The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Health and Human Development
NOT ALL ADVERTISEMENTS ARE CREATED EQUAL: THE ROLE OF
CONSTRUAL LEVEL ON HEDONIC AND UTILITARIAN ATTRIBUTES
A Dissertation in
Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management
by
Ju Yeon Han
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
December 2015
ii
The dissertation of Ju Yeon Han was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Anna S. Mattila Professor of Hospitality Management Marriott Professor of Lodging Management Dissertation Advisor Graduate Program Chair Chair of Committee
Hubert B. Van Hoof Professor of Hospitality Management
Seoki Lee Associate Professor of Hospitality Management
Lisa Bolton Professor of Marketing SMEAL College of Business
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT The current dissertation examines the ways in which utilitarian and hedonic attributes of
a product/service in an advertisement can be effectively presented. Specifically, this dissertation
identifies the effect of consumers’ construal level (abstract versus concrete), framing (gain-
framing versus loss-framing), and type of attribute (hedonic versus utilitarian) on their evaluation
of products or services. The four research questions are: 1) Under what conditions, would
emphasizing hedonic versus utilitarian attributes be more effective in an advertisement? 2)
Would an individual’s construal level influence his/her evaluation of the product that emphasizes
hedonic versus utilitarian attributes? 3) Would it matter whether the message was gained-framed
or loss-framed? 4) What is the underlying psychological mechanism of this effect?
The results of the two pre-studies and two main studies demonstrated that consumer’s
construal level significantly influences how he/she evaluates a product/service with hedonic and
utilitarian attributes. In detail, consumers with an abstract mindset focused more on hedonic
attributes (versus utilitarian attributes), and thus they perceived the product/service more
positively when hedonic attributes were emphasized. However, this result was only significant
when the hedonic attributes were framed as a gain. When the attributes were framed as a loss,
consumers with an abstract mindset did not favor the product/service that emphasized hedonic
attributes (versus utilitarian attributes). On the other hand, consumers with a concrete mindset
favored more product/service that emphasized utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes)
framed as a loss. However, when utilitarian attributes were framed as a gain, consumers with a
concrete mindset did not favor more product/service that emphasized utilitarian attributes (versus
hedonic attributes). Additionally, the results indicated that process fluency underlies this effect.
iv
The findings of this dissertation have important theoretical contributions and managerial
implications for marketing practitioners. Additionally, limitations are acknowledged and
avenues for future research are discussed.
v
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 5
Hedonic versus Utilitarian Attributes ....................................................................................................... 5
Construal Level Theory ............................................................................................................................ 7
Processing Fluency ................................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 15
Hedonic versus Utilitarian Attributes ..................................................................................................... 15
Construal Level Theory and Processing Fluency.................................................................................... 16
Boundary Factor of Regulatory Focus .................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 4 METHOD AND RESULTS OF STUDY 1 ...................................................................... 24
Pretest .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Procedure and Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 25
Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 26
Analysis and Results .......................................................................................................................... 26
Main Study ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Procedure and Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 28
Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 30
Manipulation Check .......................................................................................................................... 32
Analysis and Results .......................................................................................................................... 33
Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 5 METHOD AND RESULTS OF STUDY 2 ...................................................................... 38
Pretest .................................................................................................................................................... 38
Procedure and Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 39
Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 39
Analysis and Results .......................................................................................................................... 40
vi
Main Study ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Procedure and Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 41
Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 42
Manipulation Check .......................................................................................................................... 43
Analysis and Results .......................................................................................................................... 43
Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 6 GENERAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................... 48
Theoretical Contributions ....................................................................................................................... 48
Managerial Implications ......................................................................................................................... 50
Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................................................ 51
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 53
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-Conceptual Diagram 1 .................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-Conceptual Diagram 2 .................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-Mean Plots of Study 1 Results ....................................................................................... 36
Figure 4-Mean Plots of Study 2 Results ....................................................................................... 46
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Behavioral Identification Form (BIF) ........................................................................................... 32
Table 2-ANCOVA Table in Attitude for Study 1 ....................................................................................... 34
Table 3-ANCOVA Table on Behavioral Intention for Study 1 .................................................................. 35
Table 4-ANCOVA Table on Attitude for Study 2 ...................................................................................... 45
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor and chair of the
committee, Dr. Anna Mattila, for her guidance, encouragement, and patience over the last four
years. Without her, the completion of the degree and this dissertation would not have been
possible. I am extremely grateful for all her support.
I would also like to thank Dr. Hubert B. Van Hoof, Dr. Lisa Bolton, and Dr. Seoki Lee
for serving on my committee. I have learned so much from Dr. Van Hoof who took time to talk
with me and give me countless advices during the past four years. I feel extremely fortunate to
have Dr. Bolton on my committee, as she provided valuable insights and thoughtful comments. I
am thankful to Dr. Lee for his generosity, support, and encouragement that helped me move
forward with this dissertation.
Additionally, I would like to thank all the faculty and friends at School of Hospitality
Management at Pennsylvania State University. I am grateful to have met some remarkable
people who offered their help and friendship.
Finally, I would like to thank my mom for her support. Mom, without the love and
support from you, I would not have come this far. Thank you.
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, consumers are flooded with product information; hence, they selectively
choose information to make purchase choices. Companies try to convince consumers to
purchase their products by developing advertisements that would be more attractive and
persuasive compared to those of their competitors. This research looks at how advertisers can
effectively present their message to the consumers.
One common strategy that advertisers use is emphasizing product attributes that can
effectively attract consumers. For example, when advertising an orange juice, advertisers have
to determine whether emphasizing the functional aspects of the orange juice, such as nutrition
information, or the pleasurable aspects of the orange juice, such as taste, would be more effective.
Furthermore, they have to consider conditions in which such advertisements are effective. Prior
studies have indicated that when consumers make purchase decisions, they often access and
combine attribute information for a particular product/service or compare attributes of multiple
products/services (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne, 1991; Pham, 1998). However, these studies have
also found that consumers may apply different rules depending on the attributes they prefer.
A considerable amount of research has examined the ways in which consumers’ construal
level, referring to individuals’ abstract and concrete thinking, influences their information
processing (Tsai & Thomas, 2011). Specifically, prior research has shown that an individual’s
mindset (i.e., abstract versus concrete) changes the type of information on which the individual
focuses, which influences his/her subsequent judgments. The existing studies have demonstrated
that consumers who have an abstract mindset rely more on higher-end goals and desirability
information when making evaluations, whereas consumers who have a concrete mindset focus
2
more on lower-end goals and feasibility information (Fujita et al., 2006; Liberman, Trope, &
Stepahne, 2007; Trope & Liberman, 2003). However, a limited number of studies have
examined how consumers’ construal level influences their focus on hedonic or pleasurable
versus utilitarian or functional attributes.
Additionally, due to the processing fluency effect, which concerns the ease of
understanding the external information, an abstract mindset is expected to induce consumers to
focus more on hedonic attributes, since hedonic attribution is related to higher-end goals and
desirability features (Botti & McGill, 2011; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Kivetz, 2000).
Conversely, a concrete mindset will lead consumers to focus more on utilitarian attributes.
Moreover, prior literature has demonstrated that when consumers’ processing fluency increases,
their preference and evaluation of the advertisement and product/service becomes more
favorable. Therefore, this study proposed that when consumers have an abstract mindset,
hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) would increase positive attitude, anticipated
satisfaction, and their favorable behavioral intentions towards the product/service. On the other
hand, when a concrete mindset is activated, emphasizing utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic
attributes) of a product/service will enhance processing fluency, resulting in a more positive
attitude, higher anticipated satisfaction, and higher behavioral intention towards the
product/service.
However, emphasizing specific attributes of the product is not the only factor that
influences consumers’ decision-making processes. Another strategy advertisers commonly use
to persuade consumers is message framing, which refers to different methods of presenting the
message. Messages can be presented as a loss (e.g., emphasizing losses that consumers may face
by not purchasing the product) or a gain (e.g., emphasizing a brand’s advantages or potential
3
benefits). This study argues that framing the attributes as a gain message or a loss message will
influence the effect between construal level and attribute type. Prior studies have suggested that
framing attributes in advertisements influences consumers’ judgements and purchase decisions
(Hardisty, Johnson, & Weber, 2010; Levins & Gaeth, 1988; Levin, Schneider, & Gaeth, 1998;
Smith, 1996). In this study, we investigated how gain-framed attributes, i.e., attributes framed as
benefits of consuming the advertised product, and loss framed attributes, i.e., attributes framed as
costs of not consuming the advertised product (Salovey, Schneider, & Apanovitch, 2002),
influence consumers’ evaluation of the advertised product.
According to the previous literatures, loss-framed messages are more effective when
consumers have a concrete mindset whereas gained-framed messages are more effective when
consumers have an abstract mindset (Lamberton & Diel, 2013; White, MacDonnell, & Dahl,
2011). Therefore, we propose that when an abstract mindset is activated, hedonic attributes will
have a favorable effect only when the message is framed as a gain. When the message is framed
as a loss, no difference between hedonic versus utilitarian attributes is expected. Conversely,
when a concrete mindset is activated, utilitarian attributes will be effective when the message is
framed as a loss rather than a gain.
To examine the proposed relationships, study 1 investigated the interaction effect of
attribute types and consumers’ construal level. In detail, when consumers’ have an abstract
mindset, a product/service that emphasizes hedonic attributes is more favored whereas when
consumers’ have a concrete mindset, a product/service that emphasizes utilitarian attributes is
evaluated more positively. Additionally, processing fluency mediates these relationships.
4
Study 2 examined a boundary factor of gain and loss framing. Processing fluency has
also been shown to mediate the three-way interaction effect of attribute type, consumers’
construal level, and gain and loss framing on attitude towards the product/service.
The findings of these studies have critical practical implications for hospitality and retail
managers, especially when designing product/service advertisements. The effectiveness of
emphasizing hedonic and utilitarian attributes in an advertisement may rely on consumers’
mindsets and their framing. Thus, not all advertisements are created equal and as such, they will
elicit greater number of positive reactions from consumers whose mindset is congruent with the
product/service’s attributes and information framing. For example, if the advertiser is promoting
a product for consumers with an abstract mindset, such as a product purchased for later use, it
may be necessary to highlight a product/service’s hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes)
and frame the attribute using gain message. However, if the advertiser is promoting a product
for consumers with a concrete mindset, that is, a product for immediate use, it may be beneficial
to highlight utilitarian benefits framed as a loss message.
