaluation of four products of study 3.

Moderating Effects of the Thinking
Style on New Product Evaluation resulted in higher product evaluations (4.75 vs. 5.83; t (118) = 6.29, p < .001).As displayed in Table 4 and Figure 4, holistic (vs. analytic) thinking results in greater product evaluation when goal-incongruent attributes are added to the base products.These results supported H2.

Ⅳ. General Discussion
The primary purpose of this research was to identify the role of (a) hedonic versus utilitarian goal congruence between the added This result is in line with the previous research result of Gill (2008) and Noseworthy and Trudel (2011).Existing literature has investigated the role of hedonic vs. utilitarian goal congruence associated with the added attribute by using consumer electronics (e.g., PDA, mobile phone; Gill 2008, Gill andLei 2009), soft drinks, cars, cameras, or watches (Noseworthy and Trudel 2011) as stimuli.This research replicated their findings using different product categories (e.g., toothpaste, chocolate, ice cream, and dish detergent) as stimuli.
Second, the main contribution of our study is the examination of thinking style's influence on the evaluation of goal-incongruent (vs.2007,2008,2010).This research emphasized the relative importance of holistic (vs.analytic) thinking in promoting new products with added Holistic thinkers have greater tendencies to use price as a signal of quality(Lalwani and Shavitt 2013).Holistic thinkers' connected-thinking orientation, emphasis on relationships across categories and events induce categorization flexibility and deviation from categorization norms(Hossain 2018;Jain, Desai, and Mao 2007;Monga and John 2010).On the contrary, analytic thinkers' discrete thinking orientation results in a welldefined structure within their categorization systems and enhanced susceptibility to the categorization effect(Hossain 2018).Analytic thinkers assign the objects to unique categories and evaluate them about category-specific attributes(Hossain 2018;Jain, Desai, and Mao 2007;Monga and John 2010).In sum, while holistic thinking enhances relation-based thinking, analytic thinking fosters rule-based thinking.Holistic thinkers engage in broadly defined flexible categorization.Given this tendency, we predict that consumers who engage in holistic thinking will easily find the connections among various product categories.As a result, holistic thinkers will tolerate adding both a goal-congruent and incongruent attribute to the base.By contrast, analytic thinkers are inclined to exhibit narrow and inflexible categorization tendencies.Therefore, we predict that consumers who engage in analytic thinking are more likely to consider adding a goal-incongruent attribute to the base as a violation of the categorization norm and give a negative evaluation of it.Due to the nature of the categorization flexibility and connected thinking orientation, holistic thinking (vs.analytic thinking) will result in higher product evaluations when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products.Therefore, we posit that: H1: For the evaluation of the new products, the effect of adding a goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attribute will be asymmetric by the hedonic vs. utilitarian nature of the base product.Specifically, adding a goal-incongruent (utilitarian) attribute to the hedonic base would result in lower product evaluation, whereas adding a goal-incongruent (hedonic) attribute to the utilitarian base would result in favorable product evaluation.H2: Thinking style (holistic vs. analytic) will moderate the effect of goal congruence on product evaluation.Specifically, when the goal incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base, compared to analytic thinking, holistic thinking will result in more favorable product evaluation toward a new product.Ⅲ.Methods and AnalysisStudy 1 and 3 examines the asymmetric effect of adding goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes on evaluations of new products with hedonic versus utilitarian nature.Study 2 and 3 manipulates thinking style and then examines how holistic versus analytic thinking style influences the effect of adding goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes to the bases on new products evaluation.
conducted a pretest.Twenty-nine respondents (males 58.6%; age: 20-29 years old 55.2%) participated in the study via an online survey platform Prolific.Following current literature(Baltas, Kokkinaki, and Loukopoulou 2017;Crowley, Spangenberg, and Hughes 1992;Khan and Dhar 2010;O'curry and Strahilevitz 2001), two product categories were used in the experiment: toothpaste as a utilitarian product and chocolate as a hedonic product.
