influence of cultural differences on «the time versus ...942220/fulltext01.pdf · helpful input...
TRANSCRIPT
Influence of cultural
differences on «the time
versus money effect» The case of Russia and Sweden.
Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Department of Business Studies
Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2016
Date of Submission: 2016-05-27
Tatiana Egorova
Daria Kolesnikova
Supervisor: Jukka Hohenthal
1
Uppsala University
Abstract
The paper explores the manifestation of “the time vs. money effect” in the intercultural setting.
“The time vs. money effect” reveals itself as the consequence of priming either time or money that
results in shifting product attitudes expressed by consumers. The effect is mediated by the feelings
of personal connection to a product. The previous research suggests that the differences in the
chronically accessible self-construal were likely to lead to variations in the manifestations of “the
time vs money effect”. More specifically, consumers with chronically accessible interdependent
self-construal should be more likely to express more positive product attitudes towards products
the value of which is derived by experiential usage than consumers with chronically accessible
independent self-construal. The quasi-experimental study carried out on Swedish and Russian
consumers not only did not reveal any cultural differences associated with the effect, but also the
effect was not observed in either sample. The practical implications of these findings in the area
of marketing suggest that the possibility of shifting product attitudes by priming either time or
money is contingent and determined by the type of product under consideration.
Keywords: time-vs-money effect, consumer behavior, priming, product evaluations, self-construal
2
Uppsala University
Acknowledgements
We are immensely grateful to our supervisor Dr. Jukka Hohenthal, who provided critical
suggestions and insights throughout the work on this master thesis, for which we are indebted.
Helpful input from Dr. Kaj Haataja and Dr. Elena Sinelnikova was also invaluable as they largely
contributed into running the experiments in Sweden and Russia as well as all the students that
participated in the research.
We would like to thank our seminar group for their constructive comments during the working
process.
Uppsala University, May 27, 2016.
Tatiana Egorova_________________ Daria Kolesnikova_________________
3
Uppsala University
Index
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Index ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
2. Theory section ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Literature review of the psychology of time and money ...................................................... 8
2.1.1 Time research ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Money research ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Is time like money?......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.4 Priming research. .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Establishing personal connection via time or money ................................................... 11
2.1.6 The interaction between the personal connection and product attitudes ...................... 13
2.1.7 “The Time vs. Money effect” ....................................................................................... 14
2.2 Cultural differences and their manifestations in consumer behavior .................................. 15
2.2.1 Culture and cognition ................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Culture and consumer behavior .................................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Beyond East and West .................................................................................................. 19
2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 20
2.4 Hypothesis statement........................................................................................................... 20
3. Methods section ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Research approach............................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Research strategy and design .............................................................................................. 22
3.3 Data collection and sampling .............................................................................................. 23
3.4 Ethical considerations ......................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Questionnaire and translation .............................................................................................. 25
3.6 Pre-testing............................................................................................................................ 27
3.7 Data analysis method .......................................................................................................... 27
3.8 Summary of the methodological framework ....................................................................... 28
4. Results and analysis ............................................................................................................... 29
4
Uppsala University
4.1 Sample, consisting of both Swedish and Russian respondents ........................................... 29
4.2 Swedish sample ................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Russian sample .................................................................................................................... 32
5. General discussion ................................................................................................................. 36
5.1 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Theoretical contribution ...................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Practical implications .......................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Future research directions ................................................................................................... 39
6. References ............................................................................................................................. 41
7. Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 55
7.1 Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 55
7.1.1 English version ............................................................................................................. 55
7.1.2 Swedish translation ....................................................................................................... 59
7.1.3 Russian translation ........................................................................................................ 64
7.2 SPSS Outputs ...................................................................................................................... 69
7.2.1 Data analysis for normality........................................................................................... 69
7.2.2 Combined Swedish and Russian sample ...................................................................... 70
7.2.3 Swedish sample ............................................................................................................ 79
7.2.4 Russian sample ............................................................................................................. 82
7.2.5 Two-way ANOVA ....................................................................................................... 85
5
Uppsala University
1. Introduction
References to time and money are common in the advertisement, for example, Aaker and Mogilner
(2009) found out that out of 300 advertisements in consumer journals almost half (48%) refer to
either time or money. The range of products, to advertise which the marketers choose to mention
time and money in the slogan is also surprisingly wide. For example, the campaign of the famous
American Miller beer advertisement states “It’s Miller time!” while Belgian Stella Artois’ message
is “Perfection has its price”. Further examples may be found in the automobile industry with Audi’s
advertisement “Here again, maybe you don’t have few minutes” and Hyundai’s “Money to burn
but the good sense not to.” Even renowned financial institutions are prone to using not only money,
but also time in their campaigns. A recent CitiBank’s outdoors campaign can be an example with
the two messages “People make money. Not the other way around” and “Your truly valuable hours
will not be found on a time sheet”. Moreover, since the very childhood we know that “time is
money”, but is it really the case?
In economics time is usually regarded as one of the scarce resources, which implies that economic
agents are expected to treat in the way similar to the way, in which they treat money (Becker,
1965). However, several studies showed that consumers approach time and money in different
ways. For example, the prospect theory suggests that consumers exhibit risk-seeking behavior for
monetary losses (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), but the study undertaken by Leclerc, Schmitt and
Dube (1995) concluded that when faced with waiting time losses, people tend to exhibit relatively
risk-averse behavior. Furthermore, as making a temporal decision requires more complex
accounting, consumers tend to use heuristics more when they are faced with the need to spend time
rather than money (Monga and Saini, 2008). Overall, the research suggests that consumers in
general do not treat time in the same way they treat money (Leclerc, Schmitt and Dube, 1995;
The following chapter is introducing the topic of the research paper, stating the purpose and
describing the structure of the study.
6
Uppsala University
Monga and Saini, 2008; Lee et al., 2010; Lee et al. 2015), which will be discussed in greater detail
further in the present paper.
The psychological study undertaken by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) led the way to the
experiment technique called «priming». Priming is a cognitive effect that reveals itself in the
observation that activation of certain associations in the mind can affect the reaction and attitudes
towards later stimuli. Priming can be imposed with the use of different methods, such as
scrambled-word tasks, questions related to priming concepts, images, etc. (Li and Ling, 2015). The
recent studies (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt, 2013) have indicated
that the product attitudes can be manipulated by the initial priming in terms of money or time. It
is argued that individuals tend to value products higher, when primed in terms of time rather than
in terms of money (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, H., Lehmann, S. and Sarstedt, M., 2013.),
however, different settings may affect evaluation. For example, the cases of highly materialistic
consumers or «status» goods, for which the value is extracted from mere possession, rather than
from experiential usage, reveal more favorable product attitudes with initial money priming
(Richins and Dawson 1992). .
The neurological study, conducted by Lehmann and Reimann (2012), confirmed the results
obtained by Mogilner and Aaker and concluded that more positive product evaluations in the time
primes (compared to money primes) are preceded by increased activation in the insula, thus
shedding light on the biological mechanisms, underlying the observed effect. The observed effect
of manipulating product attitudes by exposing consumers to time and money priming was named
“The time vs money effect” and is argued to be mediated by the personal connections consumers
establish with their products (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009).
The evidence from the field of psychology suggests that different people have different chronically
accessible self-construals, namely, independent and interdependent self-construal, – the way they
tend to view themselves in respect of others, for example, family members, friends, colleagues,
etc. (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Relatedly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) argue that the
representatives of individualistic cultures tend to have chronically accessible independent self-
construal, while representatives of collectivistic cultures are more likely to exhibit chronically
accessible interdependent self-construal. It is predicted (Williams and Lee, 2007) that individuals
with chronically accessible interdependent self-construal are more likely to establish tighter
7
Uppsala University
personal connection not only with other people but also with the products they possess. Therefore,
it is likely that the manifestation of “The time vs. money” effect will differ depending on the self-
construal of individuals and, ultimately, on their cultural background. More specifically, the
authors of the present paper expect that individuals with chronically accessible interdependent self-
construal, primed in terms of time, will report higher product attitudes than individuals with
chronically accessible independent self-construal under the same priming. The opposite is
expected under the condition of money prime, namely, individuals with chronically accessible
interdependent self-construal are likely to report lower product attitudes than individuals with
chronically accessible independent self-construal. Thus, the purpose of the present research is
to evaluate the differences in the manifestations of “The time vs. money” effect among
consumers with different chronically accessible self- construals
The authors of the given paper conducted an experiment, the subjects of which are expected to
have different chronically accessible self-construals. Two groups of students were participating in
the survey, in which the initial priming conditions in terms of time and money were manipulated
and the control condition with no initial priming was included. The nationalities of students were
chosen on the basis of individualistic/collectivistic cultural dimension of Hofstede model as a
proxy for chronically accessible self-construal. The subjects with independent self-construal were
recruited in Sweden, while the subjects with interdependent self-construal were recruited in
Russia. Each national sample was further divided into three sub-groups, for which the initial
priming condition was manipulated.
The paper is structured in the following way. First, the Theory section provided the review of the
existing body of research in the designated area, outlines the theoretical framework and states the
hypothesis to be tested further in the study. Second, the method section outlines the method chosen
for the present research and describes the procedure that was followed. Third, the results of the
study are presented followed by the discussion that includes the overview of both theoretical and
practical implications of the present research, limitations and future research directions.
8
Uppsala University
2. Theory section
In the following chapter, several complex phenomena from various disciplines are discussed.
The chapter sheds light on the interaction between these concepts from numerous points of
view and finishes with stating the hypothesis of the study.
2.1 Literature review of the psychology of time and money
2.1.1 Time research
People refer to time in their daily lives, it regulates our activities and we all get fairly equal
treatment in terms of time – each of us faces the constraint of 24 hours a day and 365 days per
year. However, research has shown that there are significant differences among individuals in the
way they treat time and these differences affect consumer behavior; for example, different
orientations in respect to time, namely, future-oriented and present-oriented ones, cause
consumption differences, variations in the motivating stimuli and attitudes (Bergadaa, 1990).
These findings led to advertising-related implications that shed light on the differences of
advertisement perceptions between consumers (Martin, Gnoth and Strong, 2009). Moreover, the
theory of socioemotional selectivity argues that temporal context influences the way people
perceive gains and losses and, consequently, the way they make decisions (Carstensen, Isaacowitz
and Charles, 1999). Further, highlighting the notion of “how much time we have left” in the broad
sense, that is, making mortality more salient, leads to changes in consumer behavior contingent on
whether the domain under consideration is important for an individual’s self-esteem (Ferraro, Shiv
and Bettmann 2005).
2.1.2 Money research
The money research in relation to consumer behavior also cover various aspects: several studies
have shown that individuals engage in mental budgeting before they make their actual
consumption decisions (Henderson and Peterson 1992; Thaler, 1985) and that affects their actual
consumption and can lead to both underconsumption and overconsumption (Heath and Soll, 1996).
Several papers examined the negative influence of mentioning money such as self-centeredness
(Vohs, Mead and Goode 2006), ruining interpersonal harmony (Amato and Rogers,1997), and
socialization demotivation (Mogilner, 2010); it highlights a self-sufficient orientation and
9
Uppsala University
consequently people tend to prefer to be free of dependency and dependents (Vohs, Mead and
Goode 2006). However other scholars describe also the positive aspect of money as they frame the
consumer choice by bringing in self-control (Tong, Zheng and Zhao, 2013).
2.1.3 Is time like money?
According to the classical economic theory, time is treated similarly to money as one of the scarce
resources (Becker 1965; Monga and Saini, 2008). Moreover, from the very childhood, we all know
that “Time is money”, the expression coined by Benjamin Franklin in 1748. But is time really like
money? People tend to treat time differently compared to money due to differences in their
psychological nature; specifically, consumers seem to use heuristics more if the decision under
consideration requires spending time rather that spending money due to more complex accounting
needed to make a temporal decision (Monga and Saini, 2008). Contrary to these results Su and
Gao (2014) show that consumers may employ various information processing types when they
deal with either time or money. Moreover, the estimation of opportunity costs in terms of time and
money involves different processing leading to more ambiguous accounting for time costs; thus,
due to liquid and storable nature of money compared to the illiquid time that cannot be easily
stored for future use, it is harder to account for opportunity cost of spending time (Okada and
Hoch, 2004). One of the implications of the difficulty of accounting for time is the absence of
sunk-cost fallacy effect for time losses, however, if those losses are expressed in monetary terms,
the sunk-cost fallacy is observed (Soman, 2001). Furthermore, preferences based on time are more
consistent than consumer preferences based on money (Lee et al., 2010); relatedly, studies have
shown that when consumers are to consider money, their decisions reveal the violation of
transitivity of their preferences; however, considering time does not show a similar effect (Lee et
al. 2015). Differences in the way people account for time and money do not stem only from the
intrinsic psychological differences between the two constructs, but can also be mediated by other
factors; for instance, if the consumers are presented with a choice, whether to pay money or invest
some time in order to acquire a particular good, they generally prefer monetary payment for
utilitarian goods and spending some time to acquire a hedonic good (Okada, 2005).