The introduction and purpose of the study are described in Chapter1. Chapter 2
summarizes previous literature on hedonic versus utilitarian attributes, construal level theory
(CLT), and processing fluency. Chapter 3 lists the hypotheses of this study with the support of
the previous literature. Furthermore, Chapter 4 introduces the design, methodology, results, and
discussion of the study1, and chapter 5 presents the design, methodology, results and discussion
of the study 2. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses theoretical and managerial contributions of the study
and limitation of the current research.
5
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Hedonic versus Utilitarian Attributes
Consumers may purchase products or services with different goals and motives (Botti &
McGill, 2011). “Consumers purchase goods and services and perform consumption behaviors
for two basic reasons: (1) consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification and (2) instrumental,
utilitarian reasons” (Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003, p. 310). Hirschman and Holbrook
(1982) stated that consumers make purchases to solve problems or seek fun and enjoyment, and
previous studies classified these consumptions as utilitarian and hedonic (Botti & Mcgill,
2011; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic consumption refers to purchases made for
the “sensation derived from the experience of using the products”, whereas utilitarian
consumption refers to purchases made for “the functions performed by the product” (Roy and
Ng, 2012; Voss et al., 2003, p. 310). For example, not all consumers may view shopping
experiences in the same way. Consumers who target a specific product may view the shopping
experience from a utilitarian perspective whereas consumers who focus on the enjoyment of the
shopping experience may have a hedonic perspective (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Hedonic
consumption experiences are “fun, sensorial, and spontaneous due to their pleasurable, playful,
immediately gratifying nature” while utilitarian consumption experiences are “functional,
sensible, and useful, which relates to virtues and necessities” (Botti & McGill, 2011;
Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Kivetz & Strahilovitz, 2000; Okada, 2005; Sela, Berger, & Liu,
2009).
Previous research has shown that hedonic consumption, but not utilitarian consumption,
enhanced life happiness (Botti & Mcgill, 2011; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Additionally, hedonic
consumption has been found to be more closely related to higher-end goals compared to
6
utilitarian consumption (Carver & Scheier, 2000; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987).
Furthermore, previous studies have shown that hedonic consumption is intrinsically motivated
and inherently rewarding; thus, it is perceived as an end goal itself. On the other hand, utilitarian
consumption is extrinsically motivated, and it can be considered an instrumental tool to
achieve a higher-level goal (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Mano &
Oliver, 1993; Pham, 1998).
However, hedonic or utilitarian consumption are not necessarily two ends of a one-
dimensional scale (Voss et al., 2003). A product can have both hedonic and utilitarian attributes
(Crowley, Spangenberg & Hughes, 1992; Okada, 2005). Additionally, consumer’s experience
can be examined by looking at hedonic and utilitarian characteristics at both overall-product and
attribute-specific levels (Adaval, 2001; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002).
For example, ice cream is generally perceived as a hedonic product. However, it can have both
hedonic and utilitarian attributes. Although the taste of ice cream is a hedonic attribute, the
nutrition information can be considered a utilitarian attribute. Therefore, consumers may choose
an ice cream by assessing its utilitarian attributes (e.g., nutrition) or hedonic attributes (e.g.,
taste). This research focuses more on the hedonic and utilitarian attribute-specific level.
Past research has suggested that hedonic and utilitarian attributes of a product/service can
play a critical role in product evaluation and purchase decisions (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Mano &
Oliver, 1993). When consumers purchase a product or a service, they may consider both
utilitarian attributes and hedonic attributes of the product/service (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Chitturi,
Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007; 2008; Dhar & Wetenbroch, 2000). Hedonic attributes refer to
“aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related” attributes of the product/service, whereas
utilitarian attributes refer to “the functional, instrumental and practical” attributes of the
7
product/service (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Chitturi et al., 2008, p. 46; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000;
Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). For example, when purchasing a cell phone, consumers consider
several attributes, including the phone’s battery life and sound volume (i.e., utilitarian attributes),
as well as the aesthetic appeal of the phone (i.e., hedonic attribute; Chitturi et al., 2008).
Some studies have reported that both hedonic and utilitarian values influence consumers’
satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Hirschman & Holbrooke, 1982; Lim & Ang, 2008; Ryu,
Han, & Jang, 2010). However, despite the amount of research conducted on hedonic and
utilitarian attributes, relatively few studies have examined the circumstance or situation in which
consumers focus on these attributes related to a given product/service. Chitturi and colleagues
(2007) argued that consumers are more likely to value hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian
attributes) when a minimum level of functionality is met. However, their study shows that
choice behavior relies more on utilitarian attributes, whereas willingness to pay relies more on
hedonic attributes. Kivetz and Simonson (2002) demonstrated that consumers focus more on
hedonic attributes when they believe that they have earned the right to indulge. Additionally,
when consumers make a choice among several options, utilitarian values influence consumers’
decisions, whereas when consumers need to rank the services/products, hedonic values are more
influential (Dahr & Wertenbroch, 2000; Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1994; Tversky & Griffin,
1991).
Construal Level Theory
Construal level theory (CLT) suggests that psychological distance influences mental
representation, judgment, and behaviors (Trope & Liberman, 2003; Trope & Liberman, 2010;
Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007). High-level construals are perceived to be more abstract,
coherent, and superordinate mental representation compared to low-level construals (Trope &
8
Liberman, 2010). For example, a cellular phone can be represented as a communication device
(abstract representation) or a small object (concrete representation). Previous studies have
indicated that individuals who adopt a higher-level construal are more likely to perceive an
object’s abstract categories (a mammal) rather than concrete categories (a dog or a poodle), and
they are more likely to think about their abstract or superordinate goals (Carver & Scheier, 2000;
Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). For instance, a concrete level mindset may allow individuals to
think about doing well on the exam whereas abstract level mindset induces them to think about
happiness in life. Additionally, when individuals have a concrete mindset, they focus on the
concrete detail action to achieve their goals, whereas when they have an abstract mindset they
tend to focus on the general meaning of their goal and the reasons to achieve this goal (Semin &
Fiedler, 1988; Trope, 1986, 1989; Trope & Liberman, 2010).
Previous literature on CLT has suggested that an increase in psychological distance
forces individuals to think more abstractly (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope, 1986; 1989; Trope
& Liberman, 2003; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Trope and Liberman (2010) explained that this is
because high-level construals are unlikely to change compared to low-level construals. For
instance, a goal to contact a friend (higher-level goal) may not change but the method of
contacting a friend, such as sending him/her an email (lower-level goal), may change easily
(Trope & Liberman, 2010). Therefore, when psychological distance is distant and the outcome
is uncertain, it makes more sense to think about the action more abstractly and to think about
high-level rather than low-level goals (Trope & Liberman, 2010).
Several areas of the social sciences have studied the effect of individuals’ psychological
distance on their decision-making and preferences, and many factors, such as spatial, temporal,
and social distance, have been found to influence psychological distance (Fujita et al., 2006;
9
Liberman & Trope, 1998; Rachlin, 1995; Smith & Trope, 2006; Trope, 1986; 1989; Trope &
Liberman, 2003). A study conducted by Liberman and Trope (1998) showed that spatially
distant events are construed at a higher level whereas near distance events are construed at a
lower level. Fujita et al. (2006) showed that events that happened near individuals’ residences
were represented more concretely compared to events that happened far away. Similarly,
temporally distant events are construed at a higher level compared to events that will occur in the
near future (Fujita et al., 2006; Liberman & Trope, 1998). Additionally, strangers (versus close
others) or an incident with high uncertainty (versus with low uncertainty) are likely to be
construed at a higher level (Kim, Zhang, & Li, 2008; Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope et al.,
2007; Trope & Liberman, 2010; Wakslak et al., 2006). Accordingly, others’ recommendations or
behaviors are represented at a higher and more abstract level relative to one’s own opinions or
behaviors (Trope et al., 2007; Zhao & Xie, 2011). In sum, individuals use high-level construal to
represent psychologically distant events and low-level construal to represent psychologically
proximal events (Amit, Algom, & Trope, 2009; Trope & Liberman, 2010).
However, previous studies have demonstrated also the reverse relationship between
construal level and psychological distance. In other words, construal level has a significant
influence on how we perceive the distance from an object or an event (Idson & Mischel, 2001;
Kim, Zhang, & Li, 2008; Linville, Fishcher, & Yoon, 1996; Trope & Liberman, 2010). For
instance, when thinking about having fun (high level of construal) instead of playing basketball
outside (low level construal), may induce individuals to think the activity to happen in a more
distance future (Trope & Liberman, 2010).
Most importantly, studies have shown that individuals’ construal level, abstract or
concrete mindset, influences consumers’ information focus and behavior (Idson & Mischel, 2001;
10
Kim, Zhang, & Li, 2008; Linville, Fishcher, & Yoon, 1996). Consumers with a high-level
construal represent the object abstractly and therefore focus on its core features, whereas those
with a low-level construal represent the object concretely and therefore focus on the surface
features of the object (Hong & Sternthal, 2010; Trope & Liberman, 1998; 2003). Additionally,
individuals think more about their global values (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008) and focus
more on desirability features of the product (Trope & Liberman, 2000; 2003) when abstract
mindset is activated. Furthermore, their focus on particular information motivates them to make
purchase decisions (Eyal et al., 2009; Torelli & Kaikati, 2009). Previous literature on CLT has
also found that high-level construal enhances self-control (Agrawal & Wan, 2009; Fujita, 2008;
Fujita & Han, 2009; Fujita et al., 2006; Malkoc, Zauberman, & Bettman, 2010; Schmeichel &
Vohs, 2009). For example, consumers with a high-level construal preferred to eat apples (versus
candies) more compared to consumers with a low-level construal (Fujita & Han, 2009).
The relationship between psychological distance and construal level has been examined
through different tasks, such as categorization. When events are temporally distant, fewer and
broader categories are used to classify objects (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Trope and
Liberman, 2010). Therefore, the results of the previous studies have indicated that distal events,
compared to proximal events, are categorized into broader categories (Henderson et al., 2006;
Trope & Liberman, 2010). Additionally, increase in spatial distance allows individuals to use
abstract language and categorize actions into broader behavioral categories (Henderson et al.,
2006). Additionally, when social distance or perception of power increases, broader
categorization is used (Smith & Trope, 2006).