incongruent) x 2 (base product type: hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subject experiments were conducted in order to demonstrate that the novel attribute's goal congruence moderates the relationship between the base product type and new product evaluation.The instrument for this manipulation was adapted from Baltas, each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.Based on the pretest results, two product categories were used as stimuli: chocolate as a hedonic base product and toothpaste as a utilitarian base product.While chocolates varied in flavor (sensory attribute) or nutritional content (functional attribute), toothpaste varied in scents (sensory attribute) or active ingredients (functional attribute) (Baltas, Kokkinaki, and Loukopoulou 2017).Further, participants in the hedonic goal-congruent condition read an advertisement of the sweet caramel (sensory attribute) added chocolate, whereas participants in the hedonic goal-incongruent condition read an advertisement of the rich protein (functional attribute) added chocolate.Similarly, while participants in the utilitarian goal-congruent condition read an advertisement of the fluoride (functional attribute) added toothpaste, participants in the utilitarian goal-incongruent condition read an advertisement of the herbal mint scent (sensory attribute) added toothpaste (See Appendix).
<Figure 1> The Interaction Effect of Base Product Type and Goal Congruence on New Product Evaluation (Study 1) The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 13 <Table 2> New Product Evaluation as a Function of Goal-Congruence and Thinking Style (Study 2) <Figure 2> The Interaction Effect of Goal Congruence and Thinking Style on the Evaluation of New 40.51, p = .000).As H1 predicted, adding goal-incongruent attributes to the base resulted in asymmetry in new product evaluation.For a new product with a hedonic base (ice cream), adding a goal-congruent attribute (chocolate) resulted in greater product evaluation (5.86 vs. 4.73; t (118) = 6.77, p < .001)than adding a goal-incongruent (chlorella) attribute.On the contrary, consumers' new product evaluation was not significantly different when adding a goal-incongruent attribute (orchid flower scent) to the utilitarian base (dish detergent) than a goal-congruent attribute <Table 3> New Product Evaluation as a Function of Base Product Type and Goal Congruence (Study 3) <Figure 3> The Interaction Effect of Base Product Type and Goal Congruence on the Evaluation of New Products (Study 3) The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 19 ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine whether the thinking style moderates the effect of goal-congruence on perceived relatedness (H2).The ANOVA on the goal-congruence, thinking style, and their interaction revealed a significant interaction effect of goal-congruence x thinking style (F (1, 129) = 70.38,p < .001).The simple effects test revealed that holistic (vs.analytic) thinking led to higher product evaluations, when goal-congruent attributes were added to the base products (5.91 vs. 5.61; t (116) = 2.35, p = .021).Furthermore, when goal-incongruent attributes were added to the base products, holistic (vs.analytic) thinking <Figure 4> The Interaction Effect of Thinking Style and Goal Congruence on the Evaluation of New Products (Study 3) <Table 4> New Product Evaluation as a Function of Thinking Style and Goal Congruence (Study 3) 20 ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL Vol.23 No. 02 July 2021 attribute and the base product and (b) holistic versus analytic thinking style on new product evaluation.In studies 1 and 3, the results revealed that there are asymmetric new product evaluations by the hedonic vs. utilitarian nature of the base products.In studies 2 and 3, when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products, holistic thinking increased new product evaluations compared with analytic thinking.This research offers several theoretical contributions.Previous research on the effect of novel attributes suggests that adding new attributes to a base product is likely to improve product evaluation (Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001).However, the three studies demonstrated in this article reveals that the positive effect of novel attributes depends on the goalcongruence of the novel attribute to the base and consumers' thinking style.First, consumers show more negative evaluation for new products when goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the hedonic (vs.utilitarian) base.
congruent) new product extensions.When goal-incongruent (vs.congruent) attributes are added to the base products, holistic (vs.analytic) thinking increases new product evaluations.This study provides evidence of thinking style as a moderator of new product evaluation, thereby answering the call to undertake more divergent psychological research on thinking style (e.g., Chung and Lee 2019; Hossain 2018; Jain, Desai, and Mao 2007; Lalwani and Shavitt 2013; Monga and John Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style The Effect of Adding Novel Attributes to Hedonic vs. Utilitarian Base: Role of Holistic vs. Analytic Thinking Style 7