Running Head: HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION

Hedonic Considerations are More Prevalent in College Selection Decisions Jenna Berthelsen Spring Hill College

This paper was prepared on November 18, 2013 for Marketing Research 422, Section 1, taught by Dr. Sharee L. Broussard Ph.D. APR.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION Abstract The purpose of this research project was to find out in what ways college selection decisions are influenced by hedonic and utilitarian considerations. This study used the Decision Theory, Values Theory, and Reversal Theory to help examine what affects students decision making processes. This study will specifically find out if hedonic considerations are more prevalent in college selection decisions. This research attempts to explain the effects of hedonic and utilitarian considerations on college selection decisions through the use of qualitative and quantitative data. Scholarly journals, trade journals, surveys, and data analyses provided the information and data used to determine whether or not the hypothesis was supported. The literature review supported the hypothesis that hedonic considerations are more prevalent in decision making in general

decisions as well as college selection decisions. The research showed that hedonic considerations and tendencies are driving factors for students regarding their college selection decisions; however, it did not show enough support that hedonic considerations are more prevalent than utilitarian considerations.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION Introduction Choices and decisions are made constantly; some are more for pleasure, while others are

purely to satisfy a need. These hedonic and utilitarian considerations affect everyday life, with or without realizing it. Sometimes, a decision made by one person to select a certain product or service is a hedonic decision, while another person could make the same selection through utilitarian considerations. Similarly, the same person selecting an item at two different points in life might make the decision at one point in time based on hedonic considerations and the next based on utilitarian considerations. This is because decisions are based off of various motivations, attractions, and stimulations, along with other external and internal factors. These decision factors attempt to create a distinction between hedonic and utilitarian considerations; however, one specific product or service cannot be permanently labeled either hedonic or utilitarian because it will depend on the individuals perception and motivation when deciding. For this reason, it is difficult to measure the relationship between a specific decision and a hedonic or utilitarian consideration. To further understand hedonic and utilitarian considerations, the Values Theory, Decision Theory, and Reversal Theory must be examined. Self, social, economic, emotional, and consciousness values all join together to help form decisions. Some examples of feelings that play into these values include sense of accomplishment, feeling acceptable, finding something reasonably priced, finding something to enjoy, and comparing price or quality. Some values are held more consistently while others can change circumstantially. Either way they help determine which decision to make and provide the deeper reasoning behind it. The reason values can be consistent or circumstantial is related to the Reversal Theory which reflects opposing motivations, meanings, and emotions that can come from any given situation. Decisions involve some combination of the following opposing factors: thoughts and feelings, willpower and

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION desire, prudent versus impulsive self, rational and emotional side, and head and heart. From there, these decision-making factors are attributed to what the choices actually are, which then categorizes itself to be hedonic or utilitarian at that given moment. These hedonic and utilitarian considerations affect the way students select a college. Students typically consider factors such as the campus, academics, location, size, price, and

activities, amongst many others during their college search (Hallett, 2008). Each of these factors can be perceived as hedonic or utilitarian considerations depending on the student and his or her circumstance. According to Joji and Ashwin (2012), this can happen because every product (brand) has both hedonic and utilitarian values which are not mutually exclusive as seen from the consumer's attitude, in spite of marketer's effort to position and differentiate them through advertising by using these traits (p. 77). For example, price is considered to be one of the most compelling or repelling factors when selecting a college. The way a student from a wealthy family and a student from a lower-income family consider the same price can differ greatly. The lower-income family might have a lower set maximum price in mind, making price a more utilitarian based consideration than the wealthy family because that is all they can afford. The wealthy family could view lower prices and scholarships as an added advantage, making it a hedonic consideration, because they do not necessarily have to find a certain low price in order to select that college. People make decisions differently, just as they have different values, and this affects the way they select based on hedonic or utilitarian considerations.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION Literature Review

