Factors affecting Satisfaction

Time pressure and Comparison Factors on Satisfaction Chong Kang Cherng B1100963 Department of Psychology PSY 201 Miss Cheong Win Nee

Factors affecting Satisfaction Abstract This study is about the effect of time pressure and comparable factors of options on the

satisfaction level of the participants on the choice they made. There were 30 participants (21 Females) HELP University students took part in this study whom aged between 18 to 25 years old. During the experiment, the participants were asked to make a decision from three options with different amount of items in each option and rate on a satisfaction scale either with or without time pressure. The effect of number of comparable factor on satisfaction was not significant while time pressure was found to decrease satisfaction level. No interaction effect was found between time pressure and number of comparable factors on satisfaction level.

Factors affecting Satisfaction Time Pressure and Comparison Factors on Satisfaction Satisfaction is the key that make people coming back for more and it is essential in

every business to satisfy their clients. Looking at the ways to satisfy clients, we can conclude that there are some methods that need practices, while some other methods seem to boost the satisfaction levels of the clients automatically. In the field of psychology, there were many researches and experiments done, trying to figure out the factors that affect the satisfaction level of people. According to Iyengar & Lepper (2000, as cited in Hanko, Ibar & Gilovich, 2006), people who were given a fewer options are more satisfied with their choice compared to those who were given many options. This could be explained by a phenomenon which is known as the overchoice effect (Gourville & Soman, 2005, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010) or the too-much-choice effect (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2009; Greifeneder, Scheibehenne & Kleber, 2010), which suggested that satisfaction level decreases as a result of having too many choices. In the study done by Iyengar and Lepper (2000, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010), participants were asked to choose a chocolate from an array of either six or thirty chocolates. The result showed that the participants who were asked to choose from six chocolates are more satisfied with their decision (Iyengar & Lepper, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd). Some other research that uses other items as a replacement for chocolate was found to have similar result (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). For example, in Shah and Wolfords (2007) experiment where participants were not prior informed about the experiment, the participants were required to choose one most desirable pen from either a set of two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen or twenty pens (Shah & Wolford) where the satisfaction level was measured by the actual purchasing of the selected

Factors affecting Satisfaction

pen (Shah & Wolford). Their result was consistent with that of Iyengar and Leppers (Shah & Wolford). Other experiments where they used other items such as coffee (Mogilner et al. 2008, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd) and gift box (Reutskaja and Hogarth, 2009, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd) also yield similar result, which supported the strength of the effect of options complexity on satisfaction level. There were also researches that found a similar result. In Reutskaja and Hogarths experiment (2006) on satisfaction level, they examined how the complexity of choices, instead of the amount of options, affects the satisfaction level in the choice one made. In their experiment, they let the participants to be in groups that need to make a choice from a set of gift boxes (Reutskaja & Hogarth). The participants were asked to choose a gift box from a set of gift boxes of 5, 10, 15 or 30 gift boxes, boxes in each sets were with a condition of either in same shape and same colour, different shapes and different colours or same colour but different shapes, the different shapes and different colours condition was considered a more complex set as there were two alternatives (Reutskaja & Hogarth). They were told a scenario that they were going to choose a gift for their friend from the set of gift boxes and they were unaware of the other sets of alternatives (Reutskaja & Hogarth). The result of their experiment supported their first hypothesis which is that the satisfaction level is an inverted U-shaped function to the number of alternatives (Reutskaja & Hogarth) which means that sets with 5 options and 30 options caused a lower satisfaction level for the participants after they made their choice while participants who chose from either 10 or 15 options were more satisfied with their decision (Reutskaja & Hogarth), which is different from the other researches that claimed having lesser choice is better. Furthermore, the more complex the option was, the lower the satisfaction regardless of the number of options given (Reutskaja & Hogarth).