Obviously, one of the most glaring interactions between time and money is the evaluation of
deferred and immediate consumption; specifically, recent developments of pertaining to consumer
behavior reveal that framing consumers in terms of decision deferral leads to higher present bias
than framing them in terms of expedite decisions (Malkoc and Zauberman, 2006). The study
10
Uppsala University
conducted by Mogilner, Aaker and Pennington (2008) showed that if consumers have significant
time before the purchase is to be made, they tend to choose the product that is advertised with
emphasis placed on the positive features, i.e. they try to choose the best product available;
however, if the purchase is to be made immediately, the opposite effect is observed, namely,
consumers prefer the products that appear to be “not bad”. Consumer preferences and choices
among possible options are affected by the temporal distance towards the point when the choice is
actually to be made as was shown by Trope and Liberman (2000), moreover, people tend to believe
that in future they will have more time available than in present, which explains different
approaches to delaying time and monetary investments (Zauberman and Lynch, 2005). The
anticipation of consumption is a source of utility as was shown by Loewenstein (1987), which
implies that, depending on the nature of anticipated experience both positive and negative
discounting rates can be applied. Building on this result, another study revealed that even
manipulating the way, in which temporal information is presented (either in terms of dates or in
terms of period length) can affect the actual discounting rates that people use to evaluate different
options (LeBoeuf, 2006). Consistent with this are the results obtained by Van Boven and Ashworth
(2007), indicating that the anticipation of an event or an activity evokes more intense emotions
than recalling the obtained experience.
2.1.4 Priming research.
Priming and priming effects have become ubiquitous in the area of consumer behavior, starting
with the first research on priming undertaken by Meyer and Schvaneveldt in the 1970s, that focuses
on the experiments where people showed faster pace in recognizing the new word in a string if the
previous one was associatively or semantically close (Meyer and Schvaneveldt, 1971).
Mittal (1983) concludes that while choosing a specific product, the consumer is implementing a
choice task influenced by a combination of previously acquired voluntary and involuntary
information, use of heuristics as well as autonomic priming of emotional schemata. In order to
make a choice, this combination should be structured to set up a list of alternatives to select from
(Mittal, 1983). It was later acknowledged that in the everyday life people are impacted by various
sorts of information and it does not always have to be inside their conscious awareness as it can
prime consumers even if it was not provided subliminally for it to prime consumers (Nørretranders,
1998; Bos, Dijksterhuis and van Baaren, 2011).
11
Uppsala University
Emotional schemata in their turn are «primed» by external factors (for instance, trough pictures
that drive certain feelings) and once these emotions are triggered repeatedly, the choice becomes
more instantaneous (Izard, 1998). Such influence can be built up over time and stored till the point
when the consumer is faced with a choice to make and at that point the consumer selects a product
which he considers most affect-laden (Cohen, 1981).
However not only the choice can be instantaneous, but the priming itself can cause an instant
reaction (Mogliner and Aaker, 2009). Mogliner and Aaker (2009) looked at priming from a
different perspective, so that it was later acknowledged that consumers immediately primed with
such concepts as «time» and «money» can set and alter their perception in reference to certain
products.
2.1.5 Establishing personal connection via time or money
The research also showed that the time and money differ in terms of personal meaning and even
the mere mentioning of time or money affects the perception consumers have about their products
(Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt,2013; Su and Gao, 2014). According
to Mogilner and Aaker (2009), these findings are based on the three broad groups of studies. First
one highlights that the way people spend their time reflects their personality (Mogilner and Aaker,
2009). Mainly these insights come from the studies on charity donations and reveal, for example,
that the organizational status and moral self-identity affect the decision of individuals to donate
either time or money (Reed, Aquino and Levy, 2007). In this sense some consumers prefer
experiences that express their identity, which requires contributing time rather than money
(Aquino and Reed, 2002). Consumers particularly prefer to spend money on enjoying an
experience rather than acquiring a material possession (Van Boven and Gilovich, 2003). Further,
time donations lead to higher levels of experienced happiness, compared to money donations,
moreover, asking for time (instead of money) increases actual donations made (Liu and Aaker,
2008).
The second group concentrates on the interaction of general level of happiness with time or money
(Mogilner and Aaker, 2009). Several researchers have shown there is no strong relationship
between money and happiness (Kahneman et al., 2006). It was also concluded by economists that
happiness levels of Americans were relatively constant over the past several decades even though
there was an increase in financial wealth (Easterlin, 1995). However, Americans still see money
12
Uppsala University
as the most critical resource to reach happiness, increasing the working hours (Mogilner, 2010).
On the other hand, Europeans tend to see time as the source of happiness, thereby there is a
tendency of decreasing amount of time per day dedicated to work and increasing levels of
happiness (Cooper and Layard, 2005). In general, there are a lot of studies that concentrate on
happiness and the ways to achieve it. Aaker, Rudd and Mogilner (2011) defined and described the
principles of happiness, highlighting the importance of attention to time required to increase
happiness. Keeping that in mind, it is still important to mention that in the pursuit of happiness
consumers are ready and tend to spend both time and money in order to reach it (Mogilner, 2010).
From this point of view, it is also interesting to mention that for several reasons experiential
purchases make people happier than material purchases; developing this at the national level, we
would get happier individuals if communities made experiences available and abundant to obtain
(Aaker, Rudd and Mogilner, 2011).
Finally, the third group deals with the personal meaning of time as the ultimately limited and
nonrenewable resource (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009). Williams and Drolet (2005) revealed that
when the remaining lifetime is perceived as limited people tend to focus on personally meaningful
goals, however, when the amount of time available is perceived as substantial, individuals shift
their focus towards educational goals (Carstensen, Isaacowitz and Charles, 1999). These findings
suggest that the personal value of time is shaped not only by the fact that the stock of time available
cannot be replenished or substituted (Leclerc, Schmitt and Dubé, 1995) but also by the way
individuals spend their time that shapes their perception of themselves and their identity (Van
Boven and Gilovich, 2003). Consequently, spending time on a particular product leads to enhanced
feeling of personal connection towards that product, similarly like spending time with other people
fosters the feeling of interconnectedness (Aron et al., 2000). Therefore, activating the time
construct leads to more favorable feelings expressions by consumers towards that product
(Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt,2013; Su and Gao, 2014).
However, spending money does not foster the feeling of personal connection because the concept
of money is not representative of one’s personality (Reed, Aquino and Levy, 2007). As the primary
function of money that makes it different from time is the medium of exchange (Lea and Webley,
2006), it fosters the distancing from others (Vohs, Mead and Goode, 2006). In fact, consumers
generally have poor associations with money such as bills, financial challenges, therefore simply
13
Uppsala University
mentioning money makes consumers risk-averse in a way that they try to prevent the potential
losses being triggered by the feeling of threat (Hansen, Kutzner and Wänke 2013). Consequently,
activation of money construct does not lead to more positive product attitudes as it does not directly
represent the self (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt,2013; Su and Gao,
2014).
Even though time is perceived more personal and more representing the personality, therefore,
personally connecting via time is more likely than via money, establishment of the personal
connection via money is possible in the case of luxury or status goods, for which merely possessing
the product reflects the personality (Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Mogilner and Aaker, 2009). The
same is true for highly materialistic consumers, whose self-identification depends on the status of
the goods they own (Richins and Dawson 1992). Research predicts that in these cases the
personality is represented by spending large amount of money on the product (Bearden and Etzel
1982; Richins and Rudmin 1994) possessing the brands that represent or symbolize different
aspects of the self (Belk 1988; Aaker 1999) and value is derived from the fact of possession itself,
while the usage experience and time devoted to it becomes relatively insignificant (Van Boven
and Gilovich, 2003). Consequently, priming money leads to more favorable product attitudes in
these cases (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt,2013; Su and Gao, 2014).
2.1.6 The interaction between the personal connection and product attitudes
Allport (1961) concluded that the feeling of personal connection to the product leads to more
favorable product attitudes expressed by consumers. The psychological reasons for this effect are
grounded in the fact that people tend to view themselves favorably (Allport 1961; Taylor and
Brown 1988) and express more positive attitudes towards everything they associate with
themselves (Greenwald and Banaji 1995; Hetts, Sakuma and Pelham 1999; Paulhus and Levitt
1987). Moreover, the positive associations expand as far as to the facts that people tend to be nicer
with strangers that share their date of birth (Miller, Downs and Prentice 1998) and even prefer the
letters in their names to other letters (Nuttin, 1985). Consequently, it is reasonable to hypothesize
that priming consumers in terms of either time or money evokes the feelings of personal connection
towards the product under consideration and thus affects the expressed product attitudes - this
effect is known as “The Time vs. Money effect” (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009).
14
Uppsala University
2.1.7 “The Time vs. Money effect”
“The Time vs. Money Effect” was first documented by Mogilner and Aaker (2009) and they argue
that consumers, initially primed in terms of time rather than money tend to evaluate product
attributes higher than those primed in terms of money for the products the value of which is derived
from the experiential usage. Mogilner and Aaker (2009) also emphasize that for the products, the
mere possession of which is a source of value, the opposite effect is observed, namely, consumers
express more favorable opinions in case they were initially primed with money (Figure 1). The
conceptual replication of this study undertaken by Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt (2013) provided
the strong support for the original findings. Moreover, their findings suggest that the effect remains
robust irrespective of demographic background, however, females tend to reveal higher levels of
sensitivity towards time priming than males (Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt, 2013). Furthermore,
the fMRI study of neurological correlates of time vs money condition in product evaluations made
by Lehmann and Reimann (2012) revealed the activation of insula under time condition leading to
more favorable product attitudes. Lehmann and Reimann (2012) also argue that time priming
increases a feeling of connectedness to the product while the money priming causes distancing. In
addition, consumers primed in terms of money employ the attribute-based strategy to evaluate a
product, while those primed in terms of time tend to use alternative-based strategy, adopting a
holistic approach in making their decisions (Su and Gao, 2014).
Figure 1 Conceptual model for the effect of activating time vs money Source: Mogilner and Aaker
(2009)
15
Uppsala University
As the manifestation of “The Time vs. Money Effect” is grounded in the feeling of personal
connection towards the product and is similar in nature to the feeling of interconnectedness among
people, it has been argued that “The Time vs. Money Effect” will reveal itself differently for the
representatives of the cultures where 1) the meanings of time and money are psychologically
fundamentally different; 2) the majority of population exhibits independent or interdependent self-
construals (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Williams and Lee, 2007). Specifically, Williams and Lee
(2007) highlight that individuals with interdependent self-construal are likely to exhibit more
favorable product attitudes when the salience of time is increased while individuals with
independent self-construal should reveal more positive product evaluation primed with money
condition.
2.2 Cultural differences and their manifestations in consumer behavior
The cultural differences between representatives of different cultures affect the consumer behavior
in a number of ways (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). The research of Hofstede (1980, 2001) on the
culture model is fundamental in terms of dimensions Individualism - Collectivism that help to
analyze consumer behavior in various countries. «Individualism stands for a society in which the
ties between individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look after her/his immediate family
only, while collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated
into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in
exchange for unquestioning loyalty» (Hofstede, 2001). Later the model was updated by GLOBE
with a focus on In-group collectivism (House, 2004). House (2004) concludes that collectivists are
relying on interdependent self-concept, emphasizing roles, status, eager to fit in and belong to the
external world; thus, they are able to put aside their personal emotions and attachments while
making a decision in general and purchasing specifically. On the other hand, individualists are
relying on an independent self, highlighting their internal world of values and feelings, trying to
be unique and being direct with their message (Triandis, 1994). Even though globalization leads
to dilution of cultural borders and greater integration between different cultures, the national
cultural identity becomes even more important (Cleveland et al., 2016).
