Article name Research method Main question and Hypotheses Results + Findings Where does Impor
!!Check not supported hypothesis!! the paper fit
What makes it Experimental design RQ:How does the centrality of a green feature A product is perceived as more Tactical
Green? – Gershoff where it manipulates influences the perceptions of consumers environmental friendly when the programme
& Frels (2015) the centrality. (study about a products overall greenness? product attribute was described as formulation ->
1) the central feature of the product or Product &
H1: Having a central attribute with an environmental the component was integrated Promotion
2x2 experimental benefit will imbue the entire product with greenness
more so than when a peripheral attribute offers
design (study 2, 3 Centrality/ green component is a
equivalent environmental benefits. (supported)
&4) key factor for the overall greenness
of a product. + the effect of
H2: A product is perceived as more green if the
green feature becomes more central based on its
centrality on greenness of the
category. (supported) product is independent of the effect
of the attribute's importance in
H3: We hypothesize that the effect of centrality will consumer choice.
be moderated such that evaluations of greenness will
increase when a less central component that offers a In summary, the results suggest that
green benefit is also described as integrated into the both the centrality of a green component
overall design (supported) and its importance in consumer choice
positively affect perceptions of a
H4: Consumers perceive a product as more product's environmental friendliness.
environmentally friendly when an environmental These effects are independent of the
benefit is associated with a product compared to firm's motivation to appear
when the same benefit is associated with a less environmentally friendly, as perceived by
central feature. (supported) participants.
Are Multichannel Regulatory Frame RQ1: How does the monetary value of H1: The multi channel customers Tactical Utilitar
Customers..? – Theory - > people purchases by multichannel customers differ higher monetary value (outspend) programme (functi
Kushwaha & make decisions from that of single-channel customers? their single-channel counterparts. formulation -> out of
Shankar (2013) based on regularly Place more r
orientation: RQ2: How does the relationship between a H2: The monetary value of utilitarian (distribution/ purcha
promotion focus customer's channel preference and category purchases do not sales channels) on obj
(positive outcomes) monetary value -'ary by key product significantly differ among traditional, criteria
, or prevention focus category characteristics (utilitarian vs;. electronic or multi-channel suppli
(minimize negative hedonic nature and perceived risk)? customers. suppli
outcomes) ->
channels are also H1: Across all product categories, multichannel H3: Multi channel customers of Hedon
based on this theory, customers have a higher monetary value of hedonic product categories pleasu
so prevention or purchases than singlechannel customers. significantly outspend their single- enjoym
promotion focus (supported) channel counterparts expres
emotio
Cross-sectional H2: The monetary value of purchases by single- H4: Traditional customers of low-risk purcha
channel customers of utilitarian product categories
study + longitudinal is higher than that by multichannel customers of these categories offer higher monetary on sub
analysis of categories. (not supported) value than other customers. criteria
transaction data appare
H3: The monetary value of purchases by H5: Results were not significant cosme
multichannel customers of hedonic product
categories is higher than that by single channel Interaction effect: Low p
customers of these categories. (supported) Low-risk/utilitarian: higher spending risk (e
level by customers of traditional home
H4:The monetary value of purchases by traditional channels
channel customers of low-risk product categories High p
is higher than that by electronic channel and
multichannel customers of these categories.
Low-risk/hedonic: multi-channel risk (e
(supported) customers (higher monetary value) compu
spend more than catalogue/web-only jewelry
H5: The monetary value of purchases by electronic customers
channel and multichannel customers of high-risk Monet
product categories is higher than that by traditional High-risk/utilitarian: web-only how m
channel customers of these categories. (not customers (highest monetary value) a cust
supported) spend more than catalogue-only and spend
multi-channel purcha
High-risk/hedonic: higher spending
level by multichannel customers +
multichannel customers provide
highest monetary value regardless
the risk level
!!Check not supported hypothesis!! the paper fit
What makes it Experimental design RQ:How does the centrality of a green feature A product is perceived as more Tactical
Green? – Gershoff where it manipulates influences the perceptions of consumers environmental friendly when the programme
& Frels (2015) the centrality. (study about a products overall greenness? product attribute was described as formulation ->
1) the central feature of the product or Product &
H1: Having a central attribute with an environmental the component was integrated Promotion
2x2 experimental benefit will imbue the entire product with greenness
more so than when a peripheral attribute offers
design (study 2, 3 Centrality/ green component is a
equivalent environmental benefits. (supported)
&4) key factor for the overall greenness
of a product. + the effect of
H2: A product is perceived as more green if the
green feature becomes more central based on its
centrality on greenness of the
category. (supported) product is independent of the effect
of the attribute's importance in
H3: We hypothesize that the effect of centrality will consumer choice.
be moderated such that evaluations of greenness will
increase when a less central component that offers a In summary, the results suggest that
green benefit is also described as integrated into the both the centrality of a green component
overall design (supported) and its importance in consumer choice
positively affect perceptions of a
H4: Consumers perceive a product as more product's environmental friendliness.
environmentally friendly when an environmental These effects are independent of the
benefit is associated with a product compared to firm's motivation to appear
when the same benefit is associated with a less environmentally friendly, as perceived by
central feature. (supported) participants.
Are Multichannel Regulatory Frame RQ1: How does the monetary value of H1: The multi channel customers Tactical Utilitar
Customers..? – Theory - > people purchases by multichannel customers differ higher monetary value (outspend) programme (functi
Kushwaha & make decisions from that of single-channel customers? their single-channel counterparts. formulation -> out of
Shankar (2013) based on regularly Place more r
orientation: RQ2: How does the relationship between a H2: The monetary value of utilitarian (distribution/ purcha
promotion focus customer's channel preference and category purchases do not sales channels) on obj
(positive outcomes) monetary value -'ary by key product significantly differ among traditional, criteria
, or prevention focus category characteristics (utilitarian vs;. electronic or multi-channel suppli
(minimize negative hedonic nature and perceived risk)? customers. suppli
outcomes) ->
channels are also H1: Across all product categories, multichannel H3: Multi channel customers of Hedon
based on this theory, customers have a higher monetary value of hedonic product categories pleasu
so prevention or purchases than singlechannel customers. significantly outspend their single- enjoym
promotion focus (supported) channel counterparts expres
emotio
Cross-sectional H2: The monetary value of purchases by single- H4: Traditional customers of low-risk purcha
channel customers of utilitarian product categories
study + longitudinal is higher than that by multichannel customers of these categories offer higher monetary on sub
analysis of categories. (not supported) value than other customers. criteria
transaction data appare
H3: The monetary value of purchases by H5: Results were not significant cosme
multichannel customers of hedonic product
categories is higher than that by single channel Interaction effect: Low p
customers of these categories. (supported) Low-risk/utilitarian: higher spending risk (e
level by customers of traditional home
H4:The monetary value of purchases by traditional channels
channel customers of low-risk product categories High p
is higher than that by electronic channel and
multichannel customers of these categories.
Low-risk/hedonic: multi-channel risk (e
(supported) customers (higher monetary value) compu
spend more than catalogue/web-only jewelry
H5: The monetary value of purchases by electronic customers
channel and multichannel customers of high-risk Monet
product categories is higher than that by traditional High-risk/utilitarian: web-only how m
channel customers of these categories. (not customers (highest monetary value) a cust
supported) spend more than catalogue-only and spend
multi-channel purcha
High-risk/hedonic: higher spending
level by multichannel customers +
multichannel customers provide
highest monetary value regardless
the risk level