Factors affecting Satisfaction Despite all the supporting result of the mentioned experiment, arguments were brought up to challenge the choice overload theory (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). For example, in Andersons book The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is

Selling Less of More (2006), he mentioned that a larger pool of options can actually satisfy a more diverse population. Furthermore, looking at an actual field analysis, reducing the number of choice is causing fewer sales for companies (Boatwright & Nunes, 2001). Another argument that opposed choice overload theory that was made by Hutchinson (2005, as cited in Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd) stated that having more options give the chooser an opportunity to compare between options at one spot, which gave them a higher chance of making the most desirable decision and thus increase the ultimate satisfaction level. Furthermore, the result of Anderson, Taylor, and Holloways experiment which was done in 1966 was used to challenge the theory of choice overload. The result of their experiment showed that those who was given more choice was more satisfied compared to those who have less choice (Anderson, Taylor, & Holloway). While looking at Hanko, Inbar and Gilovichs study (2006), another factor was noticed to be included in their experiment, which was the time pressure. This gave us an idea on the influence of time pressure on satisfaction level. The result of their experiment showed the effect of time pressure on satisfaction level: choice made from a smaller set of options under time pressure was more satisfying compared to choice made from a larger set of options under time pressure, and choice made from both small and large set of options are equally satisfying when without time pressure (Hanko, Inbar & Gilovich). After a few years, Hanko and Inbar, together with Bottin from the London Business School, did another study on the satisfaction level of choosers when they are choosing with the feeling of being rushed, which means that they were choosing under time pressure (2011). In their experiment, they used the sound of metronome to manipulate the feeling of being

Factors affecting Satisfaction rushed, where a 40 beats per minute metronome was being used in the low time pressure

group, and an 80 beats per minute metronome was being used in the high time pressure group (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). The time for the participants to make their choice in all the treatments was kept constant, which is 2 minutes (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). There were 166 participants participated in their study and they were asked to choose a DVD from either a large set of DVD (45 DVDs) or a DVD from a small set of DVDs (3 sets of DVDs, each set with 15 DVDs), and they were told that they can have a chance of getting the DVD after the experiment (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). Cover image and a brief plot synopsis of each DVD were provided (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). After 2 minutes of choosing the DVDs, the participants were asked to write the name of the DVD they had chosen and they were asked to fill in a regret scale and also a rushed scale (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). The result of their experiment showed that those who chose from a larger set of DVDs under high time pressure are more likely to regret than those who chose from a smaller set under time pressure (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). Those who were in the low time pressure group showed no difference in satisfaction no matter the set size they have to choose from (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). Having the information that the complexity of choice and time pressure has an impact on the satisfaction level of people, we came out with an experiment to further examine the relationship between the variables as the effect of each variable was still unclear. In this study, we took the experiment done by Inbar, Bottin and Hanko (2011) and also the experiment done by Reutskaja and Hogarth (2006) as guide lines, we ran an experiment in the fashion of 3 (comparable factors of options: 5, 10, 15) x 2 (Time pressure: With time pressure, without time pressure) independent design. There were three options for all the groups and only the amount of items in each option was different between the levels. Instead of using a metronome to induce time pressure (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko), we reminded the remaining time every 30 seconds to the participants in the time pressure group. Other than that, we gave the

Factors affecting Satisfaction participants 5 minutes to make their decision, instead of giving the participants 2 minutes (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko) to make their decision because we wanted to see if using a longer

time would affect the effect of time pressure or not. A scenario was given to the participants, hopping that they will make their choice seriously from the three options. Our experiment was basically a replication of the past researches but with some slight changes. Three hypotheses were made after reviewing the past researches. Firstly, the larger the number of factors to compare between options, the lower the satisfaction level after making a choice. Secondly, we hypothesize that participants will have less satisfaction on the decision made when they were under time pressure. Lastly, participant will have less decision satisfaction when they were required to make a decision that have large amount of comparison under time pressure. The result of the experiment can be useful to many fields including business as well as education and also our daily live. We could manipulate peoples satisfaction level by changing the complexity of choice we gave other people and also whether or not to give them a sense of time pressure. Method Design Our experiment is a 3 X 2 independent design experiment. Our IVs are the amount of comparable factors of options, with 5, 10 and 15 comparable factors of options as our levels and the presence of time pressure or without time pressure as the levels of the second IV. The first IV were manipulated by showing the participants with a scenario and 3 options with either 5, 10 or 15 comparable factors depends on the treatment the participants were in. The second IV were manipulated by constantly (interval of 30 seconds) mentioning the remaining time for them to make their choice. The total time for them to make their choice was 5 minutes in all of the treatments. The DV of our experiment is the post-choice satisfaction,