In addition, some previous studies used pictures to demonstrate the relationship between
psychological distance and construal level. Through a picture-word task (Stroop, 1935),
11
individuals who viewed a landscape picture pointing at a distal point selected words that
represented psychological distance (e.g., year, others) rather than psychological proximity (e.g.,
tomorrow, we). However, those who viewed a picture pointing at a proxy point selected words
that represented psychological proxy (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Another picture task that has
been commonly used involves a global letter made of local letters. For example, a large L made
of small 20 Hs was presented to participants who were asked to identify the letter they saw on
the computer screen (Liberman & Forster, 2009; Navon, 1977; Trope & Liberman, 2010).
Studies have shown that when participants were primed with temporal distance, they identified
the global letter whereas when they were primed with temporal proximity, they identified the
local letters (Navon, 1977; Liberman & Forster, 2009; Trope & Liberman, 2010).
The third manipulation involves describing an action in either high or low level terms
(Liberman, & Trope, 1998). For instance, an activity, such as studying, can be explained by high
level terms, such as doing well in school, or low level terms, reading a textbook (Trope &
Liberman, 2010). Additionally, when individuals think more about “why” (high-level terms)
they are studying instead of “how” (low-level terms) they are studying, they are thinking more
abstractly (Liberman et al., 2007; McCrea et al., 2008).
However, not only CLT has demonstrated the relationship between construal level and
psychological distance for future events, but also previous literatures have shown the relationship
for past events (Kyung, Menon, & Trope, 2010). When individuals have less knowledge about
an event, concrete mindset, compared to abstract mindset, made them feel closer to the event.
However, when individuals had greater knowledge about the event, individuals with an abstract
rather than a concrete mindset perceived the event nearer to them. Kyung et al. (2010) explained
that these findings depend on how information is stored in individual’s memories because
12
higher-level and abstract concepts are stored only when individuals have greater knowledge
(Chase & Ericsson, 1981). These higher-level and abstract concepts are more accessible
compared to lower-level and concrete concepts (Kyung et al., 2010). Therefore, when
individuals have less knowledge, a concrete rather than an abstract mindset allows them to think
about an event as closer in time, whereas individuals with more knowledge will easily use
abstract concepts and therefore abstract mindset to think about an event as close in time.
Processing Fluency
Previous literature has reported that consumers evaluate not only the information
regarding the products/services but also the ways in which they process the information (Higgins,
2000; Schwarz, 2004). Processing fluency is defined as “the subjective feelings of ease or
difficulty that individuals experience while processing information about an object” (Novemsky
et al., 2007; Shen, Jiang, & Adaval, 2010, p.877). Processing fluency theory suggests that the
more fluently consumer’s process the information, the more positively they evaluate the object
(Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Additionally, when consumers experience processing
fluency, their attitude towards and evaluation of the object become more positive (Lee, 2001;
Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001). Previous studies have identified various factors that may
influence processing fluency, such as previous exposure (Zajonc, 1968; 1980), background
contrast effect (Reber & Schwarz, 1999), and fonts (Novemsky et al., 2007). In detail, when
information was presented easier, the products/services were perceived to be prettier (Reber et al.,
2004), and when consumers were repeatedly exposed with product information, which makes
information processing easier, the evaluation was more positive (Zajonc, 1968; 1980). When
information was presented with a font that was easier to read, participants evaluated the product
more favorably (Novemsky et al., 2007).
13
Extensive studies on processing fluency can be divided into two streams of research. The
first stream focuses on conceptual fluency, which is related to the meaning or knowledge
consumers have about an object (Berger & Fitzsimons, 2008; Whittlesea, 1993; Winkielman et
al., 2003). Semantic predictability, i.e., consistency between the stimulus and the context, rhyme,
and availability of appropriate mental concepts has been shown to influence conceptual fluency
(Kelley & Jacoby, 1998; McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000; Poldrack & Logan, 1998; Whittlesea,
1993). For example, Whittlesea (1993) conducted a study with series of sentences in which the
last word was either semantically predictive or not semantically predictive. The study showed
that the participants in the semantically predictive condition evaluated the product more
positively.
Another stream of research focuses on perceptual fluency, where a product’s perceptual
attributes influence consumer’s processing (Berger & Fitzsimons, 2008; Lee & Labroo, 2004).
Figure-ground contrast, clarity of the stimuli, simple repetition, and duration have been shown to
influence perceptual fluency (Jacoby, 1983; Roediger, 1990; Schwarz, 2004; Tulving & Schacter,
1990). For example, studies have shown that a product with a color that matches the product
type (i.e., red apple)is more preferred than products with a non-matched color (blue apple; Reber
& Schwarz, 1999). Repetition and figure-ground contrast have also been shown to influence
individual’s evaluation of truth or popularity (Jacoby et al., 1989; Reber & Schwarz, 1999).
Considering both streams of literature, both conceptual fluency and perceptual fluency seem to
influence consumers’ judgment (Winkielman et al., 2003).
Both types of processing fluency lead to positive affects for the following reasons
(Winkielman et al., 2003). First, individuals may feel more familiar with processing fluent
information (versus non fluent information; Winkielman et al., 2003). Familiar stimuli tend to
14
be processed faster (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981) and fear of the unknown does not exist, which
relates to positive affects (Winkielman, et al., 2003). Second, individuals may perceive an
information that is easy to process as more prototypical (Winkielman et al., 2003). Studies have
demonstrated that when individuals receive prototypical or symmetrical stimuli, they perceive it
to be less complex to process (Winkielman et al., 2003), which enhances preferences
(Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000; Rhodes & Tremewan, 1996).
15
CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESE DEVELOPMENT
Hedonic versus Utilitarian Attributes
Central to our theory development, we believe that when companies emphasize hedonic
(versus utilitarian) attributes or consumers perceive the product to be hedonic (versus. utilitarian),
purchases are more closely linked to higher end goals and motivation. One study conducted by
Chitturi and colleagues (2008) demonstrated that utilitarian attributes are related to “must meet”
necessities or needs, such as security, whereas hedonic attributes are related to “aspire to meet”
goals, such as delightful feelings and excitement. According to Huffman, Ratneshwar, and
Mick’s (2000) hierarchy of consumer goals, lower-level consumer goals include thinking about
the benefits or features of owning the product/service or using the product or service. Higher-
level goals are related to the terminal value or life value of the product/service. Since utilitarian
attributes are features that satisfy consumers’ necessity needs, thinking about the benefits and the
outcomes related to purchasing the product/service is unavoidable. For example, when
purchasing a car, consumers may consider the car’s safety, relying on utilitarian attributes, such
as airbags and seatbelts. On the other hand, a convertible roof feature would be considered a
hedonic attribute because it contributes to a cheerful and exciting driving experience. Compared
to the car’s safety, a cheerful and exciting driving experience can reflect the consumer’s life
value and higher-end goals (Chitturi et al., 2008).
Similarly, a means-end chain (MEC) theory explains the link between hedonic rather than
utilitarian purchases and consumers’ higher-end and abstract motivations (Gutman, 1982; Mort
& Rose, 2004). According to this theory, there is a hierarchical cognitive structure, when
consumers think about a product/service. Consumers can be motivated to purchase the product
by linking the product to the attributes of the product or instrument to achieve their values.
16
According to Mort and Rose (2004), as individuals focus on physical, tangible, and objective
outcome when evaluating utilitarian products, motivation to purchase utilitarian products is
based primarily on the consequences of the product’s functional attributes. However, “people
buy products not only for what they can do, but for also what they mean to the consumer” (Mort
& Rose, 2004, p.224). Specifically, motivation to purchase hedonic products is associated more
with consumers’ value related to the product attributes (Mort & Rose, 2004). Therefore, we
expect that when an advertisement emphasizes hedonic attributes, consumers associate their
purchase with their higher end goal or value, whereas when it emphasizes utilitarian attributes,
consumers think about the functional consequences consuming the product.
Construal Level Theory and Processing Fluency
When consumers need to evaluate or judge a product or service, metacognitive
experience- processing fluency significantly influences their evaluation and choice behavior
(Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009; Novemsky et al., 2007; Tsai & Mcgill, 2011, 808). Processing
fluency examines the ease or difficult with which an external information can be processed
(Winkielman et al., 2003). In other words, when the information process is fluent, processing
the information is easy and effortless; thus, individuals tend to evaluate the event or object more
positively than when the information process is less fluent (Jacoby et al., 1989; Schwarz, 2004).
Additionally, studies have shown that consumers perceive fluent thinking process as more
likeable, familiar, true, and more intelligent compared to less fluent process (Alter &
Oppenheimer, 2009; Tsai & Thomas, 2011). These attributions of fluency are shown to be
automatic and effortless (Bornstein & D’Agostino, 1992; Jacoby et al., 1989).
In this current study, we expected consumers’ construal level to have a significant
influence on their information fluency for hedonic rather than utilitarian attributes of a
17
product/service. Construal level theory (CLT) proposes that people are more likely to use
abstract mental construals as the distance from the object increases (Liberman & Trope, 1998;
Trope, 1986). According to this theory, people use higher-level construals to represent
information about distant future events instead of information about near future events
(Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope, 1986; 1989; Trope & Liberman, 2003; Zhao & Xie, 2011).
Empirical work on CLT has also demonstrated that psychological distance and construal
levels motivate people to focus and select certain attributes of the information (Freitas, Salovey,
& Liberman, 2001; Trope & Liberman, 2003), which then influences the consumer’s product
evaluations and choice behavior (Idson & Mischel, 2001; Kim, Zhang, & Li, 2008; Linville,
Fischer, & Yoon, 1996). In particular, when abstract mindsets are activated, individuals focus
more on high-level purpose (e.g., “why will I go about recycling?”), whereas when concrete
mindsets are activated, individuals focus more on concrete actions (e.g., “how will I go about
recycling?”). Similarly, studies have indicated that when an abstract mindset (vs. concrete
mindset) is activated or when psychological distance is greater (vs. smaller), an individual will
focus more on desirability aspects than on feasibility aspects (Trope & Liberman, 2000, 2003).
Desirability aspects refer to the value of the higher-end goal by focusing on the “why” of an
action, whereas feasibility aspects refer to the value of the means to achieve the goal, such as the
“how” of an action (Liu, 2008). For example, when an individual’s abstract mindset is activated,
the extent to which the individual likes a band (i.e., desirability) will influence the choice
decisions more than the cost of the ticket (i.e., feasibility). However, when an individual’s
concrete mindset is activated, the price of the ticket (feasibility) will be more salient.
Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated that congruency between claims of an
advertisement and psychological distance is critical for consumers (Dhar & Kim, 2007). For
18
instance, the authors suggested that when psychological distance is great, the advertisement
should focus on features central to the product/service, whereas when psychological distance is
smaller, the advertisement should emphasize peripheral features of the product/service. It has
been shown that consumers are more receptive to core and central claims when their construal
level is high and more receptive to peripheral information when their construal level is low (Dhar
& Kim, 2007). Additionally, studies have identified that when congruency between available
information and psychological distance increases process fluency, which enhances evaluations
and purchase intensions (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009; Novemsky et al., 2007; Tsai & Mcgill,
2011).
Based on these findings, we propose that since abstract mindset motivates consumers to
focus on higher end goals and desirability features, abstract mindset will allow consumers to
focus more on hedonic attributes compared to utilitarian attributes. Additionally, their attitudes
will be more positive, and their anticipated satisfaction and willingness to purchase towards
hedonic attributes will increase more compared to utilitarian attributes. On the other hand, when
concrete mindset is activated, consumers will process the information more easily, and they will
be able to focus more on the attributes and products when reading information about utilitarian
rather than hedonic attributes. Therefore, their attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and willingness
to purchase will be more positive when consumers with a concrete mindset read information that
focuses on utilitarian attributes compared to hedonic attributes. Furthermore, we predict that
process fluency will mediate the effect of mindset (abstract versus concrete) and type of
attributes (hedonic versus utilitarian) on type of attributes on which consumers focus. Therefore,
we hypothesized:
19
H 1: A person’s mindset moderates the effect of attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian) on
consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and behavioral intention.
H 1a: When an abstract mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and
behavioral intention will be higher when hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) are
emphasized.
H 1b: When a concrete mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and
behavioral intention will be higher when utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes) are
emphasized.
H 2: Process fluency mediates the effect of mind-set (abstract versus concrete) and attribute type
(hedonic versus utilitarian) on consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and behavioral
intention.
The proposed hypotheses are visualized in Figure 1.
Figure 1-Conceptual Diagram 1
20
Boundary Factor of Regulatory Focus
According to the regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997, 2000), individuals focus on
gaining pleasure (e.g., promotion focus) or avoiding pain (e.g., prevention focus; Higgins, 1997).
Promotion-focused individuals pay more attention to attaining pleasure, growth, and
achievement, whereas focused individuals focus more on attaining safety and security (Crowe &
Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). Furthermore, promotion focused individuals tend to be more
open to new challenges and take more risks than prevention focused individuals (Liberman et al.,
1999; Zhou & Pham, 2004). Most importantly, promotion focused consumers rely more on
hedonic and attractive features whereas prevention focused consumers rely more on utilitarian
and reliability features when making purchasing decisions (Chernev, 2004).
Previous studies on regulatory focus and CLT indicate that there is close relationship
between the two factors (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Lee, Keller & Sternthal, 2010; Semin et al.,
2005). An abstract mindset allows individuals to focus on the purpose or higher-end meaning of
the action, thus reflecting the promotion focus, as individuals are inclined to think about their
hopes and goals (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). However, a concrete mind-set
encourages individuals to focus on the details of executing behavior; thus, it reflects prevention
focus, as individuals’ thoughts center on duties and responsibilities (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
Studies have also demonstrated that promotion-focused individuals process information
at a more abstract level, whereas prevention-focus individuals process information at a more
concrete level (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Lee, Keller, & Sternthal, 2010; Semin et al., 2005).
When participants were asked to identify a target letter, promotion-focused participants
processed larger letters faster compared to smaller letters (e.g., responded to H when a large H
made of small T’s were given), whereas prevention-focused participants responded to the smaller
21
letters faster than to the larger letters (e.g., responded to T when a large H of small T’s were
given). Additionally, regulatory focus influences the size of a consideration set (Pham &
Higgins, 2005; Pham & Chang, 2010). Promotion focused consumers tend to search for a larger
consideration set and think more globally when choosing alternatives, whereas prevention
focused consumers search for a smaller consideration set and chose alternatives more locally
(Pham & Chang, 2010).
Previous literature has shown that regulatory focus can be manipulated by framing
information as a gain or a loss (Cesario, Grant, & Giggins, 2004; Higgins, Shah, & Friedman,
1997; Shah & Higgins, 2001). For example, Cesario et al. (2004) demonstrated that could be
manipulated to adopt promotion focus or prevention focus by reading information about eating
more fruits and vegetables. In the promotion focus condition, the description was framed to
emphasize the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, such as increased energy and improved
mood. In the prevention focus condition, participants read about how eating fruits and
vegetables can protect them from harmful outcomes. Therefore, when product/service
advertisements are framed as a gain or a loss, consumers’ regulatory focus can be manipulated.
Previous studies have shown that gain- and loss-framing influence consumers’ purchase
decisions, preferences, attitudes, and behavior intentions (Rothman et al., 1993; Tversky &
Kahneman, 1981; Wilson, Purdon, & Wallston, 1988). However, some previous studies have
demonstrated that framing the information as a gain is more effective than loss framing
(Rothman et al., 1993), while others argue that loss framing produces better results than gain
framing (Banks et al., 1995; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987). In this study, we expect proposed
that consumers’ construal level (abstract versus concrete) and attribute type (hedonic versus
utilitarian) will influence the effectiveness of the gain and loss framing.
22
Taken together, we suggest that regulatory focus is a very important variable that serves
as a boundary condition for the interaction effect of attribute type and construal level on attitude
and behavioral intentions. We argue that since gain framing is associated with an abstract
mindset, when abstract mindset is activated, consumer’s attitude and behavioral intention will be
more positive for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attributes only when the information is framed as a
gain. When the information is framed as a loss, the effect will be attenuated. On the other hand,
when a concrete mindset is activated, utilitarian (vs. hedonic) advertisements will be higher in
consumer’s attitude and behavioral intention only when the information is framed as a loss.
When the information is framed as a gain, this effect will be attenuated. Therefore, we proposed
the following hypotheses:
H 3: Regulatory focus (gain vs, loss) will moderate the effect of interaction between a person’s
mindset (abstract vs. concrete) and attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian) on consumer’s
attitude.
H 3a: When an abstract mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude and behavioral intention will
be higher when hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) of an advertisement are framed as
a gain.
H 3b: When an abstract mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude and behavioral intention will
not be higher when hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) of an advertisement are
framed as a loss.
H 3c: When a concrete mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and
behavioral intention will be higher when utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes) of an
advertisement are framed as a loss.
23
H 3d: When a concrete mind-set is activated, consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and
behavioral intention will not be higher when utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes) of
an advertisement are framed as a gain.
H 4: Process fluency will mediate the interaction effect of mind-set (abstract versus concrete),
attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian), and regulatory focus (gain versus loss) on consumer’s
attitude and behavioral intention.
The proposed hypotheses are visualized in Figure 2.
Figure 2-Conceptual Diagram 2
24
CHAPTER 4 METHOD AND RESULTS OF STUDY 1
Two between-subject experiments were conducted to examine the proposed hypotheses.
Prior to conducting the two main studies, two pretests were conducted to examine the attributes
of the products that are perceived to be hedonic or utilitarian. The following sections discuss in
detail the designs and methods that were used to conduct the pretests.
In study 1, we posited that consumers with an abstract mindset will have more positive
attitudes and will express increased anticipated satisfaction and increased willingness to purchase
a product or a service when hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) are highlighted.
Conversely, consumers with a concrete mindset will have more positive attitudes as well as
increased anticipated satisfaction and increased willingness to purchase a product or a service
when utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes) are highlighted. To test the hypotheses 1a,
1b, and 2, psychological distance was manipulated by priming participants with either an abstract
or concrete mindset, utilizing a procedure adapted from Freitas, Gollwitzer, and Trope (2004).
This study utilized a 2 (mindset: abstract vs. concrete) x 2 (attributes: hedonic vs. utilitarian)
between-subjects design. Additionally, we confirmed that processing fluency mediates the
interactive effect of consumer’s mindset and motivation on attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and
willingness to purchase.
Pretest
A simple one-way experiment was conducted to identify which attributes of the smoothie
were perceived to be hedonic or utilitarian. The attributes used in this study were adapted from
the previous literature (Roy and Ng, 2012).
Sixty participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk was used in this study. Approximately
54.2% of the participants were male and 76.3% were Caucasian. The average age of the
25
participants was 35.6 and more than 61% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree. On
average, average participants purchased 1.3 smoothies within a month.
Procedure and Stimuli
First, participants were provided with definitions of hedonic and utilitarian attributes.
Hedonic attributes refer to aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment related attributes of the product,
whereas utilitarian attributes refer to the functional, instrumental and practical features of the
product ( Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Afterwards, we asked participants to imagine they were
reading the description from an advertisement of a smoothie. Participants read six descriptions
of a smoothie (adapted from Roy and Ng, 2012). In order to avoid order bias, the order of the
descriptions presented was in random order.
• The smoothie is especially manufactured to give a rich and creamy taste. The addition
of several ingredients, like creamy milk, thickeners, skim milk powder, etc., gives that
delicious taste in your mouth.
• The smoothie comes in a wide range of fruity flavors, like strawberry, apricot, mango
and kiwi, in addition to the original flavor. The wide range of fruity flavors makes our
smoothie a wonderful choice for every occasion. You just cannot resist the temptation
of its fruity taste.
• The smoothie actually contains real fruit chunks for added taste. You can actually see
the chunks of fresh ripe strawberries or mangoes that have been added to the product
to tingle your taste buds. The pieces of fruit have been especially added to blend with
the original rich and creamy taste, thereby delighting one gastronomically.
26
• The smoothie is made from calcium and vitamin fortified milk. It is specially formulated
to capture the goodness of high calcium product. In addition, its formulation also
ensures that it has absolutely low levels of fat. It is in fact 97% fat free.
• The smoothie has essential bone nutrients, like vitamins D and K, in addition to other
nutrients like zinc and magnesium. The presence of these nutrients helps you to
maintain strong bones, especially in adults.
• The smoothie contains two live cultures, Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus
bulgaricus. Consuming this smoothie with live cultures helps you to maintain a healthy
balance of good and bad bacteria in the gut.
Measurements
After each description was presented, participants were asked to identify the extent to
which the attributes specified in the description were hedonic or utilitarian in nature (1= very
hedonic, 7= very utilitarian), how positive the attributes were (1=very negative, 7=very positive)
and ease of processing (1= difficult to process, 7 =easy to process; adapted from Janiszewski and
Meyvis, 2001). Additionally, expected price for the product, number of smoothie purchase
within a month were asked. At the end of the survey, participants’ demographic information
including gender, age, education and ethnicity was measured.
