Meaning of Manual Labor Impedes Consumer

Adoption of Autonomous Products

Journal of Marketing 2023, Vol. 87(6) 949-965 (ABDC - A*)

Emanuel de Bellis, Gita Venkataramani Johar, and Nicola Poletti

Presented By

Siby M Yohannan
FPM22M0010
Introduction
• Completion of chores can also be associated with
satisfaction and positive feelings.

• Novel construct “meaning of manual labor” (MML)

as one way through which consumers may derive
meaning in life (Heintzelman and King 2014).

• When alternative sources of meaning are made

salient (Spending time with friends and family or
advancing their career ), this is likely to reduce
resistance to adopting autonomous products.

• Increasing the salience of alternative sources of

meaning in life offsets the effect.
Theoretical Background

• An autonomous product “is self-sufficient and requires

no human intervention; it can learn and adjust to
dynamic environments and evolve as the environment
around it changes”.

• MML acts as a barrier to the adoption of autonomous

products .

• Consumers who derive more (vs. less) meaning from

completing manual tasks

(1) are likely to evaluate autonomous products less

favorably and

(2) are less likely to adopt them.

 Making Alternative Sources of Meaning Salient

• “Meaning maintenance model,” which posits that when people’s sense of meaning is
threatened, they reaffirm alternative representations to regain meaning (a process
termed fluid compensation; Heine, Proulx, and Vohs 2006).

• They free up time (Carmon et al. 2019).

• The effect of MML on autonomous product adoption is offset if alternative sources of
meaning are made salient.
 Overview of Studies

• Study 1 - What extent MML is related to the adoption of autonomous products and specific
attitudes toward them.

• Study 2 - The causal effect of MML on autonomous product adoption in a tightly controlled
setting.

• Study 3 - Conceptual differences between MML and identity relevance while testing the
robustness of the effect (i.e., whether the effect generalizes to automated products that do not
completely eliminate manual labor).

• Study 4 - Individualspecific intervention that provides meaning to consumers based on the time
saving nature of autonomous products.
 Study 1: Representative Survey on Meaning of
Manual Labor as Adoption Barrier

•First Part - General Attitude: Participants were asked about their general attitude toward autonomous products on a seven-point
Likert scale.

•Second Part - Participants rated ten proposed advantages and ten proposed disadvantages of autonomous products on seven-
point Likert scales.

•Third Part - Questions were included regarding consumers' expected time gain when using autonomous products.

•Fourth Part - Abbreviated scales of Manual Labor Mindset (MML) and technology savviness were included, measured on seven
point Likert scales

•At the end of the survey, participants could express their preferences for eight products, consisting of both autonomous and
conventional versions across four domains (cleaning, cooking, lighting, and speakers)
Results
• MML showed a tendency to correlate negatively with education level. r was -0.06, and the p-value was marginally significant at
0.051.

• The mean MML score for females was 4.64, while for males, it was 4.81.t-value of 1.94, p-value of 0.053, and a small effect size
(Cohen's d = 0.122).

• There were no significant differences in MML concerning age, household income, the presence of children (yes/no), and
technology savviness.

• Higher MML scores were associated with lower preference for autonomous products. (b= -0.09, SE=0.03, P=0.002, η2=0.010)
• The negative association between MML scores and autonomous product preference remained robust even after incorporating
various sociodemographic variables.

• Analyzing only those consumers who agreed to share their email address (entered the lottery) produced consistent effects.
Results

• MML was negatively associated with consumers' general attitude toward autonomous products. even
after controlling for consumers’ language, technology savviness, age, sex, and household income.

• MML was positively associated with an aggregated score of ten disadvantages of autonomous products.
• MML was negatively associated with an aggregated score of ten advantages of autonomous products.
• The results suggest that when time gain is made salient, a significant portion of consumers expects to use
the freed up time for leisure related activities.
Study 2: Manipulation of Meaning of Manual Labor

• Establish causal evidence for the impact of Manual Labor Mindset (MML) on the valuation
and adoption of autonomous products.

• MML was manipulated The goal was to demonstrate that changes in MML specifically lead to
alterations in the perception and acceptance of autonomous products.

• The study aimed to show that MML lowers the valuation and adoption of autonomous products
specifically, rather than affecting other types of innovative products that are not
autonomous.

• The study did not anticipate significant effects of MML for non-autonomous products.
Pretesting process of the Manual Labor Mindset (MML)
manipulation conducted before the main study.

• 195 North American participants were recruited for the pretest.

• Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) via CloudResearch.
• Participants in the high MML condition were asked to recall a manual task that was meaningful to them in the
past.

• Participants in the low MML condition were asked to recall a manual task that was not meaningful to them.
• Participants in the control condition were asked to recall any manual task they completed in the past.
• The pretest successfully validated the MML manipulation by showing that participants in different conditions had
significantly different MML scores.
Procedure
• Participants were introduced to a "recall task" in the pretest, and they were randomly assigned
to either the high-MML (n = 367) or low-MML (n = 361) condition.

• They were asked to imagine a scenario focused on either cleaning or lawn mowing.
• Participants were then randomly assigned to different product autonomy conditions,
manipulating the level of autonomy in a household appliance.