When making decisions, people seek to satisfy themselves or to satisfy specific needs. In order to express hedonic and utilitarian considerations, the values and decision making process of selecting a college was compared to shopping. They both rely on certain individualized decision making processes and pertain to both the needs and desires of the student or shopper. According to Bardhi and Arnould, hedonic shopping is directed towards the satisfaction of particular individual desires, and is regarded as an extravagance that lies outside the constraints of necessity (2005, p. 224). An example of this is that a shopper can make the decision to select an expensive coat despite the fact that he or she already possesses a coat. Or that same person could go to the mall with a specific agenda to buy a coat because it is winter and he or she does not possess a coat and views it as a need. These examples represent hedonic and utilitarian shopping experiences, respectively. Similarly, a student could select a college with the reasoning that the campus was prettier or it seemed like a friendlier environment. On the other hand, a student could be limited to a college within a certain price range or within a closer proximity to home. These examples represent hedonic versus utilitarian based college selection decision processes. According to Chunling and Bastin (2010), hedonic shopping value is far more subjective, personal and experiential than its utilitarian counterpart (p. 107). This seems logical, because it is easier to gain satisfaction or pleasure when choosing something that is unnecessary and feels like a treat, rather than something that is purely to satisfy a need. Price is an important factor to consider in both shopping and selecting a college. Sometimes price can change considerations from hedonic to utilitarian, if means are limited. However, a common way of thinking about price is to consider the shopping value, or whether the product or service is worth the price, and if not, to consider the willingness to pay that price. According to the findings of Bardhi and Arnould (2005), challenge the traditional frugality

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION perspective of dichotomizing thrift and hedonic desire being opposite and contradictory orientations (p. 223). Their study found that the common conception of thrift shopping being a money-saving experience and therefore utilitarian, is not always the case. People enjoy the hunt for a low price, and because of the inherent value of shopping in itself, it becomes a hedonic experience. Carter and Curry (2011) found a downward sloping demand function, as tuition increases, enrollment decreases (p. 1188). This relates to the way people make shopping decisions because pleasure and satisfaction are expressed while shopping and after purchasing. Pleasure is also a result of selecting the item at a better cost than could be found elsewhere. Choosing an item at a price that an individual can justify makes the decision seem responsible and economical. According to Bardhi and Arnould (2005), thrift and treat can coexist, they are dialectically defined categories that enable consumers to negotiate and realize a diversity of moral and experiential experiences (p. 225). According to Guido, Capestro & Peluso (2007), retailers should attempt to provide incentives that appeal to shoppers personalities as well as to their motivations, as to increase the potential of matching stimulation and arousability with their shopping experiences. The concept of a positive relation between thrift and hedonic shopping experiences can also be applied to the college selection decision. According to Quigley, Bingham, Murray, and Notarantonio (1999), there are three phases comprised in the college selection decision: predisposition, search, and choice. There is not much that colleges can change to cater to each potential students individual predispositions rather than to target certain types of students as a whole. However, during the search phase, students establish the attributes and the criteria they will use to assess colleges which typically includes price as one of the criteria (Quigley, Bingham, Murray & Notarantonio, 1999, p. 37). Students, typically with guidance from their

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION

families, establish a price that they are willing to pay for college. According to Botti and McGill (2011), utilitarian experiences are functional, sensible, and useful, and as a result, utilitarian experiences are easy to justify because they are associated with virtues and necessities (p. 1067). However, the search for a college providing more money in scholarships and other awards make the search similar to thrift shopping and can be hedonic because of the pleasure that results from getting the best deal. This creates a bond between utilitarian and hedonic considerations rather than a dichotomy. Quigley, Bingham, Murray, and Notarantonio (1999) found that the lack of prior knowledge concerning financial packages may force lower income families and less experienced families to use cost as a constraint, limiting the set of colleges they will consider (p. 39). In this sense, the price factor of selecting a college is a utilitarian consideration. The price constraint limits the options to certain colleges and pleasure is not a result of this process. Every individual has a unique way of making decisions because various factors go into each decision. In addition, there are behavioral relations that affect the way decisions are made. For example, Shih-Tse (2010) states, hedonic values have positively higher association with customer intention to buy than with intent to search information (p. 179). This directly relates to selecting a college because the intent is to find a college, rather than the intent being to search for information. Another relation is a relative increase in the preference for the hedonic good in forfeiture compared with acquisition choices (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000, p. 68). This means that people are more likely to select a hedonic or luxury item over an essential item when forced to give one up, than they are to select the luxury item over the essential item in the first place. Hedonic goods create an emotional attachment because, hedonic product values strengthen the