An important contribution to the research on cultural differences was made by Markus and
Kitayama (1991) who argue that representatives of different cultures have different self-construals,
which regulate various psychological and cognitive processes. They propose that the independent
16
Uppsala University
self-construal is more typical for
representatives of independent cultures
while representatives of collectivistic ones
more often have the interdependent self-
construal (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
Markus and Kitayama (1991) also
emphasize that individuals with
independent self-construal view
themselves as separated from others, while
those with interdependent self-construal
view themselves interconnected with other
people (Figure 2). Consequently, as further
research has shown, individuals with
independent self-construal focus relatively
more on the self, however, for the
individuals with interdependent self-construal the relative focus is shifted towards others (Hong
and Chang, 2015). Depending on the social and overall environmental context individuals shape
their perceptions of objects and the degree of their interconnectedness with other objects; it is
argued that tight social structure leads to more interdependent perception while the opposite is true
for loose social structures (Witkin and Berry, 1975). Direct implications of these findings are the
facts that East-Asians differ from Westerners in behavioral motivations and the relevance of
situational context leading to the higher attention paid to the relationships and contextual features
by Asians than by Westerners (Masuda and Nisbett, 2001). Examining how the interdependent
representatives are dealing with other individuals is crucial to examine their behavioral attitudes
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Asians are in general more attentive to their social environments and
relationships in them (Ji, Peng and Nisbett, 2000).
2.2.1 Culture and cognition
The cultural context was proven to be important to the extent that it affects the cognitive processes,
the studies have shown that East-Asians adopt the holistic approach of thinking while
representatives of the Western culture rely on the analytical one (Nisbett et al., 2001). Further, a
study made by Kitayama et. al (2003) showed that representatives of Asian culture perform better
Figure 2, Independent self-construal vs. Interdependent self-construal. Source:
Kitayama and Markus (1991)
17
Uppsala University
in the relative tasks and incorporate the context while representatives of Western culture perform
better at an absolute task and ignore the context. However, the immersion into another culture
leads to the fact that individuals adopt the cognitive features common to that culture (Kitayama et
al., 2003). Cultural differences also lead to variations in the way people categorize different
objects, the study that included Chinese (Mainland and Taiwan) and European American
participants showed that Americans base their categorization decisions on the category
membership, while Chinese make their judgments based on relationships between objects (Ji,
Zhang and Nisbett, 2004). These findings have direct implication on memory – Westerners are
better in remembering categorized information, while Asians reveal higher ability to memorize
contextual information (Yang et al., 2013; Schwartz, Boduroglu and Gutchess, 2014); multitasking
negatively affects the memorizing ability of analytical thinkers, however, this effect is not
observable for holistic thinkers (Duff and Sar, 2015).
The differences in attention focus contribute to variations in perceptions and attitudes formation
of representatives of different cultures, leading, for example, to higher ability of Americans to
track multiple objects than that of Japanese (Savani and Markus, 2012), and greater manifestation
of the primacy effect (weighting the initial information higher than the follow-up one) exhibited
by Westerners compared to Asians (Noguchi, Kamada and Shrira, 2014) and higher extent of
overall face resemblance expressed by Japanese and higher level of facial features matching
showed by Americans (Miyamoto, Yoshikawa and Kitayama, 2011). Another study concluded that
in evaluating a particular person’s emotions, the judgment of Japanese participants was moderated
by the emotions expressed by people, surrounding the person of interest, which, however, was not
the case for American participants (Masuda et al., 2008). The differences in cognitive processes
between the representatives of different cultures manifest themselves at the very early age;
research suggests that the artworks of children at Grade 1 are similar for different cultures,
however, already at Grade 2 Japanese children included more details in their artworks compared
with their Canadian peers (Senzaki, Masuda and Nand, 2014). In general, Asians tend to generate
the content that is richer in information per unit of available space than Westerners, consequently,
they are more used to processing information-rich content and perform better on this task
compared to Westerners (Wang et al., 2012). Analytic and holistic thinkers also differ in the use
of heuristics; the effect of representativeness heuristics is higher for analytic thinkers, as well
holistic thinkers perform better in predicting the regression to the mean (Spina et al., 2010).
18
Uppsala University
Neurological research has shown that self-construal is the mediator of brain activity differences
between the representatives of the Western and Asian cultures and it affects numerous cognitive
and affective processes (Han and Humphreys, 2016), for example, fMRI and ERPs studies showed
that cultural background affects neural activity associated with both low- and high-level cognitive
functions (Han and Northoff, 2008) and cultural environment modifies neural activity directly
without the necessity of cultural mediation (Kitayama and Uskul, 2011).
It was also suggested that the main reason for the observed cognitive differences is the social
orientation, namely interdependent or independent social structure (Varnum et al., 2010), which
originates from the social tightness that stems from individualistic vs. collectivistic dimensions of
culture (Hofstede, 1980). This hypothesis is supported by further research, for example, different
social orientation in different regions of Italy leads to different cognitive approaches exhibited by
regions’ representatives (Knight and Nisbett, 2007) and the evidence from Northern Japan region
Hokkaido, the representatives of which reveal many features of independent self-construal
(Kitayama et al. 2006).
Naturally, cognitive difference between holistic and analytic thinkers lead to differences in the
decision-making process, as it is directly related to causality – in order to make a decision one has
to take into account all the information deemed relevant and make a prediction about the possible
consequences of each decision option under consideration (Güss and Robinson, 2014). Holistic
thinkers deem more information to be pertaining and relevant to a decision than analytic thinkers
do (Choi et al., 2003). Further, research has shown that holistic thinkers are to greater extent
subject to the escalation of commitment than their analytically thinking counterparts (Liang, Kale
and Cherian, 2014). Research suggests that the specific motivation differs among the
representatives of independent and collectivistic societies leading, for example, to the fact that pro-
environmental behavior in Russia is driven by altruistic reasons while egocentric motives prevail
in individualistic cultures (Soyez, 2012). When facing contradictory opinions, Westerners tend to
polarize them in order to figure out, which one is true, while representatives of Eastern culture
moderately accept both sides (Peng and Nisbett, 1999). Increasing the salience of mortality also
affects representatives of different cultures in different ways; while East Asians tend to exhibit
higher engagement in enjoyable life activities, there are no signs of similar attitudes among
Americans (Ma-Kellams and Blascovich, 2012).
19
Uppsala University
2.2.2 Culture and consumer behavior
The aforementioned differences in cognition and their effect on the decision-making process
naturally affect consumer behavior; specifically, individualism - collectivism at a regional level as
well as independent - interdependent self-construal at the individual level impact impulsive
purchasing (Kacen and Lee, 2002). That is why cultural factors are of high importance while
examining this influence (Triandis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995). For example, research
suggests that consumers with independent self-construal are more concerned whether the product
differentiates them from others (Escalas and Bettman, 2005). Further, the study of online
purchasing decisions made by Hong-Kong Chinese and Canadians revealed that without time
constraint Chinese spent less time on making their decisions, were more efficient in processing the
information and used both important and less important information while Canadians concentrated
solely on the highly important information; however, these differences were no longer present
once the time constraint was imposed (Li, Masuda and Russell, 2015). Further, facing the
preference-inconsistent information reduces the purchase intention of Western consumers, but not
of Eastern consumers, which has a direct marketing application in terms of different way of dealing
with negative reviews across cultures (Aggarwal, Kim and Cha, 2013). Another study showed that
while Western consumers tend to focus on negative reviews, Eastern ones form an overall opinion
based on the integration of positive and negative opinions (Song, Swaminathan and Anderson,
2015). Regarding advertisement, Chinese consumers reveal higher engagement when facing the
integrational and transformative advertisement rather than informative ones (Cui et al.,
2013). Another interesting insight into this area was provided by Pauwels, Erguncu and Yildirim,
(2013) in the study of differences between Brazilian and UK consumers found that due to more
interdependent Brazilian culture the consumers there are less responsive to marketing in forming
their attitudes towards a product.
2.2.3 Beyond East and West
Even though most of the studies discussed above focus on rather extreme manifestations of either
Western culture (mainly represented by North Americans) and Eastern culture (focusing by largest
part on Chinese, Japanese and Koreans), there are significant variations in cultural traits around
the world; for instance, Central and East Europeans tend to be more interdependent and,
consequently be more holistic in their thinking (Varnum et al., 2008); Italians also reveal more
holistic way of thinking than Americans do, due to higher chronic fear of isolation (Federici et al.,
20
Uppsala University
2011); Russians exhibit higher self-distance in analyzing their feelings than Americans do
(Grossmann and Kross, 2010). The research suggests that important insights into the effect of
culture on cognition will be gained through expansion of the range of studied cultures (Ji and Yap,
2016).
2.3 Summary
Despite the fact that from the economic point of view, both time and money are the fundamental
resources that normative economic theory treats in the same way, their psychological meaning for
consumers is different, leading to differences in the way people account for them and treat
them (Okada, 2005). One of the manifestations of these differences is the so-called “Time vs.
Money Effect” that reveals different product attitudes expressed by consumers primed either in
terms of time or in terms of money (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009). Importantly, as the “Time vs.
Money Effect” stems from the feelings of personal connection towards the product and is fostered
by the notion of interconnectedness, the effect itself along with its gravity might differ due to the
cultural environment at the national level (Williams and Lee, 2007). Moreover, taking into account
significant cognitive differences specific to representatives of different cultures, time and money
themselves can have a different meaning for representatives of different cultures (Kitayama et al.,
2003). Thus, the cultural factors are of high importance and should be taken into account to
enhance the applicability and generalizability of the “Time vs. Money Effect” in different societies
(Williams and Lee, 2007).
2.4 Hypothesis statement
Departing from the prior research we hypothesize that the manifestations of “The Time vs. Money”
effect will differ for consumers with independent and interdependent self-construal. To be more
precise, we expect that consumers with interdependent self-construal primed in terms of time will
report more favorable product attitudes towards the products, the value of which is derived from
experiential usage, than the consumers with independent self-construal primed in terms of time.
More formally, the authors will test the following hypotheses:
H1: Activating time (vs. money) leads to more favorable product attitudes towards experiential
products reported by consumers irrespective of their chronically accessible self-construal
21
Uppsala University
H2: Activating time (vs. money) leads to more favorable product attitudes towards experiential
products reported by consumers with independent self-construal
H3: Activating time (vs. money) leads to more favorable product attitudes towards experiential
products reported by consumers with interdependent self-construal
H4: Activating time (vs. money) leads to more favorable product attitudes towards experiential
products reported by consumers with interdependent self-construal compared to consumers with
independent self-construal.
22
Uppsala University
3. Methods section
The following chapter is devoted to the methodological part of the study and it gives an
overview of the approach used to collect and analyze the data.
3.1 Research approach
The given research is interpretive in its spirit as it attempts to make sense out of a specific
phenomenon observed in the area of consumer behavior. The ground work for the research started
out by using the empirical methods investigating the present studies in the field. On the basis of
the existing studies, the new trends in researching the specifics of consumer behavior were
identified. Continuing the research through monitoring the available data in the renowned
databases (JSTOR, Factiva, Scopus, Web of Science, etc.), the direction of the study was
determined with a focus on the influence of time and money on consumer attitudes. Following a
deductive approach is fundamental as it is a highly structured one when it comes to theory testing
and will attempt to test the hypothesis of differences in consumer attitudes caused by variations in
the cultural background and, consequently, self-construal. The research starts with deducing a
hypothesis stated above. The next stage deals with testing the hypothesis along with explaining
the causal relationship between the variables. In this sense, the most critical part is the size of the
sample that is designed to be sufficient in order to examine the particular outcome of the research
and ensure the reliability of the results. The clear understanding of the concepts involved in
collecting and evaluating the quantitative data determine the clarity of the study. Depending on the
findings the original theory might be modified or adjusted.
3.2 Research strategy and design
Quantitative method is chosen to test the proposed hypothesis and evaluate the differences between
the manifestation of “The Time vs. Money” effect for the participants with different chronically
accessible self-construal.