Factors affecting Satisfaction which is the satisfaction level of participants after the choice was made. The DV was

measured by asking the participants to rate their satisfaction level using a Likert scale scaled from 1 (Extremely not satisfied) to 5 (Extremely Satisfied). Participants Thirty participants were recruited for this experiment. They were haphazardly sampled from the PSY 201 class in HELP University. The participants were aged from 18 to 25 years old males and females who are able to understand English. Materials Three sets of A4 sized questionnaire (Ten copies each) describing a scenario with three options to choose from, each set was with a different amount of items listed in the options (Set 1 was with 5 comparable factors listed in all three options, Set 2 was with 10 comparable factors and Set 3 was with 15 comparable factors, refer to Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C respectively), and the factors (Items) were randomly chosen from the category of food and drinks and tools from the dictionary. A satisfaction scale which can be found in Appendix D (Thirty copies) and sixty pieces of informed consent form (Appendix E) was used in this study. Procedure The thirty participants were divided into six groups, each group with five participants. The first three groups were assigned into the Time Pressure group and the other three groups were assigned into the Non-Time Pressure group. Group 1 and Group 4 was in the five comparable factors list group, Group 2 and Group 5 was in the ten comparable factors list group and Group 3 and Group 6 was in the 15 comparable factors list group. During the experiment, the participants were told the purpose and procedure of this study and then they were asked to read and sign the informed consent form in 2 minutes. After the informed consent form was signed, the researcher then collects the informed consent form and then a

Factors affecting Satisfaction

questionnaire was distributed, faced-down, on the table. After all the participants in the group was distributed the questionnaire, they were instructed to flip it over and all of the participants were given five minutes to choose from the three options no matter which group they were in, however, the remaining time was constantly informed to the participants in the time pressure groups. After the time is up, the researcher then collects the questionnaire and a satisfaction scale was distributed to all of the participants, faced-down, on the table. After all the participants received the scale, they were then told to flip it over and they were given 2 minutes to rate their satisfaction level of the choice they made on the satisfaction scale. After that, the satisfaction scales were collected and the participants were thanked and were allowed to leave the room. All of the instructions were given by reading a script prepared (Refer to Appendix F for the script used in the Time Pressure group and Appendix G for the script used in the Non-Time Pressure group). Result The data we collected on the satisfaction scale was analyzed using a two-way ANOVA. The analyzed data can be found in Table 1. Table 1 Mean difference of time pressure and numbers of comparable factors on decision satisfaction Decision Satisfaction Time Pressure Numbers of Comparable Factor Time Pressure with Numbers of comparable Factors 4.80 0.63 0.90

Note: A higher mean represent more influence on decision satisfaction while for lower mean represent less influence on decision satisfaction.

Factors affecting Satisfaction Table 1 showed that time pressure have an effect on satisfaction level while the number of comparable factor have a non-significant effect on satisfaction level. The mean scores of each treatment can be found in Table 2. Table 2 Mean difference of treatments on decision satisfaction Time Pressure With Time Pressure Numbers of Comparable Factors 5 Comparable Factors 10 Comparable Factors 15 Comparable Factors 4.80 4.00 4.80 3.40 3.80 4.00 Without Time Pressure

10

Note: A higher mean represent a higher decision satisfaction while for lower mean represent la lower decision satisfaction. The result of the experiment showed that there was a significant main effect of time pressure on ones satisfaction level, F (1, 24) = 7.385, p < .05. However, there is no significant main effect of number of comparable factors on satisfaction level, F (2, 24) = .974, ns. The interaction effect of the two IVs was also not significant, F (2, 24) = 1.38, ns. Discussion In this study, we examined the effect of time pressure and number of comparable factor on satisfaction level. The result showed that people are more satisfied with the decision they made when they are not under time pressure. The amount of comparable factors has a non-significant effect on peoples satisfaction level. The interaction effect between the number of comparable factors and time pressure was also not significant. We made three hypotheses before we ran the experiment. The first hypothesis was the larger the number of factors to compare between options, the lower the satisfaction level after