Analysis and Results
Similar to the study conducted by Roy and Ng (2012), results of this study suggested that
the participants perceived the three descriptions as hedonic: 1) “The smoothie is especially
manufactured to give a rich and creamy taste. The addition of several ingredients, like creamy
milk, thickeners, skim milk powder, etc., gives that delicious taste in your mouth.”(M=2.7, SD=
1.8), 2)“The smoothie comes in a wide range of fruity flavors, like strawberry, apricot, mango
27
and kiwi, in addition to the original flavor. The wide range of fruity flavors makes our smoothie
a wonderful choice for every occasion. You just cannot resist the temptation of its fruity
taste”(M=2.2, SD=1.4), and 3) “The smoothie actually contains real fruit chunks for added taste.
You can actually see the chunks of fresh ripe strawberries or mangoes that have been added to
the product to tingle your taste buds. The pieces of fruit have been especially added to blend with
the original rich and creamy taste, thereby delighting one gastronomically (M=2.8, SD= 1.6).
Meanwhile, the other three descriptions were perceived as utilitarian: 1) The smoothie is made
from calcium and vitamin fortified milk. It is specially formulated to capture the goodness of
high calcium product. In addition, its formulation also ensures that it has absolutely low levels of
fat. It is in fact 97% fat free (M=5.6, SD=1.3). 2) The smoothie has essential bone nutrients, like
vitamins D and K, in addition to other nutrients like zinc and magnesium. The presence of these
nutrients helps you to maintain strong bones, especially in adults (M=5.6, SD=1.5), and 3). The
smoothie contains two live cultures, Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus.
Consuming this smoothie with live cultures helps you to maintain a healthy balance of good and
bad bacteria in the gut (M=5.8, SD=1.6). Overall, the result showed that the participants clearly
perceived the hedonic descriptions as hedonic, whereas the utilitarian descriptions were
perceived as utilitarian (Mhed=2.6, Mutil=5.7, p-value <.01). However, the valence (Mhed=5.6,
Mutil=5.7, p-value =.5) and ease of processing (Mhed=6.5, Mutil=6.4, p-value =.3) between the
hedonic versus utilitarian descriptions did not significantly differ.
Therefore, as the three descriptions were clearly hedonic and the other three descriptions
were clearly utilitarian, with no difference in valence and ease of processing, this stimuli was
used for the main study 1 to test the proposed hypotheses.
28
Main Study A two by two between subject experiments was conducted to identify the moderating role
of construal level on consumers’ attitude, anticipated satisfaction and behavioral intensions
toward hedonic and utilitarian advertisements. To test the proposed hypotheses of H1 and H2 we
manipulated participant’s construal level (abstract vs. concrete) and asked them to read an
advertisement which was framed either a hedonic or utilitarian.
A total of 132 participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk to participate in
this study. 50% of the participants were male and 82.6% were Caucasian. The average age of
the participants was 36.19 and more 53.8% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree.
Procedure and Stimuli
First, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. In
order to manipulate abstract and concrete mindset, we gave the participants a passage to read
(adapted from Freitas et al., 2004). For the abstract condition they read,
“For everything we do, there always is a reason why we do it. Moreover, we
often can trace the causes of our behavior back to broad life-goals that we have.
For example, you do your homework for school. Why are you doing your
homework? Perhaps to satisfy a class requirement. Why are you satisfying the
class requirement? Perhaps to pass a class. Why pass the class? Perhaps because
you want to earn a degree. Why earn a degree? Maybe because you want to find a
good job, or because you want to educate yourself. And perhaps you wish to
educate yourself or find a good job because you feel that doing so can bring you a
better life. Research suggests that engaging in thought exercises like that above,
in which one thinks about how one’s actions relate to one’s ultimate life goals,
can improve people’s life satisfaction.
29
Afterwards, they were asked to think about their life from a broader perspective (i.e.
focus on what is important in life). Then they were asked to write about their long-term goal in
life (Trope & Liberman, 2011).
For the concrete condition, they will read,
For everything we do, there always is a process of how we do it. Moreover, we
often can follow our broad life-goals down to our very specific behaviors. For
example, like most people, you probably hope to find happiness in life. How can
you do this? Perhaps finding a good job, or being educated, can help. How can
you do these things? Perhaps by earning a degree. How do you earn a degree? By
satisfying class requirements. How do you satisfy class requirements? In some
cases, you do your homework for the class. Research suggests that engaging in
thought exercise like that above, in which one thinks about how one’s ultimate life
goals can be expressed through specific actions, can improve people’s life
satisfaction.
Afterwards, they were asked to think about their life from a day-to day perspective (i.e.
focus on what is important in day-to day life). Then they were asked to write about their daily
activities to achieve their daily goal (Trope & Liberman, 2011).
Next, participants were asked to read a hedonic or a utilitarian advertisement about a new
smoothie beverage (adapted from Roy and Ng, 2012).
Participants in the hedonic condition read the following ad:
• The smoothie is especially manufactured to give a rich and creamy taste. The addition
of several ingredients, like creamy milk, thickeners, skim milk powder, etc., gives that
delicious taste in your mouth.
30
• The smoothie comes in a wide range of fruity flavors, like strawberry, apricot, mango
and kiwi, in addition to the original flavor. The wide range of fruity flavors makes our
smoothie a wonderful choice for every occasion. You just cannot resist the temptation of
its fruity taste.
• The smoothie actually contains real fruit chunks for added taste. You can actually see
the chunks of fresh ripe strawberries or mangoes that have been added to the product to
tingle your taste buds. The pieces of fruit have been especially added to blend with the
original rich and creamy taste, thereby delighting one gastronomically.
Participants in the utilitarian condition read the following ad:
• The smoothie is made from calcium and vitamin fortified milk. It is specially
formulated to capture the goodness of high calcium product. In addition, its
formulation also ensures that it has absolutely low levels of fat. It is in fact 97% fat free.
• The smoothie has essential bone nutrients, like vitamins D and K, in addition to other
nutrients like zinc and magnesium. The presence of these nutrients helps you to
maintain strong bones, especially in adults.
• The smoothie contains two live cultures, Streptococcus thermophilus and
Lactobacillus bulgaricus. Consuming this smoothie with live cultures helps you to
maintain a healthy balance of good and bad bacteria in the gut.
Measurements
After reading the advertisement, participants were asked to complete a survey. In the
survey, we measured a series of dependent variables including: attitude towards the product
(adapted from Jiang et. al., 2010), anticipated satisfaction (adapted from Botti and Iyebgar,
31
2004), and behavioral intention (adapted from Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman, 1996).
Attitude was measured with a three-item, seven point scale (Cronbach alpha = .98) including:
“good-bad”, “positive-negative”, “favorable-unfavorable”. Anticipated satisfaction was
measured with a three-item, seven point scale (1pt- definitely not, 7pt-definitely yes; Cronbach
alpha = .95) including: “I will be satisfied with this choice when I receive it”, “I will be happy
with the choice I made”, and I will be satisfied with this choice when I get it”. Behavioral
intension was measured with a three-item, seven point scale (1pt- strongly disagree, 7- strongly
agree; Cronbach alpha = .91) including: “Would you like to purchase this smoothie?”, “Would
you be interested in receiving more information about this smoothie?”, and “Would you
recommend this smoothie to a friend?”
Additionally, for mediation analysis, ease of processing (adapted from Janiszewski and
Meyvis, 2001) was measured (1pt- very difficult to process, 7- very easy to process) and
expected price for the smoothie was measured as a control variable.
Finally, Behavioral Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher and Wegner, 1989) was
measured to confirm participants’ construal level. The BIF consist 25 dichotomous questions
where participants were asked to describe an action. For example, taking a test (action) can be
described as either answering questions (low-level construal) or showing one’s knowledge (high-
level construal) (see Table 1).
32
Table 1- Behavioral Identification Form (BIF)
Items a b Making a list Getting organized Writing things down Reading Following lines of print Gaining knowledge Joining the army Helping the nation's defense Signing up Washing clothes Removing odors from clothes Putting clothes into the machine Picking an apple Getting something to eat Pulling an apple off a branch Chopping down a tree Wielding an axe Getting firewood Measuring a room to remodel Getting ready to remodel Using a yardstick Cleaning the house Showing one’s cleanliness Vacuuming the floor Painting a room Applying a brush strokes Making the room look fresh Paying the rent Maintaining a place to live Writing a check Caring for house plants Watering plants Making the room look nice Locking a door Putting a key in the lock Securing the house Voting Influencing the election Marking a ballot Climbing a tree Getting a good view Golding on to branches Filling out a personality test Answering questions Revealing what you are like
Tooth brushing Preventing tooth decay Moving a brush around in one's mouth
Taking a test Answering questions Showing one's knowledge Greeting someone Saying hello Showing friendliness Resisting temptation Saying no Showing moral courage Eating Getting nutrition Chewing and swallowing Growing a garden Planting seeds Getting fresh vegetables Traveling by car Following a map Seeing countryside Having a cavity filled Protecting your teeth Going to the dentist Talking to a child Teaching a child something Using simple words Pushing a doorbell Moving a finger Seeing if someone's home
Manipulation Check
To ensure that the construal level manipulation worked as intended, we examined
participants’ BIF scores. First, we coded participants’ response to 1 (high level construal) and 0
(low level construal). Afterwards, 25 items were summed to calculate participants’ BIF score.
33
The results indicate that the participants’ BIF score in the abstract condition ( Mabs= 16.58) were
significantly higher than those in the concrete condition (Mcon= 14.38; F= 3.76; p-value= 0.05).
Moreover, consistent with the pretest result, participants in the hedonic condition (Mhed=
2.83) perceived the advertisement more hedonic compared to the participants in the utilitarian
condition (Mutil= 4.14; F= 20.64; p-value< 0.01).
Analysis and Results
Test of Hypothesis 1: A person’s mindset moderates the effect of attribute type (hedonic
versus utilitarian) on consumer’s attitude, anticipated satisfaction, and behavioral
intention
To test the proposed two way interaction effect of construal level and attribute type,
ANCOVA was conducted on attitude, anticipated satisfaction and behavioral intention. H1a
proposes that participants with an abstract mind-set will have higher level of attitude, anticipated
satisfaction and behavioral intention when the advertisement focuses on the hedonic attributes
compared to utilitarian attributes. On the other hand, H1b proposes that when concrete mindset
is activated, advertisement focusing on utilitarian attributes, compared to hedonic attributes will
increase their attitude, anticipated satisfaction and behavioral intention towards the product.