Taking into account that the concept of self-construal is tightly connected to the cultural dimension
of individualism and collectivism, it is reasonable to use the respective scores of countries as a
23
Uppsala University
proxy for the culture representatives’ self-construal. Sweden scores 71 on the
individualism/collectivism dimension, making it likely that Swedes have a chronically accessible
independent self-construal. Swedes are individualists in a way that within the society they are
expected to take care of themselves and their close family member only, thereby emotionally
distancing from other individuals. (Geert-hofstede.com, 2016) Contrary to Sweden, Russia scores
39 on the respective scale, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Russians have a chronically
accessible interdependent self-construal. When it comes to interaction with people, Russians are
considered to be rather a collectivist society. That can be easily illustrated even with the language
itself: Russians usually talk about themselves as «We» when they interact as they relate themselves
to «in groups» that they are loyal to and feel «protected» by. They find it crucial to build strong,
trustful relationships not only with close relatives but with cousins that they usually relate to as
sisters and brothers, friends, and often even neighbors in order to deal with day-to-day challenges.
The chosen research design is the between-subject quasi-experiment 3x2 – two samples are divided
into three groups with different treatment performed for each group. A fully controlled experiment
would require the laboratory setting, which was beyond feasible for this particular study. The table
below illustrates the chosen design method.
Table 1 Experimental design
Sample 1 (Swedish students) Sample 2 (Russian students)
Treatment 1 Time priming Time priming
Treatment 2 Money priming Money priming
Control condition No initial priming No initial priming
3.3 Data collection and sampling
Two sets of bachelor students in business-related disciplines participated in the study – a set of
Russian students (n= 119; 71% female; mean age = 19) and a set of Swedish students (n= 85; 52
% female; mean age = 23). In order to achieve the objectives of the research the characteristics of
24
Uppsala University
the sample are to be estimated. The designed survey is associated with the probability sampling.
The sampling frame is relevant to the current research as it has been compiled recently, so the data
is up to date; it contains the accurate information. All the irrelevant cases were excluded, so the
sampling frame remains precise. It was possible to control how the sample had been selected due
to the accessibility of the data. The choice of the sampling frame was made in favor of the student
population in order to facilitate the completion of the research. Due to the impossibility of taking
the random sampling, purposive sampling was selected as it allows using the judgment in order to
choose the particularly informative cases that show the trends the research is aimed at analyzing.
Purposive sampling is the form used for dealing with very small sample sizes such as ones in the
current research. The process of data collection via this form is relatively fast to complete and the
costs required for the analysis are minimized (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). Each set was
divided into three groups, the first one was primed in terms of time, the second was primed in
terms of money and the control group did not get any initial priming. The assignment of students
to the groups was random, so there could be no individual bias on the results.
The sample of Swedish students consists of the undergraduates from Uppsala University and the
sample of Russian students belongs to Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy in Moscow. The
majors of the students in both countries are related and referred to Business Studies and
Economics.
Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual model of the
sample. The three-dimensions chosen for the
representation are time, money and self-
construal. Student sample is characterized by
the limited amount of money and rather a large
amount of time available (even though they
always complain how busy they are). Personal
drive to achieve and academically evolve as
well as the situational demands of course load
and work influence time use. However, several
studies have shown that students are spending more time in entertainment, watching TV, and
working than they are studying (Nonis, 2006). Specifically, procrastination has a great impact on
Figure 3 Conceptual model
25
Uppsala University
undergraduate marketing students (Ackerman, 2005). Moreover, students often overspend time on
the specific activities rather than studies without realizing that. Thus, there are suggestions that
undergraduate business students may be wasting time devoted to studies due to contemporary
“technological distractions” (Tanner, 2009). The particular difference in the two sets is the self-
construal, namely, Russian students are likely to have chronically accessible interdependent self-
construal while Swedish students are expected to reveal chronically accessible independent self-
construal.
Therefore, both sets are similar in terms of their endowments of time and money, however, differ
in terms of self-construal. In figure 3 the areas “A” and “B” correspond to the Swedish and Russian
samples, respectively. Obviously, the differences in the levels of development of two countries are
likely to cause differences in the nominal disposable income of the respondents. We acknowledge
the likelihood of these variations, however, the following argument still makes the comparison
reasonable: no matter what the actual disposable income is, it is presumably sufficient to maintain
living in the particular country. Therefore, the amounts of money students can use, on average, are
enough to sustain their living in the respective countries and not excessively large; therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that for Swedish and Russian students do not have significant amounts of
money available.
3.4 Ethical considerations
The students were informed that they participate in the study of consumer behavior on smartphones
– the product in which students typically invest a lot of money and time. The written consent to
participate in the study was obtained. However, in order not to reveal the effect of priming, as
research suggests that if respondents are aware of priming, their behavior changes thus
compromising the authenticity and validity of the results (Lombardi, Higgins and Bargh, 1987),
the participants were not informed about the particular purpose of the research.
3.5 Questionnaire and translation
All participants were presented a similar questionnaire showing no images or any additional
information. The questionnaires were designed in the native languages of the participants. It was
26
Uppsala University
stated in several studies focused on the highly professional non-native speakers of a foreign
language that they generally do not reveal significant differences in processing the information
presented in this foreign language (Frenck-Mestre and Prince, 1997; Clahsen et al. 2010).
However, as there was no certainty of the English level proficiency among the students in both
samples and as there was the evidence that the use of another language primes a self-construal
(Dixon, 2007), therefore, in order to avoid this priming effect, the questionnaires were presented
native languages of the respondents - Swedish and Russian with respect to the country of origin.
The back-translation technique was used to ensure consistency of the questionnaires. Studies have
shown that back-translation allows reaching semantic and conceptual consistency among
languages (Brislin, 1970; Tyupa, 2011). Finally, an independent professional translator speaking
all three languages verified the questionnaires for consistency.
The questionnaire was designed as follows. First, the general descriptive questions regarding sex
and age were presented along with the question regarding the country and city of to control for the
cultural background. Next question was asking whether the respondent possesses a smartphone
with the option to finish the survey in case an individual does not have one. Right after these
questions the prime was imposed by the questions “How much time have you spent on your
smartphone?” for the time condition and “How much money have you spent on your smartphone?”
for the money conditions. The control group was presented no priming question. The respondents
were asked to answer the priming questions on the scale from 1 (“none at all”) to 7 (“a lot”). In
order to gain insight into the mindset of the respondent (temporal or monetary), the open-ended
question “When considering your smartphone, what thoughts come to your mind?” was presented
directly after the prime, followed by the semantic differential scale questions revealing the overall
attitudes of individuals towards their smartphones and asking the respondents to rate their
smartphones on the scale from 1 to 7 in the following dimensions “Unfavorable/favorable”,
“Bad/good”, “Negative/positive”. In order to understand the role of the personal connection, the
respondents were presented the following statements and asked to indicate, to which extent they
agree with them on the scale from 1 (“completely disagree”) to 7 (“completely agree”):
Using my smartphone represents who I am
Using my smartphone is a voluntary choice
Using my smartphone reflects the type of person I am
27
Uppsala University
Using my smartphone is an important priority for me
Finally, the awareness check was performed with the use of the question “What is, in your opinion,
the purpose of this research?”. It was done in order to see if the respondents found out about the
priming, which could affect the way respondents would approach the question and ultimately the
validity of the results (Lombardi, Higgins and Bargh, 1987). Thus, the ones who had revealed the
priming were to be excluded in order to avoid the bias. The measurement scales, the
operationalization of variables and the questionnaire set-up were adopted from previous research
works that already passed the requirements for validity and reliability (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009;
Reed, Aquino and Levy, 2007) and were slightly modified to suit the purpose of the current study.
The questionnaires in English, Swedish and Russian are presented in the Appendix to the given
paper.
3.6 Pre-testing
The questions of the survey were pretested online on two small samples of Swedish (n=12, 58%
female, mean age = 26) and Russian (n=10, 100% female, mean age = 22) students to ensure clarity
of wording and test for potential problematic issues during the actual experiment. The results of
the pretest did not reveal any specific patterns in the answers. However, several wording issues
were raised by the participants. Some students for clarifying the essence of the questions as they
were confused with the wording of some of them. All these questions had to be adjusted in order
to simplify the understanding for the respondents in both countries. Thus, the questionnaires were
slightly modified after the pretest on the basis of feedback given by pretest participants and the
insights into the possible sources of error suggested by the obtained pretest results.
3.7 Data analysis method
For the purposes of statistical analysis, the obtained results were operationalized in the following
way. First, an index of product attitudes was constructed by weighting equally the answers to the
questions regarding the product attitudes and summing them up to arrive at the index score. The
ratings of personal connection were obtained in a similar way, drawing from the answers to the
numerical questions testing the personal connection. Finally, two independent coders, blind to the
hypothesis, native in the languages of questionnaires administration and belonging to the
interdependent and independent cultures respectively, read through the answers to the open-ended
question and counted the number of personal references related to the product via mentioning
28
Uppsala University
personal pronouns like “I”, “me”, “mine” etc. to construct the index of personal connection. That
was done in order to minimize the personal bias of the authors towards the research as well as to
get the most accurate data regarding the personal connection the respondents build up with their
smartphones if there was any.
Further, priming conditions, as well as the culture, are taken as independent variables, while the
constructed indices are treated as dependent variables. A one-way between-groups analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was chosen as the statistical method as it allows to test the difference between
two or more group of means. One-way refers to the fact that there is only one dependent continuous
variable and between-groups refers to testing the difference of means of several groups.
3.8 Summary of the methodological framework
The table below summarizes the choice of methodological framework for this study.
Table 2 Summary of the methodological framework
Research Methodology Employed approach
Research philosophy Interpretive
Research approach Deductive reasoning
Quantitative
Research design Between-subject quasi-experiment 3x2
Sampling Purposive sample
Data collection method Survey
Data analysis method ANOVA
29
Uppsala University
4. Results and analysis
The following chapter focuses on the analysis of the results presented and on the data
interpretation.
4.1 Sample, consisting of both Swedish and Russian respondents
After the initial processing of the survey data, 6 answers were excluded from the Swedish sample
as the respondents were not born in Sweden and 5 answers were excluded from the sample as the
respondents were not born in Russia, therefore the final dataset consisted of 193 observations.
These responses were excluded to reduce the excessive variance that could have caused by the
answers of representatives of different cultures who probably have different chronically accessible
self-construals. The choice of the sample size was governed by the certainty that the characteristics
would show the real trends of the specific culture and the accuracy that would be required for the
correct interpretation of the data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). Taking into account the
total number of students in Sweden, which was equal to 344100 people in 2014 (Anon, 2016) and
the total number of students in Russia, which was equal to 1192000 people in 2014 (Gks.ru, 2016)
the sample provides the confidence interval of 7.05 at the confidence level of 95%,
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the product attitudes index. Previous
studies showed no evidence of the effect of actual time or money spent for the product on the
expressed product attitudes (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009), therefore, we did not include those as
covariates. The independent variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 5.69;
SD=1.22; N=66), money priming (M = 5.83; SD=1.81 ; N=67) and control group with no initial
priming (M =5.77; SD=0.99 ; N=60).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that revealed that residuals
are not normally distributed for each group (p=.140; p= .001; p=.037). However, ANOVA analysis
method is relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,190)=.67, p=.51 that confirmed that the variances
were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,190)=.27, p=.77 thus leading to
confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal. The SPSS outputs
are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
30
Uppsala University
Thus, ANOVA results suggest no evidence of statistically significant differences among the means
of the three groups of the combined Swedish and Russian sample and, consequently, of “The Time
vs. Money effect”. However, “The Time vs. Money effect” is mediated by the personal connection
(Mogilner and Aaker, 2009), therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lack of personal
connection drives the observed results.
In order to test the differences in the personal connection between the groups, one-way ANOVA
was conducted on the personal connection index. The independent variable, treatment, included
three groups: time priming (M = .30; SD=.66; N=66), money priming (M = .19; SD=.47 ; N=67)
and control group with no initial priming (M =.50; SD=.83 ; N=60).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that residuals are not
normally distributed for each group (p=.00; p= .00; p=.00). However, ANOVA analysis method is
relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of variances
was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,190)=11.67, p=.000, which revealed that the variances were
not homogeneous. However, both Welsh (F(2,116.56) = 3.23, p=.043) and Brown-Forsythe
(F(2,150.86) = 3.34, p=.038) robust tests are statistically significant. The analysis of post-hoc tests
of by-group comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between the responses in
money and control groups (MD = .31; SD = .12 p=.027) The SPSS outputs are provided in the
Appendix to the current paper.