Factors affecting Satisfaction

11

making a choice. The second hypothesis was that participants will have less satisfaction on the decision made when they were under time pressure. The last hypotheses was that the participant will have less decision satisfaction when they were required to make a decision that have large amount of comparison under time pressure. The results of our experiment showed that only one hypothesis was supported, which is that the participants will have less satisfaction on the decision made when they were under time pressure. While looking at the possible reasons for our hypothesis of the number of comparable factors on satisfaction level to be rejected, a few possible explanations could be used. Firstly, some claimed that there is a precondition required for choice overload to happen, which is that the items used as options should be unfamiliar to the chooser (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). When compared to Inbar, Bottin and Hankos experiment (2011), the items we used in our study were all selected randomly from the dictionary and those are things that can be seen on daily basis, therefore, the precondition for choice overload was not met and this may be a reason for the effect of numbers of comparable factors to have no significant effect on the participants satisfaction level. Secondly, the scenario used in their experiment was more realistic and more relatable compared to ours as our scenario used to induce the need of them to make a choice relies heavily on imagination. A more realistic scenario which the participants could relate to more easily could be used to improve the manipulation of our experiment. Thirdly, the difference between the numbers of comparable factors is relatively closer when compared to the size differences of the options they used in their study. This could also be a factor that caused the effect of the number of comparable factors to be insignificant. Fourthly, the participants were aware of the presence of other set size as they were told the detail of this experiment before the experiment begun. As Reutskaja and Hogarth
(2006) stated in their study, the awareness of the presence of other set size could affect the

Factors affecting Satisfaction

12

satisfaction level of participants, we could use a minor deception to blind the participants from knowing the existence of other set size.

On the other hand, the result of their experiment supported their hypothesis on the effect of time pressure on satisfaction level (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). They predicted that the higher the time pressure, the lower the satisfaction level (Inbar, Bottin & Hanko). Their finding on the effect of time pressure on satisfaction level is consistent with the result of our experiment. The hypothesis made by Inbar, Bottin and Hanko (2011) on time pressure was that the higher the time pressure, the lower the satisfaction level. Their result supported their hypothesis and our result was consistent with their result. We found that people who made their decision under time pressure are less satisfied with their choice, which is also consistent with our hypothesis. In order to identify the reason for the similarity of our result, we need to examine the method Inbar, Bottin and Hankos experiment in manipulating the time pressure. In their experiment, they used the sound of metronome, while our experiment used a female human speaker to remind the remaining time to the participant. Despite the difference in our ways of inducing time pressure, our method was capable of producing a similar effect on the participants satisfaction level, and this showed us that we can induce time pressure on people if we kept on rushing them, which is not a good thing if we want to satisfy them. However, a manipulation check scale should be included in future study in order to make sure that the reminding of remaining time can actually imply time pressure on people. A factor that might be an extraneous variable to our experiment is the difference in the smell of the room we used to run our experiment. There was a smell of cleaning agent in one room but not the other room, and scent can have an effect on satisfaction level. The effect of scent on mood was supported by Edwards (1995) and mood can have an impact on ones

Factors affecting Satisfaction satisfaction level on something (McCrea, 2003). To eliminate the possibility of such

13

extraneous variable to happen again in the future, one room should be used instead of using two different rooms. This could also ensure the setting of the room is the same in all the conditions. The result we found was that low time pressure can increase choosers satisfaction after they made the choice, this could be applied to many fields and situations including schools, business, services and many other more. By knowing that the number of comparable factors have a non-significant effect on satisfaction, we could then focus our attention on other variable that could possibly affect the satisfaction level of participants after they made a choice. The results of our experiment is not absolute answer to the question, however, our experiment did some contribution to the area of humans satisfaction level. We could further examine the possible conditions where satisfaction level would be affected.