Consistent with the theoretical prediction, the two way interaction effect was significant
for attitude (F (1,127) = 5.48, p = .02; Table 2) and behavioral intention (F (1,127) = 5.04, p = .03;
Table 3). However, the results of the ANCOVA failed to show significant interaction effect for
anticipated satisfaction (F (1,127) = 1.07, p = .30; H1 partially supported). Afterwards, we
conducted follow-up simple effects tests for attitude and behavioral intention. The result indicate
that when abstract mindset is activated, consumer’s attitude towards the hedonic attribute is
higher (MAbs-Hed = 5.75) than the utilitarian attribute (MAbs-Util = 4.68; F (1,127) = 6.64, p = .01).
34
Additionally, consumer’s with an abstract construal level had higher behavioral intentions
towards the hedonic attribute (MAbs-Hed = 5.40) than the utilitarian attribute (MAbs-Util = 4.29; F
(1,127) = 8.72, p <.01; H1a partially supported). However, when concrete mindset is activated, both
attitude (MCon-Hed = 5.32; MCon-Util = 5.62; F (1,127) = 0.52, p =0.47) and behavioral intention (MCon-
Hed = 4.73; MCon-Util = 4.81; F (1,127) = 0.04, p =0.83; H1b not supported) did not significantly differ
between hedonic and utilitarian condition. (see Figure 3)
Table 2-ANCOVA Table in Attitude for Study 1
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square F Sig.
Covariates
price 0.059 1 0.059 0.021 0.884
Test Effects
construal 2.197 1 2.197 0.799 0.373
hedutil 4.712 1 4.712 1.713 0.193
construal * hedutil 15.083 1 15.083 5.483 0.021
Error 349.344 127 2.751
Total 4067.222 132
Corrected Total 372.757 131
35
Table 3-ANCOVA Table on Behavioral Intention for Study 1
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Covariates
price 9.841 1 9.841 4.351 0.039
Test Effects
construal 0.15 1 0.15 0.066 0.797
hedutil 8.463 1 8.463 3.742 0.055
construal * hedutil 11.404 1 11.404 5.042 0.026
Error 287.23 127 2.262
Total 3308.889 132
Corrected Total 314.785 131
36
Figure 3-Mean Plots of Study 1 Results
Test of Hypothesis 2: Process fluency mediates the impact of mind-set (abstract versus
concrete) and attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian) on consumer’s attitude,
anticipated satisfaction and behavioral intention
Using the moderated mediation analysis, we examined whether process fluency mediates
the interaction effect of construal level and attribute type on consumer’s attitude and behavioral
intention (Hayes, 2013). We used model 8 and the independent variable was attribute type
(hedonic versus utilitarian), the moderator is construal level (abstract versus concrete and the
mediator is process fluency.
The bootstrapping analysis demonstrates the mediation by process fluency for both
attitude and behavioral intention. Specifically, the mean indirect effect via process fluency
37
excluded zero for attitude (index=0.25; 95% CI=0.03 to 0.74) and behavioral intention
(index=0.24; 95% CI=0.04 to 0.61; H2 partially supported).
Discussion
In sum, the results of the study 1 indicate that consumers’ construal level moderates the
impact of type of attributes on consumers’ attitude and behavioral intentions but not on
anticipated satisfaction. We believe that anticipated satisfaction did not differ between hedonic
attributes and utilitarian attributes because satisfaction highly correlated with emotions and
studies have shown that emotions strongly associates with hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian
attributes) (Kemp and Kopp, 2011; Hirschman and Holbrooke, 1982).
The result indicate that when consumers’ have an abstract mindset, they tend to have
higher attitude and behavioral intention towards hedonic attributes compared to utilitarian
attributes. However, unlike our prediction (H1b), consumers with a concrete mindset did not
differ in attitude and behavioral intention towards hedonic attributes compared to utilitarian
attributes.
Therefore, in study 2, we investigated a boundary factor (i.e. gain and loss framing) that
may have caused this result.
38
CHAPTER 5 METHOD AND RESULTS OF STUDY 2
In study 1, we explored how consumers’ construal level (abstract vs. concrete) and
attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian) influence their product evaluations and purchase
intensions. However, the result showed that in the concrete condition, no significant difference
was observed between hedonic and utilitarian conditions.
In study 2, we suggested that framing the attributes as a gain or a loss will influence the
effect of interaction between consumers’ construal level and attribute type on consumers’
attitude and behavioral intention. In detail, we proposed that when hedonic (versus. utilitarian)
attributes are framed as a gain, consumers with an abstract mindset will have more positive
attitudes as well as greater behavioral intention towards a product/service. However, we
expected this effect to be attenuated when the hedonic attributes are framed as a loss. On the
other hand, consumers with a concrete mindset will have more positive attitudes and increased
behavioral intention when utilitarian (versus hedonic) attributes are framed as a loss. However,
this effect will be attenuated when the utilitarian attributes are framed as a gain. Additionally,
similar to study 1, we confirmed that processing fluency mediates the interactive effect of
consumer’s mindset, attribute type, and gain/loss framing on attitude and behavioral intentions.
Pretest
Similar to study 1, a simple one-way experiment was conducted to identify which
attributes of the massage were perceived to be hedonic or utilitarian.
Eighty participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk was used in this study.
Approximately 52.2% of the participants were male and 72.3% were Caucasian. The average
age of the participants was 38.0 and more than 64% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree.
39
Procedure and Stimuli
The procedure and stimuli for the second pretest was very similar to the first pretest.
After agreeing to participate in the survey, participants were provided with definitions of hedonic
and utilitarian attributes (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Afterwards, participants were asked to
imagine that they were reading the description from an advertisement of a massage. The given
description of the massage was adapted from the various real advertisements that was posted
online (e.g., http://elementsmassage.com/southglenn/blog/6917/how-to-boost-your-energy-
levels-with-massage). Participants read eight descriptions of a massage. In order to avoid order
bias, the order of the descriptions presented was in random order.
• This massage will enhance your energy levels by bringing oxygen and nutrients to the tissue
• This massage will improve circulation by accelerating blood flow
• This massage will help you prevent from depression and anxiety.
• This massage will reduce low-back pain, painful menstruation cramps, headaches or fatigue.
• This massage will make you feel and smell great
• Fragrance from the essential oils will make you calm and relaxed
•This massage will help you prevent wrinkles and aging
•This massage will help you prevent or stop hair thinning
Measurements
After each descriptions were given to the participants, they were asked to identify the
extent to which the attributes were more hedonic or utilitarian in nature (1= very hedonic, 7=
very utilitarian), how positive the attributes were (1=very negative, 7=very positive) and the ease
of processing the description (1= difficult to process, 7 =easy to process; adapted from
40
Janiszewski and Meyvis, 2001). Additionally, expected price for the product, number of
massage purchase within a month were asked. At the end of the survey, participants’
demographic information including gender, age, education and ethnicity was measured.
Analysis and Results
Participants in this pretest identified four descriptions as hedonic: 1) “This massage will make
you feel and smell great” (M=2.3, SD= 1.6), 2) “Fragrance from the essential oils will make you calm
and relaxed” (M=2.9, SD=1.7)This massage will help you prevent wrinkles and aging(M=3.9,
SD=1.9) 4) This massage will help you prevent or stop hair thinning (M=3.6, SD=1.9).
Meanwhile, the other four descriptions were perceived as utilitarian: 1) “This massage will
enhance your energy levels by bringing oxygen and nutrients to the tissue” (M=5.0, SD=1.8) 2) This
massage will improve circulation by accelerating blood flow(M=5.5, SD=1.6) 3) “This massage will
help you prevent from depression and anxiety” (M=4.9, SD=1.8) 4) “This massage will reduce low-
back pain, painful menstruation cramps, headaches or fatigue” (M=5.5, SD=1.5). Overall, the result
showed that there is a significant difference between the hedonic and utilitarian descriptions
(Mhed=3.5, Mutil=5.2, p-value <.01). However, participants perception of the description did not
differ in valence (Mhed=5.6, Mutil=5.7, p-value =.2) and ease of processing (Mhed=6.0, Mutil=5.9,
p-value =.2) between the hedonic versus utilitarian descriptions.
Therefore, as the four descriptions were clearly hedonic and the other four descriptions
were clearly utilitarian, with no difference in valence and ease of processing, this stimuli was
used for the main study to test the proposed hypotheses.
Main Study
A 2 construal level (abstract versus concrete) x 2 attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian)
x 2 regulatory focus ( gain versus loss) between subject experiments was conducted in order to
41
demonstrate that regulatory moderates the interaction effect of construal level and attribute type
on attitude and behavioral intention. We used the same manipulation as study 1 to prime
participants to have abstract versus concrete mindset. Afterwards, participants read an
advertisement which was framed as hedonic-gain, hedonic-loss, utilitarian-gain, and utilitarian-
loss.
A total of 248 adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in this study. 48% of
the participants were male and 79.4% were Caucasian. The average age of the participants was
38.2 and more 57.1% of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree.
Procedure and Stimuli
After accepting to participate in this study, participants were randomly assigned to one of
the eight experimental conditions. Construal level (abstract versus concrete) was manipulated
using the same passage as study 1 (adapted from Freitas et al., 2004). Afterwards, participants
were asked to read an advertisement about a massage, which was framed as hedonic-gain,
hedonic-loss, utilitarian-gain, or utilitarian-loss.
Participants in the utilitarian-gain condition read the following ad:
• This massage will enhance your energy levels by bringing oxygen and nutrients to the tissue
• This massage will improve circulation by accelerating blood flow
Participants in the utilitarian-loss condition read the following ad:
This massage will help you prevent from depression and anxiety.
• This massage will reduce low-back pain, painful menstruation cramps, headaches or fatigue.