To gain further insight into the differences in the levels of personal connection between the groups,
another one-way ANOVA was conducted of the personal connection rankings. The independent
variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 4.20; SD=.89; N=66), money
priming (M = 4.31; SD=1.13; N=67) and control group with no initial priming (M =4.24; SD=1.21;
N=60).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that showed that residuals are
normally distributed for each group (p=.38; p= .13; p=.71). The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,190)=3.61, p=.029 that showed that the variances
were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,190)=.16, p=.85 thus leading to
confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal and confirming no
statistically significant differences in the levels of personal connection among the participants in
the three groups. The SPSS outputs are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
31
Uppsala University
Therefore, the combined Swedish and Russian sample reveals no “Time vs Money effect” due to
the absence of personal connection to a product, which is an essential mediator of the effect.
4.2 Swedish sample
After the initial processing of the survey data, 6 answers were excluded from the sample as the
respondents were not born in Sweden, therefore the final dataset consisted of 79 observations. The
choice of the sample size was governed by the certainty that the characteristics would show the
real trends of the specific culture and the accuracy that would be required for the correct
interpretation of the data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). Taking into account the total
number of students in Sweden, which was equal to 344100 people in 2014 (Anon, 2016) and the
confidence level of 95%, the sample provides the confidence interval of 11.02.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the product attitudes index. Previous
studies showed no evidence of the effect of actual time or money spent for the product on the
expressed product attitudes (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009), therefore, we did not include those as
covariates. The independent variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 5.89;
SD=1.33; N=27), money priming (M = 5.85; SD=1.31 ; N=28) and control group with no initial
priming (M =5.68; SD=1.01 ; N=24).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that confirmed that residuals
are not normally distributed for each group (p=.00; p= .00; p=.007). However, ANOVA analysis
method is relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,76)=.24, p=.79 that confirmed that the variances
were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,76)=.199, p=.82 thus leading to
confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal. The SPSS outputs
are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
Thus, ANOVA results suggest no evidence of statistically significant differences among the means
of the three groups of the Swedish sample and, consequently, of “The Time vs. Money effect”.
However, “The Time vs. Money effect” is mediated by the personal connection (Mogilner and
Aaker, 2009), therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lack of personal connection drives the
observed results.
32
Uppsala University
In order to test the differences in the personal connection between the groups, one-way ANOVA
was conducted on the personal connection index. The independent variable, treatment, included
three groups: time priming (M = .52; SD=.85; N=27), money priming (M = .29; SD=.54 ; N=28)
and control group with no initial priming (M =.79; SD=.93 ; N=24).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that confirmed that residuals
are not normally distributed for each group (p=.00; p= .00; p=.00). However, ANOVA analysis
method is relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,76)=5.32, p=.007 that confirmed that the
variances were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,76)=2.71, p=.073 thus leading
to confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal and revealing
no statistically significant differences in the levels of personal connection among the participants
in the three groups. The SPSS outputs are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
To gain further confidence in the absence of differences in the levels of personal connection
between the groups, another one-way ANOVA was conducted of the personal connection
rankings. The independent variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 4.34;
SD=.80; N=27), money priming (M = 4.68; SD=1.12; N=28) and control group with no initial
priming (M =4.57; SD=1.40 ; N=24).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that showed that residuals are
normally distributed for each group (p=.39; p= .48; p=.15). The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,76)=4.77, p=.011 that showed that the variances
were not homogeneous. In addition, both Welsh (F(2,46.58) = .88, p=.42) and Brown-Forsythe
(F(2,59.86) = .62, p=.54) robust tests are statistically insignificant. The SPSS outputs are provided
in the Appendix to the current paper.
Therefore, the Swedish sample reveals no “Time vs Money effect” due to the absence of personal
connection to a product, which is an essential mediator of the effect.
4.3 Russian sample
After the initial processing of the survey data, 5 answers were excluded from the sample as the
respondents were not born in Russia, therefore the final dataset consisted of 114 observations. The
choice of the sample size was governed by the certainty that the characteristics would show the
33
Uppsala University
real trends of the specific culture and the accuracy that would be required for the correct
interpretation of the data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). Taking into account the total
number of students in Russia, which was equal to 1192000 people in 2014 (Gks.ru, 2016) and the
confidence level of 95%, the sample provides the confidence interval of 9.18.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the product attitudes index. Previous
studies showed no evidence of the effect of actual time or money spent for the product on the
expressed product attitudes (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009), therefore, we did not include those as
covariates. The independent variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 5.55;
SD=1.14; N=39), money priming (M = 5.82; SD=1.10; N=39) and control group with no initial
priming (M =5.82; SD=0.98; N=36).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that confirmed that residuals
are not normally distributed for each group (p=.01; p= .01; p=.04). However, ANOVA analysis
method is relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,111)=.44, p=.64 that confirmed that the variances
were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,111)=.83, p=.44 thus leading to
confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal. The SPSS outputs
are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
Thus, ANOVA results suggest no evidence of statistically significant differences among the means
of the three groups of the Russian sample as well, and, consequently, of “The Time vs. Money
effect”. However, “The Time vs. Money effect” is mediated by the personal connection (Mogilner
and Aaker, 2009), therefore, it is worth exploring whether in the case of Russian sample the lack
of personal connection drives the observed results.
In order to test the differences in the personal connection between the groups, one-way ANOVA
was conducted on the personal connection index. The independent variable, treatment, included
three groups: time priming (M = .15; SD=.43; N=39), money priming (M = .13; SD=.41; N=39)
and control group with no initial priming (M =.31; SD=.71 ; N=36).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that confirmed that residuals
are not normally distributed for each group (p=.00; p= .00; p=.00). However, ANOVA analysis
method is relatively robust towards non-normality of the data. The assumption of homogeneity of
34
Uppsala University
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,111)=4.71, p=.011 that confirmed that the
variances were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,111)=1.21, p=.3 thus leading
to confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal and revealing
no statistically significant differences in the levels of personal connection among the participants
in the three groups. The SPSS outputs are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
To gain further confidence in the absence of differences in the levels of personal connection
between the groups, another one-way ANOVA was conducted of the personal connection
rankings. The independent variable, treatment, included three groups: time priming (M = 4.10;
SD=.95; N=9), money priming (M = 4.04; SD=1.08; N=39) and control group with no initial
priming (M =4.01; SD=1.03 ; N=36).
The assumption of normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test that showed that residuals are
normally distributed for each group (p=.38; p= .13; p=.71). The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was tested using the Levene’s test, F(2,111)=0.43, p=.65 that showed that the variances
were homogeneous. The ANOVA was not significant F(2,111)=.08, p=.93 thus leading to
confirmation of the null hypothesis that the means of the three groups are equal and confirming no
statistically significant differences in the levels of personal connection among the participants in
the three groups. The SPSS outputs are provided in the Appendix to the current paper.
Therefore, the Russian sample also demonstrates no “Time vs Money effect” due to the absence
of personal connection to a product, which is an essential mediator of the effect.
However, it is possible that despite the absence of “the time vs money effect” in each sample, there
are still statistically significant differences between the products attitudes expressed by
respondents in-between national samples. The differences in the chronically accessible self-
construal caused by the cultural background may contribute to the manifestations of “the time vs
money” effect in terms of expressed product attitudes caused by priming either time or money. In
order to test this assumption, the two-way ANOVA was conducted on product attitudes while the
nationality and initial priming were taken as independent variables. In this case as well no
statistically significant differences were obtained, the ANOVA was insignificant (F (2,187) = .712,
p = .492, thus leading to the confirmation of the null hypothesis of equal means along both the
national samples and in respected experimental groups.
35
Uppsala University
In general, the results of the given study suggest no evidence of “the time vs money effect” neither
in Sweden, nor in Russia, nor in-between the cultural samples.
Table 3 Summary of the data analysis results
Combined
sample
Russian
sample
Swedish sample
Sample size 190 114 79
Differences in product attitudes Not revealed Not revealed Not revealed
Differences in personal connection Not
revealed*
Not revealed Not revealed
* marginal statistical differences between money-primed and control group were revealed with the
test of personal connection index, however, were not confirmed by the test conducted with the use
of the personal connection rankings
36
Uppsala University
5. General discussion
In the final chapter, the discussion is presented, followed by the limitations of the study,
theoretical contribution and practical implications and suggestions for future research
directions.
5.1 Discussion
The current study does not reveal any signs of “the time vs money effect” neither in the Russian
nor in Swedish sample. There are several possible reasons, that stem one from the other, due to
which the effect does not manifest itself.
First, it is possible that smartphones, which were chosen to be the product used in the
questionnaire, are a commodity and no personal connection is established towards them. Thus, the
assumption regarding the nature of the product is divided to whether the consumers perceive
smartphone as a «status» good or as an experiential good. On the one hand, both Swedish and
Russian students should have revealed more favorable product attitudes with initial money
priming for the «status» products if and only if they considered the smartphone to be determinative
for their self-identification (Richins and Dawson 1992). As we did not observe it, we could assume
that smartphone with its accessibility has lost its quality of «status» nowadays. Despite the fact
that students invest a lot of time and money into their smartphones, the possibility exists that they
develop personal connection towards the experience of using a smartphone rather than towards a
smartphone itself which means that smartphone is an experiential good for them.
However, in neither of those two cases the emotional attachment is triggered, thus not leading to
any observable differences in the expressed product attitudes. It is likely that not all of the products
invoke the feelings of personal connection; moreover, Lehmann and Reimann (2012) did not
observe the behavioral shift for some of the products used for their experiments (in particular, for
MP3player and laptop computer). Consequently, leveraging “the time vs money effect” to shift
product attitudes is not applicable to all products.
The other assumption is linked to the tendency that people worldwide are becoming more alike
than they used to be before and cultural differences are diminishing. The growing interaction
37
Uppsala University
across countries contributes to the homogeneity of the cultures, thereby, leading to the
phenomenon of acculturation to the global consumer culture (Cleveland and Laroche, 2007).
This is specifically true when it comes to students as it is one of the most homogenous group
globally (Carpenter et al., 2012). The younger generational cohorts are following the global trends
more than any other age group as they tend to be up-to-date on the consumer trends outside their
countries as well as their own and keep the track on the global consumer culture (Carpenter et al.,
2012). Probably, it can be expected that students with business and economics background are not
only similar as a social group, but are also trained to think in a certain way irrespective of the
country of studies. Therefore, it is possible that the educational training they are provided with
influences the thinking patterns and the survey answers, making them more similar.
5.2 Limitations, validity and reliability
The current study is obviously not without limitations. First and utmost, despite the fact that
student samples are likely to be the closest in terms of demographic characteristics, it is still
relatively hard to extrapolate the results to the overall population. Second, the experiment was
conducted not in the laboratory settings but in general classrooms, which made it subject to
external noise and other factors that could have affected the results. The fact that in the Russian
sample the majority was represented by the female participants could have affected the outcome
as well; however, Muller, Lehmann and Sarstedt (2013) provided the support suggesting that even
though women tend to demonstrate higher levels of sensitivity in terms of time priming than
men, the effect may (or may not) be revealed irrespective of demographic background. Finally, the
priming method by merely mentioning time and money could have been insufficient to trigger the
feelings of personal connection, especially, in the minds of students overwhelmed with
information load; therefore, the use of alternative priming techniques (e.g. picture or word
scrabbles) could benefit the research. Perhaps, it could be better to emphasize the experience the
smartphone gives us, priming the participants with screenshots of a social network they tend to
use, the music they listen, etc. Alternatively, research suggests that due to the endowment effect
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and personal attachment to specific objects, when a product
38
Uppsala University
becomes a commodity, consumers tend to experience the feelings of personal connection towards
it if they are facing the possibility of losing it (Kogut and Kogut, 2010). Therefore, it is possible
that the wording of the questionnaire involving the possibility of losing a smartphone would lead
to the enhanced feeling of personal connection. Probably, if the questions had been framed
differently connecting to anticipation rather than recalling previous experiences, it could have
influenced the result as well (Van Boven and Ashworth, 2007).
