Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.
Multi-Level
Engagement
System
Team Kinetic Synergy:
Anne Bancroft, Joivonnah
Childs, Jack Chu, Adrian Lin,
Thomas Nance & ...
Roadmap
Background
Experimental Design
Results & Analyses
Recommendations
Q&A Session
Switch2Health Corporation
“Switch2Health believes the Best
Motivation to getting active is a Nice
Reward in the end...don’...
Motivation
Some users hoard points.
Perhaps they derive some sort of
utility or satisfaction from the act
of accumulating ...
Choice Theory
Too much choice can:
Background
Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis
Decrease
Motivation
Impair
Decisions
L...
Hypothesis
 Decreasing the number of items within
a choice set will decrease user’s
potential regret
 This will lead to ...
Multi-Level Engagement
System
 Creative solution to increase the number
of choice sets while decreasing the
number of ite...
Structure
 Structure: Experiment +
Survey
 Background:
 Simulate S2H
experience to achieve
external validity
 Experime...
Participants
 Convenience Sample
(N = 32)
 College Students
• Penn students
• Ages 18-22
 Randomization
 Used randomiz...
Variables
 Dependent Variables:
 Satisfaction of Redemption Decision (Satisfaction)
 Ease of Redemption Decision (Satis...
Overview
78%
22%
Point Redemption
Yes No
Overview Hypothesis Testing
Results
Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5...
Hypothesis Testing: Part 1
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will reduce user’s potential
regret
 Key ...
Hypothesis Testing: Part 2
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase the likelihood of
making a c...
Hypothesis Testing: Part 3
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase satisfaction
 Key Dependent...
Hypothesis Testing: Part 4
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase motivation
 Key Dependent V...
Hypothesis Testing: Part 5
 Decreasing the number of items within a
choice set will increase engagement
 Key Dependent V...
Implications
 Increase the number of choice sets to
decrease the number of items within a given
choice set
 Higher Satis...
Areas of Improvement for
Further Research
 Sampling
 Increase sample size
 Make it more representative of customers
 E...
Implementation Suggestions
 Organization beyond Engagement System
 Segmenting Rewards by Gender
 Product Advertisement ...
Put Your Hands Up For S2H!
Thank You!
Any Questions?
Q&A Session
Appendix
Appendix
Other Data Analyses
19%
81%
Familiarity with
Computer Game
(Lint)
Yes
No
Appendix
5.97
1
3
5
7
9
Likeability
LikeabilitySc...
Other Data Analyses
75%
25%
Helpfulness of a
Hypothetical Leveling
Structure
Yes
No
80%
20%
Control Condition
Yes
No
71%
2...
Other Data Analyses
 Number of Rewards Attempted
Appendix
Other Data Analyses
 Number of Rewards Achieved
Appendix
Group 1 Survey Questions
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Group 2 Survey Questions
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Demographics Questions
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Próxima SlideShare
Cargando en…5
×

A multi-level engagement system for understanding consumer choice and behavior

408 visualizaciones

Publicado el

The final presentation for Consumer Behavior at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. We explore various consumer behaviorial theories especially with regards to choice sets and consumers' subsequent actions.