Factors affecting Satisfaction References Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more.

14

Retrieved from http://nangchang2blog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/17092494-thelong-tail.pdf Anderson, L. K., Taylor, J. R., & Holloway, R. J. (1966). The consumer and his alternatives: An experimental approach. Journal of Marketing Research 3(1), 62-67. Boatwright, P., & Nunes, J. C. (2001). Reducing Assortment: An attribute-based approach. Retrieved from https://msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/jnunes/intellcont/Reducing%20%20Assort ment-1.pdf Edwards, R. (1995). Psychology & Society: Pleasant aromas chase away those bitter moods. Washington, District of Columbia, US: American Psychological Association. Greifeneder, R., Scheibehenne, B., & Kleber, N. (2010). Less may be more when choosing is difficult: Choice complexity and too much choice. Acta Psychologica 133, 45-50. Hanko, K., Inbar, Y., & Gilovich, T. (2006). When is too much choice too much to handle? Fort Wayne, Indiana, US: Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA). Inbar, Y., Bottin, S., & Hanko, K. (2011). Decision speed and choice regret: When haste feels like waste. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.011 McCrea, R. P. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying mood bias in life satisfaction judgements: Affect-as-information or affect priming? Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/publications/resources/thesis-mccrea-r.pdf Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2006). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When goods satiate but bads escalate. Retrieved from http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/903.pdf

Factors affecting Satisfaction Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too-muchchoice effect? Psychology & Marketing, 26(3). Doi: 10.1002/mar.20271 Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many

15

options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37. Doi: 10.1086/651235 Shah, A. M., Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choices. Psychological Science, 18(5), 369-370.

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix A You were kidnapped and brought to a deserted island by a maniac who is interested to see

16

people struggle for live. You will be left on the island for a week until the maniac take you out of the island if you managed to stay alive. You were then given a chance to choose one backpack from three backpacks filled with survival equipment.

Survival Bag A
Bottle of Coco Cola Cutters Cans Curry Chicken Boxes of Matches Pack of Rice

Survival Bag B
KitKat Bars Needle Packs of Beans Hammers Cup Noodle

Survival Bag C
Energy Bars Jacket Packs of Oat Packs of Milk Powder Fishing Rod

**All above items, food & beverage are randomly selected from the dictionary that fall under
the same categories (under the food & beverage and items categories).

Your decision is: _______

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix B You were kidnapped and brought to a deserted island by a maniac who is interested to see

17

people struggle for live. You will be left on the island for a week until the maniac take you out of the island if you managed to stay alive. You were then given a chance to choose one backpack from three backpacks filled with survival equipment.

Survival Bag A
Bottle of Coco Cola Cutters Cans Curry Chicken Boxes of Matches Pack of Rice Shaver Sleeping Bag Charcoal Diamond Ring Banana

Survival Bag B
KitKat Bars Needle Packs of Beans Hammers Cup Noodle Jacket Compass Charcoal Touch Light Umbrella

Survival Bag C
Energy Bars Jacket Packs of Oat Packs of Milk Powder Fishing Rod Pail Empty Bottle Pencils Compass Candy Bars

**All above items, food & beverage are randomly selected from the dictionary that fall under the same categories (under the food & beverage and items categories).

Your decision is: _______

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix C You were kidnapped and brought to a deserted island by a maniac who is interested to see

18

people struggle for live. You will be left on the island for a week until the maniac take you out of the island if you managed to stay alive. You were then given a chance to choose one backpack from three backpacks filled with survival equipment.