It was considered significant for the validity of the research that the participants in both countries
would have been given the identically designed questionnaires in order to ensure the consistency
of the results. The actual questionnaires were adopted from the previous research that had already
passed the requirements for validity and reliably (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Reed, Aquino and
Levy, 2007). The sample sizes were determined to be sufficient to provide valid and reliable results
at a tolerable confidence level. Apart from that, in order to avoid the priming effect, the
questionnaires were delivered to the participants in their native languages (depending on the
country) in order to reach a minimized bias. The pre-testing detected the wording errors and
problematic issues via the back-translation technique. The errors that were fixed before the actual
experiment to minimize the risk of misunderstood questions, which eventually allowed getting the
reliable data from the respondents both in Russia and Sweden. The participants demonstrated no
awareness of the priming; otherwise, they would have been excluded to ensure the reliability.
5.3 Theoretical contribution
The current study adds to the existing knowledge in the area of consumer behavior, in particular,
to the peculiarities of the manifestations of “The Time vs. Money” effect. “The Time vs. Money”
was documented in numerous studies (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009; Muller, H., Lehmann, S. and
Sarstedt, M., 2013), however, the present paper reveals no evidence of the effect. Therefore, this
study contributes to the academic knowledge by raising the question of specific circumstances, in
which the effect reveals itself. Moreover, the study uses the samples of Russian and Swedish
respondents, relatively underrepresented in the area of academic knowledge, which adds to cross-
cultural research and understanding of the differences in consumer behavior in different countries.
Finally, the present research contributes to the studies on the personal connection consumers
develop towards their products.
39
Uppsala University
5.4 Practical implications
Marketing professionals strive to increase the engagement with the product and increase the
connection customers feel towards their products (Fournier, 1998). However, the present research
suggests that even though the products, towards which the customers are likely to be personally
connected to (for example, smartphones, in using which people invest a lot of time and money
nowadays), can possibly not evoke the feelings of personal connections. Thus, the producers of
mobile devices are unlikely to benefit from attempts to trigger the personal connection feelings via
time or money in order to leverage “the time vs. money effect” neither in Sweden, nor in Russia
and therefore should probably concentrate on the particular device features rather than on
experiential usage or status symbols when advertising their products. Practitioners would benefit
from employing the findings of the current study in developing marketing and advertisement
campaigns.
5.5 Future research directions
First, the role of personal connection and the mechanism, by which the personal connection
towards a product is established is a promising avenue for the future research. The present study
suggests that consumers possibly establish personal connection towards some products; therefore,
identifying the types of products that are likely to invoke the feelings of personal connection as
well as the actual processes, by which the personal connection is established, can be beneficial for
both practical and theoretical implications. Second the research in this area would benefit from
intercultural studies involving other products, especially the ones that are likely to trigger the
feeling of personal connection for the representatives of both cultures under consideration.
Alternatively, the experimental design that would invoke the feeling of personal connections
towards the experiential value of smartphones rather than the devices themselves may be
promising the research. Third, future research would benefit from expanding the sample subjects
to other social groups. The present study focused on the groups, the representatives of which
possess relatively small monetary resources, but large amounts of time. However, the notion of
time and money can possibly be different depending on the available endowments of both assets.
Therefore, it is likely that representatives of other social groups, for instance, those who possess
large amounts of money and restricted amounts of time or those who enjoy splendid endowments
of both, do not share the attitudes towards time and money with the subjects of the given research.
40
Uppsala University
If it is the case, the observable “time vs money effect” can also be different. Fourth, it seems
promising to explore the manifestation of “the time vs money effect” in other cultures in order to
gain more granulated practically applicable knowledge that can be employed by marketing
professionals. Another potential avenue for the research would involve conducting experiments at
the behavioral laboratories to better control for the external sources of noise. Finally, alternative
priming methods such as pictures or word scrabbles that are not subtle as mere mentioning, could
lead to different outcomes.
41
Uppsala University
6. References
Aaker, J. (1999). The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36(1), p.45.
Aaker, J., Rudd, M. and Mogilner, C. (2011). If money does not make you happy, consider time.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), pp.126-130.
Ackerman, D. (2005). My Instructor Made Me Do It: Task Characteristics of Procrastination.
Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), pp.5-13.
Aggarwal, P., Soo Kim, C. and Cha, T. (2013). Preference‐inconsistent information and cognitive
discomfort: a cross‐cultural investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(5), pp.392-399.
Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality.
Aquino, K. and Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(6), pp.1423-1440.
Aron, A., Norman, C., Aron, E., McKenna, C. and Heyman, R. (2000). Couples' shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), pp.273-284.
Bearden, W. and Etzel, M. (1982). Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase
Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), p.183.
Becker, G. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), p.493.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), p.139.
42
Uppsala University
Bergadaa, M. (1990). The Role of Time in the Action of the Consumer. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(3), p.289.
Bos, M., Dijksterhuis, A. and van Baaren, R. (2011). The benefits of “sleeping on things”:
Unconscious thought leads to automatic weighting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), pp.4-
8.
Brislin, R. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), pp.185-216.
Carpenter, J., Moore, M., Doherty, A. and Alexander, N. (2012). Acculturation to the global
consumer culture: a generational cohort comparison. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(5),
pp.411-423.
Carstensen, L., Isaacowitz, D. and Charles, S. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), pp.165-181.
Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C. and Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), pp.46-59.
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M. and Silva, R. (2010). Morphological Structure in
Native and Nonnative Language Processing. Language Learning, 60(1), pp.21-43.
Cleveland, M. and Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturaton to the global consumer culture: Scale
development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), pp.249-259.
Cleveland, M., Rojas-Méndez, J., Laroche, M. and Papadopoulos, N. (2016). Identity, culture,
dispositions and behavior: A cross-national examination of globalization and culture change.
Journal of Business Research, 69(3), pp.1090-1102.
43
Uppsala University
Cohen, J. (1982). The Role of Affect in Categorization: Toward a Reconsideration of the Concept
of Attitude. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, pp.94-100.
Cooper, R. and Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Foreign Affairs,
84(6), p.139.
Cui, G., Liu, H., Yang, X. and Wang, H. (2013). Culture, cognitive style and consumer response
to informational vs. transformational advertising among East Asians: Evidence from the PRC. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 19(1), pp.16-31.
DeVoe, S. and Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on the
evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), pp.1-13.
Dixon, D. (2007). The effects of language priming on independent and interdependent self-
construal among Chinese university students currently studying English. Current Research in
Social Psychology, 13(1), pp.1-9.
Duff, B. and Sar, S. (2014). Seeing the Big Picture: Multitasking and Perceptual Processing
Influences on Ad Recognition. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), pp.173-184.
Easterlin, R. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(1), pp.35-47.
Escalas, J. and Bettman, J. (2005). Self‐Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 32(3), pp.378-389.
Federici, S., Stella, A., Dennis, J. and Hünefeldt, T. (2010). West vs. West like East vs. West? A
comparison between Italian and US American context sensitivity and Fear of Isolation. Cogn
Process, 12(2), pp.203-208.
44
Uppsala University
Ferraro, R., Shiv, B. and Bettman, J. (2005). Let Us Eat and Drink, for Tomorrow We Shall Die:
Effects of Mortality Salience and Self‐Esteem on Self‐Regulation in Consumer Choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 32(1), pp.65-75.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), pp.343-353.
Frenck-Mestre, C. and Prince, P. (1997). Second Language Autonomy. Journal of Memory and
Language, 37(4), pp.481-501.
Geert-hofstede.com. (2016). Cultural Insights - Geert Hofstede. [online] Available at: http://geert-
hofstede.com/ [Accessed 7 Mar. 2016].
Gks.ru. (2016). Federal State Statistics Service of Russian Federation. [online] Available at:
http://www.gks.ru [Accessed 2 May 2016].
Gladwin, T. and Hofstede, G. (1981). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), p.681.
Greenwald, A. and Banaji, M. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), pp.4-27.
Grossmann, I. and Kross, E. (2010). The Impact of Culture on Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Self-
Reflection. Psychological Science, 21(8), pp.1150-1157.
Güss, C. and Robinson, B. (2014). Predicted causality in decision making: the role of culture.
Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
Han, S. and Humphreys, G. (2016). Self-construal: a cultural framework for brain function.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, pp.10-14.
45
Uppsala University
Han, S. and Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: a
transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(8), pp.646-654.
Hansen, J., Kutzner, F. and Wänke, M. (2013). Money and Thinking: Reminders of Money Trigger
Abstract Construal and Shape Consumer Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),
pp.1154-1166.
Heath, C. and Soll, J. (1996). Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 23(1), p.40.
Henderson, P. and Peterson, R. (1992). Mental accounting and
categorization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), pp.92-117.
Hetts, J., Sakuma, M. and Pelham, B. (1999). Two Roads to Positive Regard: Implicit and Explicit
Self-Evaluation and Culture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(6), pp.512-559.
Hong, J. and Chang, H. (2015). “I” Follow My Heart and “We” Rely on Reasons: The Impact of
Self-Construal on Reliance on Feelings versus Reasons in Decision Making. Journal of Consumer
Research, 41(6), pp.1392-1411.
House, R. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Izard, C. (1998). Managing human emotions. PsycCRITIQUES, 43(11).
Ji, L. and Yap, S. (2016). Culture and cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, pp.105-111.
Ji, L., Peng, K. and Nisbett, R. (2016). Ji, L, Peng, K, & Nisbett, R 2000, 'Culture, control, and
perception of relationships in the environment',
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78, 5, pp. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology, 78(5), pp.943-955.
46
Uppsala University
Ji, L., Zhang, Z. and Nisbett, R. (2004). Is It Culture or Is It Language? Examination of Language
Effects in Cross-Cultural Research on Categorization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(1), pp.57-65.
Kacen, J. and Lee, J. (2002). The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), pp.163-176.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), p.263.
Kitayama, S. and Uskul, A. (2011). Culture, Mind, and the Brain: Current Evidence and Future
Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), pp.419-449.
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T. and Larsen, J. (2003). Perceiving an Object and Its Context
in Different Cultures: A Cultural Look at New Look. Psychological Science, 14(3), pp.201-206.
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K. and Ramaswamy, J. (2006). Voluntary settlement
and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan's "northern frontier.". Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91(3), pp.369-384.
Knight, N. and Nisbett, R. (2007). Culture, Class and Cognition: Evidence from Italy. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 7(3), pp.283-291.
Kogut, T. and Kogut, E. (2010). Possession attachment: Individual differences in the endowment
effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), pp.377-393.
Lea, S. and Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a
strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(02).
47
Uppsala University
LeBoeuf, R. (2006). Discount Rates for Time Versus Dates: The Sensitivity of Discounting to
Time-Interval Description. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), pp.59-72.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. and Dube, L. (1995). Waiting Time and Decision Making: Is Time like
Money?. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), p.110.
Lee, J. and Jeyaraj, S. (2014). Effects of Self-Construal Differences on Cognitive Dissonance
Examined by Priming the Independent and Interdependent Self. SAGE Open, 4(1).
Lee, L., Lee, M., Bertini, M., Zauberman, G. and Ariely, D. (2015). Money, Time, and the Stability
of Consumer Preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(2), pp.184-199.
Lehmann, (2012). Neural correlates of time versus money in product evaluation. Frontiers in
Psychology.
Li, L., Masuda, T. and Russell, M. (2014). Culture and decision-making: Investigating cultural
variations in the East Asian and North American online decision-making processes. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 18(3), pp.183-191.
Li, Y. and Ling, W. (2015). A Comparative Study of Effects of Time Priming and Money Priming
on Pro-Social Behavior. JSS, 03(03), pp.180-185.
Liang, B., Kale, S. and Cherian, J. (2014). Is the future static or dynamic? The role of culture on
escalation of commitment in new product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1),
pp.155-163.
Liu, W. and Aaker, J. (2008). The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(3), pp.543-557.
Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption. The Economic
Journal, 97(387), p.666.
48
Uppsala University
Lombardi, W., Higgins, E. and Bargh, J. (1987). The Role of Consciousness in Priming Effects on
Categorization: Assimilation Versus Contrast as a Function of Awareness of the Priming Task.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(3), pp.411-429.
Ma-Kellams, C. and Blascovich, J. (2012). Enjoying life in the face of death: East–West
differences in responses to mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
103(5), pp.773-786.
Malkoc, S. and Zauberman, G. (2006). Deferring Versus Expediting Consumption: The Effect of
Outcome Concreteness on Sensitivity to Time Horizon. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4),
pp.618-627.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), pp.224-253.
Martin, B., Gnoth, J. and Strong, C. (2009). Temporal Construal in Advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 38(3), pp.5-20.
Masuda, T. and Nisbett, R. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the
context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(5), pp.922-934.
Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S. and Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008).
Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), pp.365-381.
Meyer, D. and Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a
dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), pp.227-234.
49
Uppsala University
Miller, D., Downs, J. and Prentice, D. (1998). Minimal conditions for the creation of a unit
relationship: the social bond between birthdaymates. European Journal of Social Psychology,
28(3), pp.475-481.
Mittal, B. (1983). Consumers' Cognitive Journey Through the Product Forest. Advances in
Consumer Research, 10, pp.464-469.
Miyamoto, Y., Yoshikawa, S. and Kitayama, S. (2011). Feature and Configuration in Face
Processing: Japanese Are More Configural Than Americans. Cognitive Science, 35(3), pp.563-
574.
Mogilner, C. (2010). The Pursuit of Happiness: Time, Money, and Social Connection.
Psychological Science, 21(9), pp.1348-1354.
Mogilner, C. and Aaker, J. (2009). “The Time vs. Money Effect”: Shifting Product Attitudes and
Decisions through Personal Connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), pp.277-291.
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J. and Pennington, G. (2008). Time Will Tell: The Distant Appeal of
Promotion and Imminent Appeal of Prevention: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5),
pp.670-681.
Müller, H., Lehmann, S. and Sarstedt, M. (2013). The time vs. money effect. A conceptual
replication. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2), pp.199-200.
Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic
versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), pp.291-310.
Noguchi, K., Kamada, A. and Shrira, I. (2014). Cultural differences in the primacy effect for
person perception. Int J Psychol, p.n/a-n/a.
50
Uppsala University
Nonis, S. (2006). Where Does the Time Go? A Diary Approach to Business and Marketing
Students' Time Use. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), pp.121-134.
Nuttin, J. (1985). Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), pp.353-361.
Okada, E. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods.
Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), pp.43-53.
Paulhus, D. and Levitt, K. (1987). Desirable responding triggered by affect: Automatic egotism?.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), pp.245-259.
Pauwels, K., Erguncu, S. and Yildirim, G. (2013). Winning hearts, minds and sales: How
marketing communication enters the purchase process in emerging and mature markets.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(1), pp.57-68.
Peng, K. and Nisbett, R. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American
Psychologist, 54(9), pp.741-754.
Reed, A., Aquino, K. and Levy, E. (2007). Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors.
Journal of Marketing, 71(1), pp.178-193.
Richins, M. and Dawson, S. (1992). A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its
Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), p.303.
Richins, M. and Rudmin, F. (1994). Materialism and economic psychology. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 15(2), pp.217-231.
Rogers, A. (1970). How Do Students Spend Their Time?. Journal of Education for Librarianship,
11(2), p.163.
51
Uppsala University
Rogers, S. and Amato, P. (1997). Is Marital Quality Declining? The Evidence from Two
Generations. Social Forces, 75(3), p.1089.
Saini, R. and Monga, A. (2008). How I Decide Depends on What I Spend: Use of Heuristics Is
Greater for Time than for Money. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), pp.914-922.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. Harlow,
England: Prentice Hall.
Savani, K. and Markus, H. (2012). A processing advantage associated with analytic perceptual
tendencies: European Americans outperform Asians on multiple object tracking. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), pp.766-769.
Schwartz, A., Boduroglu, A. and Gutchess, A. (2014). Cross-Cultural Differences in Categorical
Memory Errors. Cognitive Science, 38(5), pp.997-1007.
Senzaki, S., Masuda, T. and Nand, K. (2014). Holistic Versus Analytic Expressions in Artworks:
Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Drawings and Collages by Canadian and Japanese
School-Age Children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(8), pp.1297-1316.
Singelis, T. and Brown, W. (1995). Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication Linking Culture
to Individual Behavior. Human Communication Research, 21(3), pp.354-389.
Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: why time is not like money. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), pp.169-185.
Song, L., Swaminathan, S. and Anderson, R. (2015). Differences in Customers’ Online Service
Satisfaction Across Cultures: The Role of Thinking Style. Journal of Marketing Channels, 22(1),
pp.52-61.
52
Uppsala University
Soyez, K. (2012). How national cultural values affect pro‐environmental consumer behavior.
International Marketing Review, 29(6), pp.623-646.
Spencer, H. (1896). The principles of psychology. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Spina, R., Ji, L., Ross, M., Li, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2010). Why best cannot last: Cultural differences
in predicting regression toward the mean. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(3), pp.153-162.
Spina, R., Ji, L., Tieyuan Guo, Zhiyong Zhang, Ye Li, and Fabrigar, L. (2010). Cultural
Differences in the Representativeness Heuristic: Expecting a Correspondence in Magnitude
Between Cause and Effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), pp.583-597.
Taylor, S. and Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), pp.193-210.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), pp.199-
214.
Tong, L., Zheng, Y. and Zhao, P. (2013). Is money really the root of all evil? The impact of priming
money on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 24(2), pp.119-129.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in
preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), pp.876-889.
Tyupa, S. (2011). A theoretical framework for back-translation as a quality assessment tool. New
Voices in Translation Studies, 7(1), pp.35-46.
Uka.se. (2016). Start - UKÄ. [online] Available at: http://www.uka.se [Accessed 2 May 2016].
Van Boven, L. and Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more
evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), pp.289-300.
53
Uppsala University
Van Boven, L. and Gilovich, T. (2003). To Do or to Have? That Is the Question. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), pp.1193-1202.
Varnum, M., Grossmann, I., Daniela, Nisbett, R. and Kitayama, S. (2008). Holism in a European
Cultural Context: Differences in Cognitive Style between Central and East Europeans and
Westerners. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(3), pp.321-333.
Varnum, M., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S. and Nisbett, R. (2010). The Origin of Cultural
Differences in Cognition: The Social Orientation Hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19(1), pp.9-13.
Vohs, K., Mead, N. and Goode, M. (2005). The Psychological Consequences of Money. Science,
314(5802), pp.1154-1156.
Wang, H., Masuda, T., Ito, K. and Rashid, M. (2012). How Much Information? East Asian and
North American Cultural Products and Information Search Performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), pp.1539-1551.
Williams, P. and Drolet, A. (2005). Age‐Related Differences in Responses to Emotional
Advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), pp.343-354.
Witkin, H. and Berry, J. (1975). Psychological Differentiation in Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(1), pp.4-87.
Yang, L., Chen, W., Ng, A. and Fu, X. (2013). Aging, Culture, and Memory for Categorically
Processed Information. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 68(6), pp.872-881.
54
Uppsala University
Zauberman, G. and Lynch, J. (2005). Resource Slack and Propensity to Discount Delayed
Investments of Time Versus Money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), pp.23-
37.
55
Uppsala University
7. Appendix
7.1 Questionnaire
7.1.1 English version
Dear Sir/Madam
You are invited to join a marketing research study. Please read this consent document carefully
before you decide to participate in this study. This research has been approved by the Uppsala
University. The decision to join, or not to join, is up to you.
In this research study, we are investigating consumer behavior.
What you will be asked to do in the study:
We ask you to invest some time into answering the attached questionnaire that consists of 12
questions. There are no right or wrong answers.
Time required: 15 minutes
Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your
information will be assigned a code number.
Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your choice to
participate or not will not affect your university studies or grades in any way.
Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime
without consequence.
Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _________________
56
Uppsala University
1. Are you a female or a male?
2. City and country of birth
3. Age
4. Do you own a smartphone? (In case you do not have a smartphone, you may skip the remaining
questions. We are immensely grateful for your time and participation!)
5.
5.1 How much time have you spent on your smartphone? (choose the corresponding value on
the scale from 1 to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
None at all A lot
5.2 How much money have you spent on your smartphone? (choose the corresponding value on
the scale from 1 to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
None at all A lot
6. When considering your smartphone, what thoughts come to your mind?
57
Uppsala University
7. What is your overall attitude towards your smartphone (choose the corresponding values on the
scales from 1 to 7)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavorable Favorable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Positive
8. To what extent do you agree to the following statements:
Using my smartphone represents who I am (choose the corresponding value on the scale from 1
to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Completely disagree Completely agree
Using my smartphone is a voluntary choice (choose the corresponding value on the scale from 1
to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
58
Uppsala University
Completely disagree Completely agree
Using my smartphone reflects the type of person I am (choose the corresponding value on the scale
from 1 to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Completely disagree Completely agree
Using my smartphone is an important priority for me (choose the corresponding value on the scale
from 1 to 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Completely disagree Completely agree
9. What is, in your opinion, the purpose of this research?
10. If you are interested in the outcomes of the given research, please, provide us your contact details
59
Uppsala University
7.1.2 Swedish translation
Informerat samtycke för studiedeltagande.
Du är inbjuden att delta i en marknadsundersökning. Vänligen läs igenom dokumentet noga innan
du deltar i studien. Undersökningen har blivit godkänd av Uppsala universitet. Studiedeltagande
är valfritt.
I denna studie undersöker vi konsumentbeteende.
Det vi ber av dig i studien:
Vi önskar att du lägger lite tid på att besvara frågorna i det bifogade formuläret, det är 12 frågor
totalt. Det finns inget rätt eller fel svar.
Ungefärlig tid: 15 minuter
Sekretess: Din identitet hålls konfidentiell enligt svensk lag. Din information kommer att tilldelas
en kod.
Frivilligt deltagande: Ditt deltagande i denna studie är helt frivilligt. Ditt val av att delta eller inte,
kommer inte att påverka dina universitetsstudier eller betyg.
Rätt att lämna studien: Du har rätten att lämna studien när som helst.
Överenskommelse: Jag har läst den ovanstående informationen. Jag vill delta i studien och har
erhållit en kopia av det här dokumentet.
Signatur: ____________________________________ Datum: _________________
60
Uppsala University
1. Kön
2. Födelseort och land
3. Ålder
4. Använder du en smartphone? (Om du inte har en smartphone behöver du inte svara på
frågorna som följer. Tack för att du deltog i vår undersökning!)
5.
5.1 Hur mycket tid lägger du på din smartphone? (välj motsvarande värde på skalan från 1
till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lite Mycket
5.2 Hur mycket pengar lägger du på din smartphone? (välj motsvarande värde på skalan
från 1 till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lite Mycket
6. Vilka tankar får du när du tänker på din smartphone?
61
Uppsala University
7. Vad är ditt helhetsintryck av din smartphone (välj motsvarande värde på skalan från 1 till
7)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Otillfredställd Tillfredställd
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dålig Bra
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negativ Positiv
8. I vilken utsträckning instämmer du i följande påståenden:
Användning av min smartphone representerar vem jag är (välj motsvarande värde på skalan från
1 till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Instämmer inte alls Instämmer helt
62
Uppsala University
Användning av min smartphone är ett frivilligt val (välj motsvarande värde på skalan från 1 till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Instämmer inte alls Instämmer helt
Användning av min smartphone återspeglar den typ av person jag är (välj motsvarande värde på
skalan från 1 till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Instämmer inte alls Instämmer helt
Användning av min smartphone är en viktig prioritering för mig (välj motsvarande värde på skalan
från 1 till 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
63
Uppsala University
Instämmer inte alls Instämmer helt
9. Vad tror du att syftet med denna undersökning är?
10. Är du intresserad av undersökningens resultat, vänligen lämna dina kontaktuppgifter (ex.
telefonnummer eller e-postadress) så berättar vi mer!
64
Uppsala University
7.1.3 Russian translation
Информированное согласие на участие в исследовании
Дорогие друзья!
Приглашаем вас к участию в маркетинговом исследовании. Пожалуйста, внимательно
ознакомьтесь с данным документом перед тем как принять решение об участии в
исследовании. Данное исследование было одобрено Уппсальским Университетом (Uppsala
University), Швеция. Вы абсолютно свободны в принятии решения относительно участия в
данном исследовании.
Данное исследование посвящено изучению поведения потребителя.
Что нужно сделать для участия в исследовании?
Мы просим вас потратить несколько минут и ответить на 12 вопросов исследования.
Вопросы не проверяют какие-либо специальные знания или навыки и не имеют заведомо
правильных и неправильных ответов.
Ответы на вопросы займут не более 15 минут.
Конфиденциальность: информация, которую вы предоставляете в данном исследовании,
будет рассматриваться как конфиденциальная, в соответствии с требованиями
законодательства.
Добровольное участие: участие в исследовании является полностью добровольным.