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION relationship between real self-congruence and emotional brand attachment than utilitarian values (Joji & Ashwin, 2012, p. 84). There are several measures of motivation and explanation behind why someone selects a certain item. The optimal stimulation level (OSL), concerning the level of external stimulation with which an individual feels comfortable, and the arousability, concerning the rate with which the internal stimulation (i.e. the arousal) level of an individual changes in response to a sudden increase (or decrease) in the environmental stimulation (Guido, Capestro & Peluso, 2007, p. 365). The OSL and arousability measures positively correlate to certain traits that are associated with hedonic shopping. This correlation is demonstrated through the Five Factor Model and the Big Five personality traits. According to Guido, Capestro, and Peluso (2007), the traits of Agreeableness and Openness to Experience are positively related to hedonic considerations while the traits of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are related to utilitarian considerations. Agreeableness and Openness to Experience correlate with the inherent value of shopping in itself, or for students, the search for the right college. This paratelic state or, whenever they get pleasure from their behaviour in itself is hedonic, while a goal or task oriented telic state relates to utilitarian considerations and the Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability traits (Guido, Capestro & Peluso, 2007, p. 366). So, according to Guido, Capestro, and Peluso (2007), personality traits help determine whether a person more commonly makes decisions based on hedonic or utilitarian considerations. The factors that help determine a students college selection decision are only important if they first make the decision that college is right for him or her. Once a student has determined that he or she wants to attend college, there are certain expectations about college that are created. According to Salisbury and Feinberg (2012), the locus of the effect lies in peoples

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION choice sets themselvesthat is, how people decide which options to consider when making choices (p. 320). However, there is a basic divide between most students expectations for collegea means to employment first and a good intellectual experience second; and what universities believe their value isan intellectual and social experience first, with only secondary consideration to employment (Khan, 2013, p. 41). Sometimes there is a disconnect between what students are looking for in a college and what they actually find or select. It is difficult to accurately depict the complete experience of attending a certain college without actually attending it first. Khans (2013) statement that students attend college as a step toward employment reveals that selecting the college is not the only desired end result, and that graduation and eventual employment are goals that follow from the selection of the college. According to Botti and McGills (2011) study concerned with the locus of choice, consumption experiences are defined as hedonic when they are sought as goals in themselves and not as intermediate steps to achieve higher-end goals, including self-signals (p. 1067). The students who focus solely on selecting the college will have a more hedonic based decision process because that is the goal with a clear end result of going to college in mind. Those who consider college selection while focusing on the big picture of what will best lead to a specific career are selecting a college in a more utilitarian manner. Khan (2013) states that what students are actually looking for in a college is one that provides a rich social and intellectual atmospherewhile at the same time exposing students to those intellectual but also practical

fields that will make them valuable to the world (p. 41). Students make a list of criteria for what they would like to find in a college, and seek it. Basically, students select a college based on many factors including price, academics, passions, quality of life, temperature, Greek life, size, campus, sports, tours, and the people, but the force that drives the decision tends to be more

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION hedonic than utilitarian. Hedonic considerations are the more prevalent determinant in college selection decisions.

10

Methodology A survey consisting of 16 questions attempted to answer the research question: In what ways are college selection decisions influenced by hedonic/utilitarian considerations? This research question was chosen to try to determine what factors are considered in the college selection decision and if they were hedonic or utilitarian considerations. The majority of the questions in the survey were Scale questions created using the Likert Scale format, with possible answers of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. They were formed around the question of whether or not hedonic considerations are more prevalent in the college selection decision. The surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of undergraduate students attending Spring Hill College. The distribution was completely random because surveys were distributed by handing out to people in different places around campus at different times of the day. Surveys were distributed to students in Java City, in several upper-level Business classes, an upper-level Philosophy class, to several tables at the cafeteria, as well as tables at a presentation held in LeBlanc. The variety of locations that the surveys were distributed created a broad mix of freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, as well as a mix of gender and majors. The majority of surveys completed were by seniors and females. All surveys were asked to be turned in upside down on a desk or handed in upside down so that results would not be seen. The distribution and retrieval of surveys took one day to complete. The time frame for distributing the surveys was