Survival Bag A
1.5LCoco Cola Cutters Curry Chicken Cans Matches Pack of Rice Shaver Sleeping Bag Charcoal Diamond Ring Banana Skew 25m Rope Convex Len Book Knife

Survival Bag B
KitKat Bars Needle Packs of Beans Hammers Cup Noodle Jacket Compass Charcoal Touch Light Umbrella Map Plain Bread Cheese Grilled Chicken Battery

Survival Bag C
Energy Bars Jacket Packs of Oat Packs of Milk Powder Fishing Rod Pail Empty Bottle Pencils Compass Candy Bars Wine Magnet Magnify Watches Cup Noodle

**All above items, food & beverage are randomly selected from the dictionary that fall under the same categories (under the food & beverage and items categories). Your decision is: _______

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix D Likert Scale

19

Please circle the number that you think most represents your rating of satisfaction based on the decision you made in the scenario just now.

Extremely Not Satisfy 1 2 3 4 5

Extremely Satisfy

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix F 1. Thank you for participating in this experiment on The Influence of Time Pressure and Numbers of Comparable Factors on Decision Satisfaction 2. Please turn off your mobile phone or switch it to silence before the experiment begins. 3. In this experiment, you will need to do a test and then rate on a scale measurement.

20

4. No risk will be anticipated in this study other than minimal fatigue. 5. You will be rewarded 30 minutes of experimental hours for participating in our study. 6. Your part in this study is confidential. None of the information will identify you by name and only group data will be released for research study. The data collected will only be assessed by the researcher and the supervisor of the research. 7. There are 2 copies of informed consent forms on the table. Please read through it and sign it if you agree to participate in the experiment. You have 1 minute to do so. 8. Please keep one for yourself and pass up another one to the experimenter. 9. If you wish to end your participation in this study at any point of time, you may inform the experimenter and leave the room. 10. Now, the experimenter will collect the informed consent form and distribute another paper to you.Do not flip over the papers distributed until directed. 11. Now, please open the distributed paper and read through the scenario inside the test. 12. You have 5 Minutes to complete the test, from now onward. 13. You have 4 Minute 30 seconds left. 14. You have 3 Minute 30 seconds left. 15. You have 2 Minute 30 seconds left. 16. You have 1 Minute 30 seconds left. 17. You have 30 seconds left.Time up. 18. The experimenter will collect the test paper and distribute a scales measurement questionnaire. Please read through the questionnaire clearly and pick the most suitable scale according to your choice satisfaction in the previous task. 19. You have 2 minutes to complete the questionnaire. 20. The experimenter will collect the questionnaire now. 21. Thank you for participating in the experiment, the experiment has now ended. 22. Please do not share the detail of the experiment among your friend and classmate as it may create diffusion and extraneous variable in our research. You may leave the room now. You have 4 Minutes left You have 3 Minutes left You have 2 Minutes left You have 1 Minutes left

Factors affecting Satisfaction Appendix G 1. Thank you for participating in this experiment on The Influence of Time Pressure and Numbers of Comparable Factors on Decision Satisfaction 2. Please turn off your mobile phone or switch it to silence before the experiment begins. 3. In this experiment, you will need to do a test and then rate on a scale measurement.

21

4. No risk will be anticipated in this study other than minimal fatigue. 5. You will be rewarded 30 minutes of experimental hours for participating in our study. 6. Your part in this study is confidential. None of the information will identify you by name and only group data will be released for research study. The data collected will only be assessed by the researcher and the supervisor of the research. 7. There are 2 copies of informed consent forms on the table. Please read through it and sign it if you agree to participate in the experiment. You have 1 minute to do so. 8. Please keep one for yourself and pass up another one to the experimenter. 9. If you wish to end your participation in this study at any point of time, you may inform the experimenter and leave the room. 10. Now, the experimenter will collect the informed consent form and distribute another paper to you.Do not flip over the papers distributed until directed. 11. Now, please open the distributed paper and read through the scenario inside the test. You have 5 Minutes to complete the test from now onward. 12. The experimenter will collect the test paper and distribute a scales measurement questionnaire. Please read through the questionnaire clearly and pick the most suitable scale according to your choice satisfaction in the previous task. 13. You have 2 minutes to complete the questionnaire. 14. The experimenter will collect the questionnaire now. 15. Thank you for participating in the experiment, the experiment has now ended. 16. Please do not share the detail of the experiment among your friend and classmate as it may create diffusion and extraneous variable in our research. You may leave the room now.