Согласие или отказ от участия никоим образом не повлияет на вашу учебу или оценки.
Право отказаться от участия в исследовании: вы имеете право в любое время отказаться от
участия в исследовании без каких-либо последствий
Информированное согласие: Я ознакомился/ознакомилась и согласен/согласна с
вышеуказанными условиями участия в исследовании. Мое согласие участвовать в данном
исследовании является добровольным.
Подпись: _________________________________ Дата: ______________________________
65
Uppsala University
1. Укажите Ваш пол
2. Страна и город Вашего рождения
3. Ваш возраст
4. У вас есть смартфон? (Если у Вас нет смартфона, Вы можете проигнорировать
остальные вопросы данного исследования. Благодарим Вас за участие!)
5.
5.1 Сколько времени Вы потратили, пользуясь своим смартфоном? (Оцените частоту
использования вашего смартфона от 1 до 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Вообще не использую Очень часто использую
5.2 Как много денег Вы потратили на свой смартфон? (Оцените по шкале от 1 до 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не потратил нисколько Потратил очень много
6. Какие мысли Ваш смартфон вызывает у Вас?
66
Uppsala University
7. Как в целом Вы оцениваете Ваш смартфон? (Оцените по шкале от 1 до 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не удовлетворен Удовлетворен
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Плохой Хороший
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Негативно Позитивно
8. В какой степени Вы согласны со следующими утверждениями:
Использование смартфона презентует меня как личность (Оцените по шкале от 1 до 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не согласен совсем Полностью согласен
Использование смартфона - мой добровольный выбор (Оцените по шкале от 1 до 7)
67
Uppsala University
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не согласен совсем Полностью согласен
Использование смартфона отражает тип моей личности (Оцените по шкале от 1 до 7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не согласен совсем Полностью согласен
Использование смартфона является важной частью моей жизни (Оцените по шкале от 1 до
7)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Не согласен совсем Полностью согласен
68
Uppsala University
9. Какова, по Вашему мнению, цель данного исследования?
10. Если Вас интересуют результаты данного исследования, оставьте, пожалуйста,
Ваши контактные данные (например, телефон или email) и мы обязательно
расскажем Вам подробности!
69
Uppsala University
7.2 SPSS Outputs
7.2.1 Data analysis for normality
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
RPAT ,216 24 ,005 ,891 24 ,014
RPAM ,236 24 ,001 ,834 24 ,001
RPAC ,180 24 ,042 ,911 24 ,037
RPIT ,533 24 ,000 ,316 24 ,000
RPIM ,492 24 ,000 ,472 24 ,000
RPIC ,533 24 ,000 ,316 24 ,000
RPCT ,120 24 ,200* ,957 24 ,376
RPCM ,120 24 ,200* ,936 24 ,131
RPCC ,103 24 ,200* ,972 24 ,711
SPAT ,236 24 ,001 ,766 24 ,000
SPAM ,283 24 ,000 ,790 24 ,000
SPIT ,397 24 ,000 ,668 24 ,000
SPAC ,245 24 ,001 ,877 24 ,007
SPIM ,431 24 ,000 ,621 24 ,000
SPIC ,302 24 ,000 ,789 24 ,000
SPCT ,147 24 ,195 ,958 24 ,392
SPCM ,123 24 ,200* ,962 24 ,484
SPCC ,143 24 ,200* ,939 24 ,151
CPAT ,216 24 ,005 ,891 24 ,014
CPAM ,236 24 ,001 ,834 24 ,001
70
Uppsala University
CPAC ,180 24 ,042 ,911 24 ,037
CPIT ,533 24 ,000 ,316 24 ,000
CPIM ,492 24 ,000 ,472 24 ,000
CPIC ,533 24 ,000 ,316 24 ,000
CPCM ,120 24 ,200* ,936 24 ,131
CPCT ,120 24 ,200* ,957 24 ,376
CPCC ,103 24 ,200* ,972 24 ,711
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
7.2.2 Combined Swedish and Russian sample
ANOVA outputs
Descriptives
PA
N Mean
Std.
Deviatio
n
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum
Maximu
m
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1,0
66
5,686
86868
68686
87
1,22352
8298414
670
,150605
9225072
68
5,38608
7889801
131
5,98764
9483936
242
1,00000
0000000
0000
7,00000
0000000
0000
2,0
67
5,830
84577
11442
79
1,18118
4040901
045
,144304
5979594
16
5,54273
2345367
346
6,11895
9196921
212
1,66666
6666666
6667
7,00000
0000000
0000
3,0
60 5,766
66666
,988254
9439668
66
,127583
1646596
94
5,51137
3343860
791
6,02195
9989472
542
3,00000
0000000
0000
7,00000
0000000
0000
71
Uppsala University
66666
67
Tota
l 193
5,761
65803
10880
83
1,13583
4256763
316
,081759
1388258
17
5,60039
6592535
097
5,92291
9469641
069
1,00000
0000000
0000
7,00000
0000000
0000
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PA
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
,670 2 190 ,513
ANOVA
PA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups ,691 2 ,346 ,266 ,767
Within Groups 247,012 190 1,300
Total 247,703 192
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
PA
Statistic
a df1 df2 Sig.
Welch ,237 2
126,54
0 ,789
Brown-
Forsythe ,269 2
187,61
1 ,764
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
72
Uppsala University
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: PA
Tukey HSD
(I)
GROUP
(J)
GROUP
Mean
Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1,0 2,0 -
,1439770842
75592
,1977417034
23120 ,747
-
,6110880002
33633
,3231338316
82448
3,0 -
,0797979797
97980
,2033852713
68200 ,919
-
,5602402879
02759
,4006443283
06800
2,0 1,0 ,1439770842
75592
,1977417034
23120 ,747
-
,3231338316
82448
,6110880002
33633
3,0 ,0641791044
77613
,2026612204
00161 ,946
-
,4145528304
23002
,5429110393
78227
3,0 1,0 ,0797979797
97980
,2033852713
68200 ,919
-
,4006443283
06800
,5602402879
02759
2,0 -
,0641791044
77613
,2026612204
00161 ,946
-
,5429110393
78227
,4145528304
23002
73
Uppsala University
Descriptives
PC
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minim
um
Maxim
um
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1,0 66
4,200
8 ,89035 ,10959 3,9819 4,4196 2,50 6,50
2,0 67
4,306
0 1,13303 ,13842 4,0296 4,5823 2,50 6,50
3,0 60
4,237
5 1,21469 ,15682 3,9237 4,5513 1,00 6,50
To
tal 193
4,248
7 1,07937 ,07769 4,0955 4,4019 1,00 6,50
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PC
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
3,614 2 190 ,029
74
Uppsala University
ANOVA
PC
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups ,379 2 ,189 ,161 ,851
Within Groups 223,308 190 1,175
Total 223,687 192
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
PC
Statistic
a df1 df2 Sig.
Welch ,177 2
122,30
0 ,838
Brown-
Forsythe ,159 2
174,57
7 ,853
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
75
Uppsala University
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: PC
Tukey HSD
(I)
GROUP
(J)
GROUP
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1,0 2,0 -,10521 ,18801 ,842 -,5493 ,3389
3,0 -,03674 ,19338 ,980 -,4936 ,4201
2,0 1,0 ,10521 ,18801 ,842 -,3389 ,5493
3,0 ,06847 ,19269 ,933 -,3867 ,5237
3,0 1,0 ,03674 ,19338 ,980 -,4201 ,4936
2,0 -,06847 ,19269 ,933 -,5237 ,3867
PC
Tukey HSDa,b
GROUP N
Subset for alpha = 0.05
1
1,0 66 4,2008
3,0 60 4,2375
2,0 67 4,3060
Sig. ,847
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 64,180.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
76
Uppsala University
Descriptives
PI
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minim
um
Maxim
um
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1,0 66 ,303 ,6556 ,0807 ,142 ,464 ,0 3,0
2,0 67 ,194 ,4684 ,0572 ,080 ,308 ,0 2,0
3,0 60 ,500 ,8336 ,1076 ,285 ,715 ,0 3,0
To
tal 193 ,326 ,6710 ,0483 ,231 ,422 ,0 3,0
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PI
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
11,670 2 190 ,000
ANOVA
PI
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 3,018 2 1,509 3,437 ,034
Within Groups 83,417 190 ,439
Total 86,435 192
77
Uppsala University
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
PI
Statistic
a df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 3,228 2
116,55
2 ,043
Brown-
Forsythe 3,335 2
150,85
5 ,038
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: PI
Tukey HSD
(I)
GROUP
(J)
GROUP
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1,0 2,0 ,1090 ,1149 ,610 -,162 ,380
3,0 -,1970 ,1182 ,221 -,476 ,082
2,0 1,0 -,1090 ,1149 ,610 -,380 ,162
3,0 -,3060* ,1178 ,027 -,584 -,028
3,0 1,0 ,1970 ,1182 ,221 -,082 ,476
2,0 ,3060* ,1178 ,027 ,028 ,584
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
78
Uppsala University
PI
Tukey HSDa,b
GROU
P N
Subset for alpha =
0.05
1 2
2,0 67 ,194
1,0 66 ,303 ,303
3,0 60
,500
Sig. ,621 ,214
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are
displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 64,180.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic
mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
79
Uppsala University
7.2.3 Swedish sample
Case Processing Summary
GROU
P
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
PA 1 27 100.0% 0 0.0% 27 100.0%
2 28 100.0% 0 0.0% 28 100.0%
3 24 100.0% 0 0.0% 24 100.0%
PC 1 27 100.0% 0 0.0% 27 100.0%
2 28 100.0% 0 0.0% 28 100.0%
3 24 100.0% 0 0.0% 24 100.0%
PI 1 27 100.0% 0 0.0% 27 100.0%
2 28 100.0% 0 0.0% 28 100.0%
3 24 100.0% 0 0.0% 24 100.0%
80
Uppsala University
ANOVA on product attitudes
81
Uppsala University
ANOVA on the Index of personal connection
ANOVA on the ratings of personal connection
82
Uppsala University
7.2.4 Russian sample
ANOVA on product attitudes
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PA
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
,444 2 111 ,642
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 1,944 2 ,972 ,834 ,437
Within Groups 129,293 111 1,165
Total 131,237 113
83
Uppsala University
ANOVA on the Index of personal connection
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PC
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
,431 2 111 ,651
ANOVA
PC
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups ,159 2 ,080 ,077 ,926
Within Groups 115,025 111 1,036
Total 115,184 113
84
Uppsala University
ANOVA on the ratings of personal connection
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
PI
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
4,712 2 111 ,011
ANOVA
PI
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups ,680 2 ,340 1,214 ,301
Within Groups 31,075 111 ,280
Total 31,754 113
85
Uppsala University
7.2.5 Two-way ANOVA
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: PA
NAT GROUP Mean Std. Deviation N
Russian 1,0 5,547008547008547 1,143215889541632 39
2,0 5,820512820512820 1,097168481803450 39
3,0
5,824074074074073 ,983954157891744 36
Total 5,728070175438597 1,077677123832745 114
Swedish 1,0 5,888888888888888 1,326907593121602 27
2,0 5,845238095238094 1,309924581930905 28
3,0 5,680555555555555 1,009515915304369 24
Total 5,810126582278481 1,220297876277930 79
Total 1,0 5,686868686868686 1,223528298414670 66
2,0 5,830845771144278 1,181184040901045 67
86
Uppsala University
3,0
5,766666666666667 ,988254943966866 60
Total 5,761658031088082 1,135834256763317 193
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: PA
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Corrected
Model 2,863a 5 ,573 ,437 ,822
Intercept 6189,828 1 6189,828 4727,565 ,000
NAT ,257 1 ,257 ,196 ,658
GROUP ,448 2 ,224 ,171 ,843
NAT *
GROUP 1,863 2 ,932 ,712 ,492
Error 244,840 187 1,309
Total 6654,667 193
87
Uppsala University
Corrected Total 247,703 192
a. R Squared = ,012 (Adjusted R Squared = -,015)
3. NAT * GROUP
Dependent Variable: PA
NAT GROUP Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Russian 1,0 5,547 ,183 5,186 5,908
2,0 5,821 ,183 5,459 6,182
3,0 5,824 ,191 5,448 6,200
Swedish 1,0 5,889 ,220 5,454 6,323
2,0 5,845 ,216 5,419 6,272
3,0 5,681 ,234 5,220 6,141