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION not as expansive as the variety of locations distributed. There were a total of 53 surveys completed with all questions answered. The survey consisted of two separate sections of questions. The first section of 11

11

questions were Scale questions based on the Likert Scale. These questions were formed around whether or not hedonic considerations are more prevalent in the college selection decision. These questions were also formed around the Decision Theory and Value Theory. The questions formed intended to gather information about how students make decisions, what they like or dislike about Spring Hill College, how they make shopping decisions, and the effect of price on their college selection decision. Questions 1, 4, 8, and 9 pointed to utilitarian tendencies and questions 2, 3, 5, and 7 pointed to hedonic tendencies. Questions 1, 4, 6, and 11 pointed to decision making tendencies and questions 2 and 9 pointed to decisions making based on values. The second set of questions consisted of 1 ordinal question about class ranking and 4 nominal questions regarding gender, and whether or not the student attends college in or out-of-state, is on a sports team at Spring Hill College or not, and if he or she has roommates.

Data Analysis The data from the questionnaires were put into the computer program SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Please refer to Appendix B for more information on specific quantitative results. The reliability analysis showed that Cronbachs alpha coefficient was 0.249 including 11 ordinal questions and not including the 1 ordinal and 4 nominal questions. This revealed that the survey results did not create a realistic reliability coefficient because an overall Cronbachs alpha value should be higher than 0.7 or 0.8 for a scaled survey to be considered reliable. Questions were then placed into three different constructs by grouping questions that pointed to utilitarian

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION tendencies, hedonic tendencies, and decision making. These alpha coefficients of 0.187, 0.158, and 0.158 respectively, did not improve the alpha coefficient. This shows that the questions

12

grouped around pieces of the hypothesis did not reliably measure utilitarian tendencies, hedonic tendencies, and decision making. Based on the Cronbachs alpha if item deleted column, one more construct was created to see if a higher alpha coefficient could be found. This reliability analysis did not include question 1, regarding shopping mission, and the alpha coefficient was raised to 0.318. Therefore, question 1 did not belong with the other scale questions, because it did not relate with the rest of the questions and negatively impacted the reliability of the survey. Some interesting frequencies were that 59.3% of respondents were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that they only go shopping when they have a clear mission, and 75.9% of respondents were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that they were content with possessing only things that they need. Both of these frequencies show hedonic tendencies rather than utilitarian tendencies. When asked if Spring Hill Colleges campus was not pretty, 94.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed, revealing that the beauty of the campus could have played a role in the college selection process. Another interesting frequency was that 72.2% of respondents attend college out-of-state. This means that students went beyond the ease of staying in-state and chose a college further away from home, which is not necessarily a utilitarian decision. Crosstabs were done by comparing each scale question to gender, class ranking, and in or out-of-state. The following crosstabs had a number less than .05 for the Pearson Chi-Square and Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) calculation, showing that they have a mathematical connection to one another. The Chi-Square result for the questions about being content possessing only things needed and Spring Hill College not having a pretty campus was 0.034. The Chi-Square result for

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION

13

the question about being content possessing only things needed compared to gender was 0.025. The Chi-Square result for the question about coming to Spring Hill College because it offers activities and programs the respondents are interested in compared to gender was 0.024. The Chi-Square result for the question about being more likely to purchase based on appearance rather than comfort compared to attending college in or out-of-state was 0.025. The Chi-Square result for the questions about being content possessing only things needed and Spring Hill College not having a pretty campus was 0.034. These crosstab results show that several questions have a mathematical connection, especially when involving gender. However, out of the many crosstabs, several of them had results about 0.05. This means that some questions were better related and worked with certain questions more than other questions, based on results from the 53 respondents.