Publicado en: Marketing
  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

A multi-level engagement system for understanding consumer choice and behavior

  1. 1. Multi-Level Engagement System Team Kinetic Synergy: Anne Bancroft, Joivonnah Childs, Jack Chu, Adrian Lin, Thomas Nance & Melissa Wong
  2. 2. Roadmap Background Experimental Design Results & Analyses Recommendations Q&A Session
  3. 3. Switch2Health Corporation “Switch2Health believes the Best Motivation to getting active is a Nice Reward in the end...don’t you?” Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis Background
  4. 4. Motivation Some users hoard points. Perhaps they derive some sort of utility or satisfaction from the act of accumulating points. – Seth Tropper Background Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis
  5. 5. Choice Theory Too much choice can: Background Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis Decrease Motivation Impair Decisions Lower Satisfaction Increase Choice Complexity Increase Regret Increase Indecisions _______________________________________ Thus, the more items within a given choice set, the greater the indecision and the potential for regret from a wrong choice or lack thereof. _______________________________________
  6. 6. Hypothesis  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will decrease user’s potential regret  This will lead to 4 results:  Increased likelihood of making a choice  Increased satisfaction  Increased motivation  Increased engagement Background Company Motivation Theory Hypothesis
  7. 7. Multi-Level Engagement System  Creative solution to increase the number of choice sets while decreasing the number of items within each choice set The Big Idea Current Rewardsr Foot Locker Wii Amazon Current Rewards System Bronze Foot Locker Silver Amazon Gold Wii Bronze Level (600-1,499 Points) Silver Level (1,500-2499 Points) Gold Level (2,500+ Points) Value of Rewards
  8. 8. Structure  Structure: Experiment + Survey  Background:  Simulate S2H experience to achieve external validity  Experimental Conditions:  Control Group (Single Choice Set)  Experimental Group (Multiple Choice Sets) Structure Participants Variables Experimental Design Computer Game: Lint
  9. 9. Participants  Convenience Sample (N = 32)  College Students • Penn students • Ages 18-22  Randomization  Used randomizer in JMP to assign participants into experimental conditions Experimental Design Structure Participants Variables 53% 47% Demographics: Gender Females Males 12% 37%38% 13% Demographics: Race African Asian White Other
  10. 10. Variables  Dependent Variables:  Satisfaction of Redemption Decision (Satisfaction)  Ease of Redemption Decision (Satisfaction)  Amount of Point Accumulation (Motivation)  Point Redemption (Likelihood of Making a Choice)  Intention to Play Again (Engagement)  Independent Variable:  Number of Choice Sets • Increase number of choice sets to decrease the number of items within choice sets Experimental Design Structure Participants Variables
  11. 11. Overview 78% 22% Point Redemption Yes No Overview Hypothesis Testing Results Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied Satisfaction Scores (Mean) Rewards 5.03 Satisfaction Scores (Mean) Redemption 6.2 Satisfaction Scores (Mean) No Redemption 7.33
  12. 12. Hypothesis Testing: Part 1  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will reduce user’s potential regret  Key Dependent Variable to Measure: Satisfaction of Redemption Decision Overview Hypothesis Testing Results Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied 5.8 6.476.8 8 1 6 Without Levels With Levels Satisfaction Scores(Mean) Satisfaction Redemption No Redemption R2 ≈ 0.061 (r ≈ 0.247) p-value ≈ 0.5952 R2 ≈ 0.310 (r ≈ 0.557) p-value ≈ 0.0541
  13. 13. Hypothesis Testing: Part 2  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will increase the likelihood of making a choice  Key Dependent Variable to Measure: Point Redemption Results 67% 88% 33% 12% 0% 50% 100% Without Levels With Levels Percentage of Point Redemption No Redemption Redemption R2 ≈ 0.066 (r ≈ 0.256) p-value ≈ 0.1371 Overview Hypothesis Testing
  14. 14. Hypothesis Testing: Part 3  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will increase satisfaction  Key Dependent Variables to Measure: Satisfaction of Redemption Decision & Ease of Redemption Decision Results Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied 5.8 6.476.8 8 1 6 Without Levels With Levels Satisfaction Scores(Mean) Satisfaction Redemption No Redemption Ease of Decision Scores: 1 = Difficult, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Easy 4.8 5.13 8.56 4.5 1 6 Without Levels With Levels EaseofDecision Scores(Mean) Ease of Decision Redemption No Redemption R2 ≈ 0.061 (r ≈ 0.247) p-value ≈ 0.5952 R2 ≈ 0.310 (r ≈ 0.557) p-value ≈ 0.0541 R2 ≈ 0.237 (r ≈ 0.487) p-value ≈ 0.0019 R2 ≈ 0.367 (r ≈ 0.605) p-value ≈ 0.0430 Overview Hypothesis Testing
  15. 15. Hypothesis Testing: Part 4  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will increase motivation  Key Dependent Variables to Measure: Average Points Accumulated & Average Time Played Results 1472 1827 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Without Levels With Levels PointsAccumulated Average Points Accumulated 12.27 15.22 0 5 10 15 20 Without Levels With Levels TimePlayed (Minutes) Average Time Played R2 ≈ 0.037 (r ≈ 0.192) p-value ≈ 0.2932 Overview Hypothesis Testing
  16. 16. Hypothesis Testing: Part 5  Decreasing the number of items within a choice set will increase engagement  Key Dependent Variables to Measure: Intention to Play Again Results 26.70% 58.80% 73.30% 41.20% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Without Levels With Levels Intention to Play Again No Yes R2 ≈ 0.0782 (r ≈ 0.279) p-value ≈ 0.0641 Overview Hypothesis Testing 7.24 1 3 5 7 9 Leveling Motivation Motivation Scores: 1 = Unmotivated, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Motivated 6.9 1 3 5 7 9 Leveling Satisfaction Satisfaction Scores: 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5.5 = Neutral, 10 = Very Satisfied
  17. 17. Implications  Increase the number of choice sets to decrease the number of items within a given choice set  Higher Satisfaction & Ease of Decision Recommendations Implications Further Research Implementation
  18. 18. Areas of Improvement for Further Research  Sampling  Increase sample size  Make it more representative of customers  Experimental Design  Increase number of experimental conditions (within-participant designs)  Conduct field experiment with current users on s2h.com platform  Better simulate S2H experience (duration of study, length of experiment, game, and rewards) Implications Further Research Implementation Recommendations
  19. 19. Implementation Suggestions  Organization beyond Engagement System  Segmenting Rewards by Gender  Product Advertisement by Physical Activities Recommendations Implications Further Research Implementation
  20. 20. Put Your Hands Up For S2H! Thank You! Any Questions? Q&A Session
  21. 21. Appendix Appendix
  22. 22. Other Data Analyses 19% 81% Familiarity with Computer Game (Lint) Yes No Appendix 5.97 1 3 5 7 9 Likeability LikeabilityScores (Mean) Computer Game (Lint) Likeability Scores: 1 = Dislike, 5.5 = Indifferent, 10 = Like
  23. 23. Other Data Analyses 75% 25% Helpfulness of a Hypothetical Leveling Structure Yes No 80% 20% Control Condition Yes No 71% 29% Experimental Condition Yes No
  24. 24. Other Data Analyses  Number of Rewards Attempted Appendix
  25. 25. Other Data Analyses  Number of Rewards Achieved Appendix
  26. 26. Group 1 Survey Questions Appendix
  27. 27. Appendix
  28. 28. Appendix
  29. 29. Appendix
  30. 30. Appendix
  31. 31. Appendix
  32. 32. Appendix
  33. 33. Appendix
  34. 34. Appendix
  35. 35. Appendix
  36. 36. Group 2 Survey Questions Appendix
  37. 37. Appendix
  38. 38. Appendix
  39. 39. Appendix
  40. 40. Appendix
  41. 41. Appendix
  42. 42. Appendix
  43. 43. Appendix
  44. 44. Appendix
  45. 45. Appendix
  46. 46. Appendix
  47. 47. Appendix
  48. 48. Appendix
  49. 49. Demographics Questions Appendix
  50. 50. Appendix
  51. 51. Appendix
  52. 52. Appendix
  53. 53. Appendix
  54. 54. Appendix

×