Participants in the hedonic-gain condition read the following ad:
42
• This massage will make you feel and smell great
• Fragrance from the essential oils will make you calm and relaxed
Participants in the hedonic-loss condition read the following ad:
•This massage will help you prevent wrinkles and aging
•This massage will help you prevent or stop hair thinning
Measurements
Next, participates were asked to complete a survey. In the survey, we measured attitude
towards the product (adapted from Jiang et. al., 2010) and behavioral intention (adapted from
Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman, 1996). Attitude was measured with a three-item, seven point
scale (Cronbach alpha = .98) including: “good-bad”, “positive-negative”, “favorable-
unfavorable”. Behavioral intension was measured with a three-item, seven point scale (1pt-
strongly disagree, 7- strongly agree; Cronbach alpha = .90) including: “Would you like to
purchase this massage?”, “Would you be interested in receiving more information about this
massage?”, and “Would you recommend this massage to a friend?”
Additionally, for mediation analysis, two-item, seven point scale (Cronbach alpha = .93)
including: “very difficult to process-very easy to process”, and “very difficult to understand-very
easy to understand” (adapted from Lee & Aaker, 2004) was measured and expected price for the
massage was measured as a control variable.
Afterwards, in order to confirm the construal level manipulation, Behavioral
Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher and Wegner, 1989) was measured. Lastly, demographic
information similar to study 1 was asked.
43
Manipulation Check
Similar to study 1, the BIF results demonstrate that participants in the abstract condition
( Mabs= 17.8) were significantly higher in BIF score than those in the concrete condition (Mcon=
12.98; F= 4.01; p-value= 0.04).
Moreover, consistent with the pretest result, participants in the hedonic condition (Mhed=
2.67) perceived the advertisement more hedonic compared to the participants in the utilitarian
condition (Mutil= 3.30; F= 10.10; p-value= 0.02).
Analysis and Results
Test of Hypothesis 3: Regulatory focus (gain vs, loss) will moderate the interaction effect
between a person’s mindset (abstract vs. concrete) and attribute type (hedonic versus
utilitarian) on consumer’s attitude, and behavioral intention.
In order to conduct the three way interaction effect of regulatory focus, construal level
and attribute type on attitude and behavioral intention. ANCOVA was conducted. First, we
proposed that when consumers’ abstract mind-set is activated, consumers’ attitude and
behavioral intention will be higher for hedonic attributes only when the attributes are framed as a
gain (H3a). However, when the attribute is framed as a loss, there will be no difference in
consumers’ attitude and behavioral intentions between hedonic versus utilitarian attributes (H3b).
On the other hand, when concrete mindset is activated, utilitarian (vs. hedonic) attributes will
increase positive attitude and behavioral intentions when it is framed as a loss (H3c). However,
no difference will be observed when the attribute is framed as a gain (H3d).
As we hypothesized in H3, the three way interaction effect was significant for attitude (F
(1,247) = 4.46, p = .04; Table 4). However, the results of the ANCOVA failed to show significant
interaction effect for behavioral intentions (F (1,247) = 1.40, p = .24; H3 partially supported).
44
Afterwards, we conducted a follow-up simple effects tests for attitude to confirm our proposed
hypotheses. The result indicate that when abstract mindset is activated, consumer’s attitude
towards the hedonic attribute (MAbs-Hed-Gain = 6.09) is higher than the utilitarian attribute (MAbs-
Util-Gain = 4.29; F (1,247) = 29.57, p < .01; H3a partially supported) only when the attribute is framed
as gain. When the attribute is framed as loss, consumers’ attitude do not differ for hedonic
attribute (MAbs-Hed-Loss = 4.93) and utilitarian attribute (MAbs-Util-Loss = 5.48; F (1,247) = 2.58, p = .11;
H3b partially supported). However, when concrete mindset is activated, consumer’s attitude
toward the utilitarian attribute (MCon-Util-Loss = 5.83) is higher than the hedonic attribute (MCon-Hed-
Loss = 5.10; F (1,247) = 4.80, p = .03; H3c partially supported) only when the attribute is framed as
loss. When the attribute is framed as gain, there is no significant difference in attitude between
hedonic (MCon-Hed-Gain = 6.04 ) and utilitarian attribute (MCon-Util-Gain = 5.84; F (1,247) = 0.35, p
= .55; H3d partially supported). (see Figure 4)
45
Table 4-ANCOVA Table on Attitude for Study 2
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square F Sig.
Covariates
price 15.602 1 15.602 9.051 0.003
Test Effects
construal 15.726 1 15.726 9.123 0.003
hedutil 1.974 1 1.974 1.145 0.286
regulatory 3.32 1 3.32 1.926 0.166
construal * hedutil 12.27 1 12.27 7.118 0.008
construal *
regulatory 3.645 1 3.645 2.115 0.147
hedutil * regulatory 41.4 1 41.4 24.017 0
construal * hedutil *
regulatory 7.682 1 7.682 4.456 0.036
Error 411.972 239 1.724
Total 7921.111 248
Corrected Total 514.142 247
46
Figure 4-Mean Plots of Study 2 Results
Test of Hypothesis 4: The interaction effect of mind-set (abstract versus concrete), attribute type
(hedonic versus utilitarian) and regulatory focus (gain versus loss) will be mediated by process
fluency on consumer’s attitude and behavioral intention.
Using PROCESS bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2013), we conducted the moderated mediation
analysis to examine whether process fluency mediates the interaction effect of construal level,
attribute type, and regulatory focus on consumer’s attitude. We used model 11 and the
independent variable was attribute type (hedonic versus utilitarian), the two moderators are
construal level (abstract versus concrete) and regulatory focus (gain versus loss) and the
mediator is process fluency.
47
The bootstrapping analysis demonstrates the mediation by process fluency is significant
for attitude. Specifically, the mean indirect effect via process fluency excluded zero for attitude
(95% CI=-.49 to -0.09; H4 partially supported).
Discussion
The findings of study 2, explain why H1b was not supported. When consumers have an
abstract mindset, attitude towards the product will be more positive only when hedonic attributes
(versus utilitarian attributes) are framed as a gain. When the hedonic attributes are framed as a
loss, this effect will be attenuated. However, consumers with a concrete mindset will evaluate
utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic attributes) more highly only when the attributes are framed
as a loss. When the utilitarian attribute is framed as a gain, than the interaction effect will
disappear. In study 1, the study only looked in to attributes that was framed as a gain and that is
why the result showed no significance difference between hedonic and utilitarian attributes for
hypothesis H1b.
48
Chapter 6 GENERAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The objective of this dissertation was to examine how consumers’ construal level
(abstract versus concrete) and type of attribute (hedonic versus utilitarian) influence their
evaluation of products or services. This paper extends prior research on hedonic and utilitarian
attributes, CLT, and regulatory focus theory by incorporating message framing.
The results of the two pretests and two main studies demonstrated that the benefits of
emphasizing hedonic and utilitarian attributes depend on the consumer’s construal level.
Specifically, consumers with an abstract mindset focus more on hedonic attributes (versus
utilitarian attributes), and thus perceive the product/services more positively. Furthermore, this
study identified an important boundary factor: gain and loss framing. According to the second
study conducted in this dissertation, consumer’s with an abstract mindset evaluate hedonic
attributes more highly only when the message is framed as a gain. If the attributes are framed as
a loss, emphasizing hedonic attributes (versus utilitarian attributes) provides no benefits.
However, for consumers with a concrete mindset, utilitarian attributes framed as a loss are
evaluated more favorably compared to hedonic attributes framed as a loss. Furthermore, this
study demonstrated that process fluency mediates this effect.
Theoretical Contributions
The theoretical contribution of the current research is to extend prior CLT research by
demonstrating that mindset influences consumer evaluations and purchase intentions based on
the type of attributes (hedonic versus utilitarian). Although previous literature has demonstrated
that construal level could shift weights between primary and secondary information (Fujita et al.
2006; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope, 1986), to our knowledge, there has not been any research
that would investigate the shift of the preference between attribute types. To bridge the gap, we
49
focused on hedonic and utilitarian attributes of a product/service. More specifically, we found
that an abstract mindset is associated with hedonic attributes whereas a concrete mindset is
closely related to utilitarian attributes. Therefore, the result of this study demonstrated that the
compatibility between mindsets and product/service attributes is important in predicting
consumer’s judgment and behavior intentions.
The current study also contributes to the process fluency literature. It shows that a match
between hedonic and utilitarian attributes and consumer’s construal level plays a critical role in
product evaluations. This result is consistent with previous studies, which have demonstrated
that ease of processing leads to positive emotions and favorable judgments (Alter &
Oppenheimer, 2009; Novemsky et al., 2007; Tsai & Mcgill, 2011). We proposed that a match
between the consumer’s mindset and attribute of a product/service improves processing fluency,
which eventually enhances consumer attitudes.
Furthermore, a significant three-way interaction effect of construal level, attribute type,
and gain/loss framing on attitude contributes to the regulatory focus theory. Although study 1
indicated no significant difference between hedonic and utilitarian attributes for consumers with
a concrete mindset, this may be due to the fact that the study 1 stimuli was framed as a gain
rather than a loss. The findings of study 2 clearly showed that regulatory focus plays a critical
role in evaluating hedonic versus utilitarian attributes. When the stimuli were framed as a loss,
consumers with a concrete mindset evaluated utilitarian attributes (versus hedonic) more
positively. The results of this study implied that framing attribute as a gain or a loss can
influence the evaluation of both hedonic and utilitarian attributes.
50
Managerial Implications
The findings of this study also have important practical implications. The results of this
study are of value to marketers who aim to promote products/services that have both hedonic and
utilitarian attributes. We suggest that if consumers have an abstract mindset when reading
information about a product or service, it will be more effective to emphasize information that is
hedonic (versus utilitarian). However, if consumers have a more concrete mindset when reading
information about a product or service, emphasizing the utilitarian (versus hedonic) aspects of
information or an advertisement will enhance evaluation and purchase behavior.
Marketers should plan different marketing strategies for different product types or
channels with different type of consumers. Consumers who have a more abstract mindset when
purchasing the product/service should receive information that stresses hedonic benefits of the
product/service. However, if the consumers have a more concrete mindset when purchasing the
product/service, they should receive information that stresses utilitarian benefits of the product/
service. For example, a product/service that is made for local customers (psychologically near)
should emphasize utilitarian benefits while a product/service that is consumed by international
customers (psychologically distant) should focus on hedonic features. This strategy can be used
for industries or distribution channels where the gap between purchasing and consumption exists.
For example, consumers who are booking a resort hotel on a booking website where reservation
occurs months in advance before arrival (actual consumption) are likely to have an abstract
mindset when purchasing the hotel room. Therefore, highlighting the hedonic benefits may be
more effective. However, hotel booking channels that promote last minute bookings, it may be
more efficient to emphasize the utilitarian aspects of the hotel.
