Questions

Study1.

The participant completed the study individually in a lab with a one-way mirror and they were video recorded as they interacted with the stimuli. Each participant was exposed to three kinds of teas in small glass jars (all black and similar in texture), either with handwriting or typewriting labels depending on which condition he/she was in. They were then asked to evaluate the teas on a 5-item scale (favorable/positive/good/ pleasant/like), later combined into an evaluation index (α = .97). They finally reported aesthetic appeal in terms of the extent to which they agreed that the labels were aesthetically pleasing, attractive, and unique (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .80).

  1. Evaluate the advertisement

Study 2.

Which jar of tea (1) looked human (2) looked alive (3) had human elements (4) had mind of its own (5) had free will, on a 7-point scale (1= Keemun, 4= no difference, 7= Nilgiri) later combined into anthropomorphic perceptions index (α =.73). Finally participants were asked which tea they would evaluate (1) more favorably (2) more positively, and, would be (3) more likely to purchase on a 7-point scale (1= Keemun, 4= no difference, 7= Nilgiri), combined into evaluation index (α = .89). They finally completed two manipulation check questions, in which they reported their agreement with the following statements of a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; r =.75) (1) the label on the left looks like it is handwritten (2) the label on the right looks like a standard mechanical (typewritten) font.

Study3 Pretest

One hundred and seventy five individuals recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (53.1% female, 46.9% male; MAge = 34.98, SDAge = 11.23) were randomly assigned to assess one of the four product categories. The pretest assessed the extent to which they perceived the products to elicit an approach-avoidance response using the following items (How risky do you perceive the product to be?; To what extent would you pay attention to the message/picture on this product’s packaging to alert you to any harmful or damaging consequences you might experience by using the product; How cautious/vigilant you are when you interact with this product? 1=not at all, 7= very much). We also assessed the extent to which the participants perceived the product to be hedonic (How hedonic do you perceive the product to be? Hedonic is defined as “pleasant and fun, something that is enjoyable and appeals to your senses) and utilitarian (How utilitarian do you perceive the product to be? Utilitarian is defined as “useful, practical, functional, something that helps you achieve a goal. 1=not at all, 7= very much). The pretest results for the product category dyads used in study 3 and 4 will be presented accordingly.

 

STUDY 3

: Participants were told that the study involved the evaluation of a new product line of home sprays. Participants were shown an image of the spray (either cockroach killer or air freshener) with either a handwritten or typewritten font on the product label (see Appendix D for stimuli). They were then asked questions regarding their purchase likelihood, on a 7-point scale (How likely are you to purchase this product? 1= not at all likely, 7= very likely; I would feel good about buying this product. 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) later combined into purchase likelihood index (r=.84) Anthropomorphic perceptions were measured after the main dependent variable, on a 7-point scale (1= not at all, 7=extremely) by asking participants to indicate the extent to which the product represents or make them think of words indicative of (1) human (2) object (3) alive (4) machine . The “object” and “machine” items were reverse-coded and later combined with the other two items to create anthropomorphic perceptions index (α=.64). Finally, several other control variables (uniqueness, attractiveness, quality, authenticity, effort) were measured on 7-point scales (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) based on the notion that these could potentially underlie the handwritten font effect. Uniqueness was measured by two items (The spray looks unique to me; The spray is one-of-a-kind). Attractiveness was measured by two items (The spray is aesthetically pleasing; The spray looks attractive; r= .91). Authenticity was also measured by one item (The spray looks authentic). Quality was measured by the following item (The product is most likely of : 1=low quality, 7=high quality). Finally, effort was measured by two items (not effortful/effortful to produce, not difficult/difficult to produce).

Study 4.

Main study: One hundred and fourteen undergraduate students (45% male) participated in a between-subjects laboratory experiment for extra credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one product category condition, either hot sauce or jam. They were then asked to imagine the following scenario:

“You are going to a friend’s place for a get together (picnic with your friends), and your friends have asked you to pick up a hot sauce (jam) to go with the food you will be eating that evening. You stop at iBurn (Chatham jam and jelly shop), a speciality store that sells “all things spicy (jam and jelly)”. Here, they were provided images of the store. .

You enter the store and look around. There are hot sauces and spices (jams and jellies) on the aisles. Here, they also looked at a picture from inside the store.

You move towards the center store display and look at the range of hot sauce (jams). The store manager comes up to you and tells you that these are the most popular hot sauces (jams) in the store.

Now look at the four bottles of sauces (jars of jams) in front of you and spend a minute or two deciding which one to choose exactly like you would in the store.”