• Product image given and Product descriptions varied based on the assigned autonomy
condition, ranging from fully autonomous to not autonomous.

• In the final part of the study, participants responded to measures of product valuation, adoption
likelihood, autonomy of the product, and innovativeness of the product.
Measures

• Product Valuation: Assessed using a four-item measure on seven-point scales.

• Adoption Likelihood: Measured with one item on a slider, asking participants to rate how likely they are to adopt the
product on a scale from 0 to 100.

• Product Autonomy and Innovativeness: Perceived product autonomy and perceived product innovativeness were
measured with one item each.

• Manual Labor Mindset (MML):Two items for each facet of meaning: purpose, significance, and coherence.
• Previous Experience with Autonomous Product: Assessed with one item asking participants to indicate how much
experience they have with an autonomous vacuum cleaner or lawn mower.

• Social and Economic Conservatism: Measured using a 12-item scale from Everett (2013).
Result

• An analysis of variance with MML and product autonomy as factors and product
valuation as the dependent variable revealed a significant interaction

• High MML decreased product valuation in the high autonomy condition

• In the low autonomy and innovative condition, high MML increased product valuation

• Similar results were found for adoption likelihood, the second dependent variable.
Study 3: Meaning of Manual Labor and Identity Relevance

• The primary goal was to differentiate the influence of MML on autonomous product
adoption from that of identity relevance.

• A second objective was to replicate the findings from Study 2, emphasizing that the
effects observed in relation to MML may not apply to merely automated products.

• Employed a 2 (MML: high vs. low) × 2 (technology type: autonomous vs. automated)×2
(task identity relevance: more vs. less) mixed design, with the first two factors being
manipulated between subjects and the third within-subjects.
Procedure
• Participants were initially asked to rate the identity relevance of various household chores.
• MML was manipulated using the recall task from Study 2, randomly assigning participants to either the high-MML
(n = 207) or low-MML (n = 198) condition.

• In the second part of the study, participants were randomly assigned to either the autonomous (n=202) or
automated (n=203) condition.

• Descriptions were provided for both an autonomous cooking machine and an autonomous dishwasher, emphasizing
the technology's capabilities.

• Automated versions were also described

• No images of the products were shown in this study to minimize potential confounds.
• In all conditions, participants provided evaluations of the product.
Result
• Participants rated cooking as the most identity-relevant activity, followed by doing the dishes, doing the washing, vacuuming, and
lawn mowing.

• A significant interaction was found between MML and technology type, indicating that the effect of MML on product valuation
depends on whether the product is autonomous or automated.

• There were significant main effects of technology type and identity relevance, suggesting that these factors independently
influence product valuation.

• High (vs. low) MML decreased the valuation for autonomous products but did not have a significant effect on automated
products.The decrease in valuation for autonomous products was evident regardless of the identity relevance of the tasks (more or
less identity-relevant).

• High (vs. low) MML decreased the valuation for both autonomous products associated with more and less identity-relevant tasks.
• The observed effects remained consistent even when controlling for the measured identity relevance of manual tasks.
Study 4: Meaningful Time Gain from Using Autonomous Products

• Provide an effective intervention for firms.

• Offer additional evidence for the central role of Manual Labor Mindset (MML) in
autonomous product adoption.
Measures

• MML Assessment:Utilized a simple constant sum scale.

• Participants rated two dimensions—manual tasks and cognitive tasks—according to the meaning in life they provide.

• Identity Relevance: Assessed using a scale (α = .93).

• Expertise: Assessed using a scale (α = .95).

• Technology Savviness: Assessed using a scale (α = .80).

• Meaning in Life: Assessed with two subscales gauging presence of and search for meaning.

• Meaningful Time Gain Condition: Description of the autonomous version included an extra attribute: "Allows you to spend
time on more meaningful tasks and pursuits than cleaning."Participants asked to explain which device they would use.
Results
• Significant interaction between MML and the product description (meaningful time gain vs. control).

• In the control condition, higher MML was associated with a negative and significant effect on autonomous product
choice.

• In the meaningful time gain condition, this negative effect of MML on product choice was not significant, indicating a
potential intervention effect.

• The findings support the idea that making the time gain from using autonomous products more salient can mitigate the
negative impact of MML on consumer choices.

• The Johnson–Neyman point of 48.77 signifies a critical value for MML, above which the positive effect of the product
description is significant.

• For consumers with MML scores above 48.77, emphasizing the meaningful use of time gained by using autonomous
products increases the likelihood of choosing the autonomous product.
Future Research Directions

• Investigate if negative effects associated with autonomous products (loss of autonomy,

disempowerment, privacy concerns, technology dependence) are exacerbated for high-MML
consumers.
• Explore the impact of anthropomorphizing autonomous products on consumers high in MML.
• Assess if high-MML consumers prefer autonomous technologies that substitute cognitive tasks,
such as shopping systems or generative artificial intelligence.
• Examine how factors like agency, authority, self-reliance, and moral attributions (e.g., laziness)
influence consumer responses to autonomous products.
• Investigate whether consumers adapt to and find new ways to satisfy their quest for meaning over
time with familiar technologies.
Questions
Thank You