Conceptual framework of Post-Transaction Connection--论文代写范文精选

  减少时序的关联，在购买决策和资金的实际分离上，随后影响个人花钱和他们选择购买的方式。增加购买和支付之间的联系，强调了付款的心理，更加紧密耦合的积极效用。下面的paper代写范文深入阐述。

Abstract 
  Classic economic theory states that the utility of a consumption experience is defined by the experience’s benefits and associated costs (e.g., Deaton 1992; Hicks 1939; Marshall 1920; von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944). One way to increase utility is to lower the price of an item or experience (e.g., Doob et al. 1969; Hicks 1939). However, the literature on the pain of paying suggests that there are more subtle details of the payment experience that may make a consumption experience more or less attractive.

  When consumers make purchases, they typically experience an immediate pain of paying, which refers to the affective reaction that consumers experience when parting with their money (Zellermayer 1996). The pain of paying can weaken the pleasure derived from consumption. In seminal research on the pain of paying, Prelec and Loewenstein (1998) argue that the net utility of an experience is influenced, not only by how much consumers pay for an experience, but also by when they pay. Paying later for an experience and avoiding debt both tend to feel less painful than paying at the time of the experience or before the experience has occurred (Prelec and Loewenstein 1998). 

  Decreasing the temporal association between the purchase decision and the actual parting of money (e.g., credit card payments) dulls the pain of payment at the time of purchase, subsequently affecting the amount of money individuals spend and what they choose to purchase (Feinberg 1986; Hirschman 1979; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b; Prelec and Simester 2001; Raghubir and Srivastava, 2008; Soman 2001; Thomas, Desai, and Seenivasan 2010). Increasing the temporal association between purchase and payment (e.g., cash payment) accentuates the pain of payment by more tightly coupling the positive utility experienced from the purchase to the disutility experienced when making a payment. If this was the only mechanism underlying how much pain consumers feel when paying, then consumers paying with cash should show no difference from those paying by debit card. 

  In addition to payment coupling, recent work has demonstrated that different forms of money vary in terms of pain of payment due to how psychologically associated it is with money (Raghubir and Srivastava 2008; Soman 2001, 2003). The most psychologically proximal and painful form of payment is paying by cash, the physical manifestation of money (Raghubir and Srivastava 2008; Soman 2003). Pain of payment then decreases as the payment form becomes more abstract, i.e., more psychologically distant. Paying by check or voucher is less painful and more psychologically distant than paying by cash because, although checks and vouchers show the value of a transaction, no actual money ever changes hands (Raghubir and Srivastava 2008; Soman 2001). 

  Credit cards, debit cards, and other forms of plastic money are even less painful and more psychologically distant; the ritual of swiping a card obscures the cash value of the transaction, divorcing people further from its economic reality (e.g., Feinberg 1986; Raghubir and Srivastava 2008; Soman 2001). Thus, the form of payment can influence the disutility or psychological aversion to parting with money, even when the timing of the payment is held constant.The insight that different payment forms are associated with different levels of pain and psychological distance has implications for understanding and predicting real-world consumer behavior. Scholars have shown that using less painful and psychologically distant forms of money reduces the barrier to spending and increases the probability of purchasing from a consideration set (Raghubir and Srivastava 2008; Shah, Bettman, and Payne 2014). Soman (2001) showed that consumers who used relatively low-pain credit cards were more willing to incur an expense than those who used relatively high-pain checks to make their purchases. 

  Furthermore, Chatterjee and Rose (2012) suggest that using cash leads people to focus on a product’s costs and negative attributes, whereas using debit/credit cards leads to a focus on the product’s benefits and positive attributes. Research has also demonstrated that feeling more pain of payment can decrease immediate satisfaction with a product (Shah, Bettman, and Payne 2014; Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden 2014). Considered together, these results suggest that people who pay via a less painful and more psychologically distant form of payment may choose to pursue more consumption opportunities and even may purchase more of the same type of good, because payment form influences the balance of the experience’s pleasure and pain by affecting the pain of payment (Shah, Bettman, and Payne 2014). However, these results, along with other prior work in the pain of payment literature, conclude that less painful forms of payment result in positive outcomes during consumer deliberation and purchase (e.g., increased willingness to pay or purchase, greater point-of-purchase satisfaction). What remains unclear is what happens after the purchase has occurred. Can the pain associated with paying influence post-transaction connection, both with a product or brand or organizational loyalty?

  Pain and Value
  The idea that painful experiences promote value and commitment is supported by theory and research in multiple disciplines. Several branches of literature in psychology have examined the effects of increased effort and pain on motivation and behavior (e.g., Bem 1967; Brehm and Self 1989; Festinger 1969; Kivetz and Simonson 2002a; Mischel, Cantor, and Feldman 1996). Regarding value, Gross (1998) argues that people who experience physical or emotional pain to obtain a particular goal or outcome tend to justify the pain of their experience by seeing more value in the outcome they achieve. Cardozo (1965), for example, demonstrated that consumers tended to rate a product—in this case, a ballpoint pen—more favorably when they expended more effort to obtain the product. Research on effort justification and dissonance reduction posits a tendency to justify prior investment by valuing the chosen outcome more and persisting with the same course of action (Arkes and Ayton 1999; Arkes and Blumer 1985; Aronson 1997; Aronson and Mills 1959; Cooper and Fazio 1984; Festinger 1957; Kahneman, Knetch, and Thaler 1991). Koo and Fishbach (2010) demonstrate that even queuing in line for a product, a signal of the effort required to reach a product, can increase consumer expectations and enjoyment.  

  Interestingly, there is evidence that painful experiences tend to change how people value both their chosen option and their non-chosen alternatives. Individuals who make a difficult or painful decision will evaluate the chosen alternative more positively and the rejected alternative(s) more negatively than individuals for whom the decision was easy (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones 2007; Harmon-Jones and Mills 1999). Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones (2007) argue that the impact on pain and valuation for non-chosen alternatives also occurs when individuals are in a relationship, subsequently increasing relationship satisfaction and commitment. The evidence of a positive relationship between pain and commitment is similarly robust. (paper代写)

  Aronson and Mills (1959) found that participants who underwent a more painful and severe initiation to join a group expressed more liking and affiliation for the group than those who had a milder initiation or no initiation at all. Similar effects have also been noted in consumer research (Sheth 1968). Doob and colleagues (1969) demonstrated how introducing a product at a promotional price could drive initial sales—i.e., the lower price reduced the pain of payment—but ultimately led to decreased sales over the long term. Kivetz and Simonson (2002a) demonstrate that consumers who felt that they expended more objective effort in order to obtain a loyalty program reward believed that the reward was more attractive. Effectively, if individuals feel more objective pain, they compensate by believing that they are more committed to the group (or organization/cause). This in turn justifies the experienced pain associated with the painful decision.(paper代写)

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
  更多paper代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有paper代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(paper代写)