Results The survey results showed that respondents typically answered questions in the predicted manner. The frequencies showed that respondents answered questions based on hedonic tendencies more often than utilitarian tendencies. Questions 2, 3, 5, and 7 pointed to hedonic tendencies and resulted in the following percentages respectively, 52%, 68%, 70%, and 94.4%. Although question 2 was only slightly geared toward hedonic tendencies amongst respondents, this still depicts a trend of hedonic based decision making with respect to college selection decisions. However, questions 1, 4, 8, and 9 pointed to utilitarian tendencies and did not reveal a trend of respondents not recognizing the importance of utilitarian decision making processes. This shows that while respondents exhibit some degree of hedonic tendencies, they do not ignore utilitarian tendencies.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION One unexpected frequency was that a total of 35.3% of respondents were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed when asked if they only looked at colleges that gave

14

scholarships. This frequency would probably be different if surveys had been distributed to other schools or in other locations. This shows that for about one-third of the respondents, the price of attending college was probably not that pressing of a factor. When asked if the respondents chose Spring Hill College because of the programs and activities offered, 77.8% answered neutral, agree, and strongly agree. This shows the importance of the hedonic consideration of offering quality programs and activities that students are interested in, and its potential effect on the college selection decision process. While results show that there is a slight inclination toward hedonic tendencies, there is not enough consistent evidence to fully support the hypothesis that hedonic considerations are more prevalent in college selection decisions.

Conclusion The pilot study conducted for this research paper proved to be only somewhat insightful. The Cronbachs alpha coefficient was not close to 0.7, revealing that the survey was not a reliable instrument for this research question and hypothesis. If the instrument was modified and consisted of more questions it could be used on a full scale research project related to hedonic and utilitarian considerations in college selection decisions. There were several limitations to this study. The majority of respondents were seniors or females from Spring Hill College. This could result in data being skewed toward senior females, and therefore does not accurately portray a proper representation of the sample. One suggestion for future research related to this research question would be to sample students from a variety of colleges. The results for this study only pertain to the thoughts of Spring Hill College students,

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION and it is possible that these students made their college selection decisions for similar reasons since they chose the same college to attend. Another suggestion would be to either add more

15

questions pertaining to shopping decisions or eliminate that completely from the survey in order to more thoroughly make that connection or discard it from the study. Several changes could be made to allow this study to produce more accurate results. The first change would be to survey a larger group of respondents, including students from other colleges. Another change would be to focus on freshmen respondents, since their perception of the college selection decision is fresher in their minds. Focusing on freshmen would also help to eliminate biases of students who have attended college for a longer period of time and have acquired appreciation or dissatisfaction for the college chosen. The pilot study showed that a more focused survey instrument is necessary to better convey the relationship between hedonic and utilitarian considerations in relation to the college selection decision. The results show that there is a slight inclination toward hedonic tendencies, but not enough to fully support the hypothesis. Therefore, hedonic considerations could be the more prevalent determinant in college selection decisions, as the literature review would support, but it has not been fully supported by this pilot study.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION References Bardhi, F., & Arnould, E. J. (2005). Thrift shopping: Combining utilitarian thrift and hedonic treat benefits. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 223-233. Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065-1078. doi:10.1086/656570

16

Carter, R. E., & Curry, D. J. (2011). Using student-choice behaviour to estimate tuition elasticity in higher education. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11/12), 1186-1207. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.609653. Chunling, Y., & Bastin, M. (2010). Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in transitional economies: A symbiosis in the Mainland China marketplace. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 105-114. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.32 Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 37(1), 60-71. Guido, G., Capestro, M., & Peluso, A. M. (2007). Experimental analysis of consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences. International Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 365-386. Hallett, V. (2008). Narrowing your choices. U.S. News & World Report, 145(5), 50-54. Joji, Alex N., & Ashwin, Joseph. (2012). Hedonic versus utilitarian values: The relative importance of real and ideal self to brand personality and its influence on emotional brand attachment. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 9(2), 77-90. Khan, S. (2013). What college could be like. Communications of the ACM, 56(1), 41-43. doi:10.1145/2398356.2398370.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION

17

Salisbury, L., & Feinberg, F. (2012). All things considered? The role of choice set formation in diversification. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 49(3), 320-335. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0437 Shih-Tse, Edward W. (2010). Internet usage purposes and gender differences in the effects of perceived utilitarian and hedonic value. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 13(2), 179-183. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0200. Quigley Jr., C., Bingham Jr., F., Murray, K., & Notarantonio, E. (1999). The effect of price in the college selection decision process. Journal of Marketing Management (10711988), 9(3), 36-47.

HEDONIC BASED COLLEGE SELECTION DECISION

18

Appendix A