51
Furthermore, the marketers should effectively frame the hedonic and utilitarian attributes
in their ads. The findings of the studies suggest that framing the attributes as a gain or a loss
determines the success of the ad. If most of the target consumers have an abstract mindset,
hedonic attributes should be framed as a gain. However, if most of the target consumers have a
concrete mindset, utilitarian attributes should be framed as a loss.
Limitations and Future Research
The current research has some limitations. First, it is important to note that both
experiments were scenario-based and do not reflect actual, “real-world” consumer behavior.
Thus, we rely on previous research, which has established the link between behavioral intentions
and behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).
However, it would be beneficial for future research to attempt to capture actual consumer
behavior by way of field experiments. Second, the use of only two focal products in the current
study may limit the generalizability of the results to other product categories. Therefore, future
work should examine additional contexts to examine the generalizability of the findings reported
here.
In addition to addressing the limitations, it would be worth examining how other
psychological distances influence the perception of hedonic and utilitarian consumptions. For
example, it would be beneficial to demonstrate how distant spatial distance (vs. near spatial
distance) or distant temporal distance (vs. near temporal distance) jointly influence the
evaluations of hedonic versus utilitarian consumptions.
Furthermore, considering personal traits, emotions, and cognitions of individuals may
influence the results. Specifically, previous studies have demonstrated that hedonic attributes
may appeal more to consumers’ who make their decisions based on emotions whereas utilitarian
52
attributes may persuade consumers who make their decisions based on cognition (Hirschman &
Holbrooke, 1982; Kemp & Kopp, 2001). Moreover, it would be interesting to investigate
promotion-focus versus prevention-focus in future studies. Some previous studies have reported
that promotion-focused individuals are more affectively driven (Pham & Avnet, 2004) to obtain
hedonic benefits, whereas prevention-focused individuals are more cognitively driven to obtain
utilitarian benefits (Roy & Ng, 2012).
53
REFERENCES
Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect‐consistent
and affect‐inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 1-17.
Agrawal, N., & Wan, E. (2009). Regulating risk or risking regulation? Construal levels and
depletion effects in the processing of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research,
36(3), 448-462.
Ajzen, I. (1998). Models of human social behavior and their application to health psychology.
Psychology and Health, 13(4), 735-739.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social change. New
Jessey: Prentice-Hill.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a
metacognitive nation. Personality and social psychology review.
Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 400.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 644-656.
Banks, S., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995).
The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2),
178.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
54
Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: How cues in the
environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research,
45(1), 1-14.
Bettman, J., Johnson, E., & Payne, J. (1991). Consumer decision making. Handbook of consumer
behavior, 44(2), 50-84.
Bornstein, R., & D'Agostino, P. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure
effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(4), 545.
Botti, S., & McGill, A. (2011). The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with
hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065-1078.
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2000). Scaling back goals and recalibration of the affect system are
processes in normal adaptive self-regulation: understanding ‘response shift’phenomena.
Social science & medicine, 50(12), 1715-1722.
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from
“feeling right". Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(3), 388.
Chase, W., & Ericsson, K. (1981). Skilled memory. Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 141-
189.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(3), 557-565.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities
of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product
preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 702-714.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic
versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.
55
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,
69(2), 117-132.
Crowley, A., Spangenberg, E., & Hughes, K. (1992). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of attitudes toward product categories. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 239-249.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory
for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of marketing research, 37(1), 60-71.
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of
experimental social psychology, 44(4), 1204-1209.
Eyal, T., Sagristano, M., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter:
Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-43.
Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus.
Psychological science, 16(8), 631-636.
Freitas, A. L., Salovey, P., & Liberman, N. (2001). Abstract and concrete self-evaluative
goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 410.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses the effect of
construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science,
20(7), 799-804.
56
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-
control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(3), 351.
Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of
different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous
consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 225-235.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. The
Journal of Marketing, 60-72.
Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an
evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science,
11(4), 285-289.
Hardisty, D., Johnson, E., & Weber, E. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing,
political affiliation, and query theory. Psychological Science, 21(1), 86-92.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hellén, K., & Sääksjärvi, M. (2011). Happiness as a predictor of service quality and commitment
for utilitarian and hedonic services. Psychology & Marketing,28(9), 934-957.
Henderson, M., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the" here": the effect
of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology,
91(5), 845.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American psychologist, 55(11),
1217.
57
Higgins, E., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of
regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(3), 515.
Higgins, E., Roney, C., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for
approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 66(2), 276.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 92-101.
Hong, J., & Sternthal, B. (2010). The effects of consumer prior knowledge and processing
strategies on judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 301-311.
Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. (2000). Consumer goal structures and goal-
determination processes. The why of consumption: Contemporary perspectives on
consumer motives, goals and desires, 1-35.
Idson, L., & Mischel, W. (2001). The personality of familiar and significant people: The lay
perceiver as a social–cognitive theorist. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 80(4), 585.
Jacoby, L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(5), 485-508.
Jacoby, L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and
perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306.
Jacoby, L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on
the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past.Journal of personality and social
psychology, 56(3), 326.
58
Jacoby, L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions. Varieties of memory and
consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving, 391-422.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing
on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of consumer research, 28(1), 18-32.
Jiang, L., Hoegg, J., Dahl, D., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2010). The persuasive role of incidental
similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer
Research, 36(5), 778-791.
Kelley, C., & Jacoby, L. (1998). Subjective reports and process dissociation: Fluency, knowing,
and feeling. Acta Psychologica, 98(2), 127-140.
Kemp, E., & Kopp, S. (2011). Emotion regulation consumption: When feeling better is the aim.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(1), 1-7.
Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706-713.
Kivetz, R. (2000). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations in consumer choice. Advances in
Consumer Research, 27, 286-286.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous: Toward a theory of
precommitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199-217.
Kyung, E., Menon, G., & Trope, Y. (2010). Reconstruction of things past: Why do some
memories feel so close and others so far away?. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46(1), 217-220.
Lamberton, C., & Diehl, K. (2013). Retail choice architecture: The effects of benefit-and
attribute-based assortment organization on consumer perceptions and choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(3), 393-411.
59
Lee, M. P. (2001). Low involvement processing, effects of stimulus exposure and repetition on
implicit memory, explicit memory and affect.
Lee, A., Keller, P., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive
impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer
Research, 36(5), 735-747.
Lee, A., & Labroo, A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
Levin, I., & Gaeth, G. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute
information before and after consuming the product. Journal of consumer research, 374-
378.
Levin, I., Schneider, S., & Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and
critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: how global-versus-local
perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 97(2), 203.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of
mental construal. Journal of experimental social psychology, 38(6), 523-534.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near
and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 75(1), 5.
60
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S., & Sherman, S. (2007). The effect of level of construal on
the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43(1), 143-149.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles, 2, 353-383.
Lim, E., & Ang, S. (2008). Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective
based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 225-232.
Linville, P., Fischer, G., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup
and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(3), 421.
Liu, W. (2008). Focusing on desirability: The effect of decision interruption and suspension on
preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 640-652.
Malkoc, S., Zauberman, G., & Bettman, J. (2010). Unstuck from the concrete: Carryover effects
of abstract mindsets in intertemporal preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 113(2), 112-126.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer research, 451-466.
McCrea, S., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S. (2008). Construal level and procrastination.
Psychological Science, 19(12), 1308-1314.
McGlone, M., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as
reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11(5), 424-428.
61
Meyerowitz, B., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination
attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3),
500.
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston. Inc., New York.
Mittal, B. (1988). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive
products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499-524.
Mort, G. S., & Rose, T. (2004). The effect of product type on value linkages in the means‐end
chain: implications for theory and method. Journal of consumer behaviour, 3(3), 221-234.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.
Cognitive psychology, 9(3), 353-383.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in
choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347-356.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justifying the hedonic and the effects on fun versus practical
consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 45-5.
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision
making. Journal of consumer research, 25(2), 144-159.
Pham, M., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in
persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518.
Pham, M., & Chang, H. (2010). Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and
consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 626-640.
Pham, M., & Higgins, E. (2005). The state of the art and theoretical propositions. Inside
consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and desires, 8.
62
Poldrack, R., & Logan, G. (1998). What is the mechanism for fluency in successive recognition?.
Acta psychologica, 98(2), 167-181.
Rachlin, H. (1995). Self-control: Beyond commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(01),
109-121.
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth.
Consciousness and cognition, 8(3), 338-342.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is
beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and social psychology
review, 8(4), 364-382.
Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness.
Psychological science, 105-110.
Roediger, H. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American psychologist,
45(9), 1043.
Rothman, A., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. (1993). The influence of
message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors.Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 29(5), 408-433.
Roy, R., & Ng, S. (2012). Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and
utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(1), 81-88.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416-432.
63
Salovey, P., Schneider, T., & Apanovitch, A. (2002). Message framing in the prevention and
early detection of illness. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice,
391-406.
Schmeichel, B., & Vohs, K. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: affirming core values
counteracts ego depletion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(4), 770.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision
making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, September.
Sela, A., Berger, J., & Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences
option choice. Journal of Consumer Research,35(6), 941-951.
Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic
signatures of regulatory focus: how abstraction fits promotion more than prevention.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(1), 36.
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general
impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5),
693.
Shen, H., Jiang, Y., & Adaval, R. (2010). Contrast and assimilation effects of processing fluency.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 876-889.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-
analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of consumer research, 325-343.
Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of education. Journal of
Advertising Research, 36(5), 49-64.
64
Smith, P., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power
priming and abstract information processing. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 90(4), 578.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they
work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of consumer research, 24(4),
434.
Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental
psychology, 18(6), 643.
Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple
item scale. Journal of retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Thomas, M., & Tsai, C. (2012). Psychological distance and subjective experience: How
distancing reduces the feeling of difficulty. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 324-
340.
Torelli, C., & Kaikati, A. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: the role of
abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(1), 231.
Trope. Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution.
Psychological Review, 93(3), 239.
Trope, Y. (1989). Levels of inference in dispositional judgment. Social Cognition, 7(3), 296-314.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological review,110(3), 403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological review, 117(2), 440.
65
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:
Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of consumer
psychology: the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83.
Tsai, C., & McGill, A. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect
consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807-821.
Tsai, C., & Thomas, M. (2011). When does feeling of fluency matter? How abstract and concrete
thinking influence fluency effects. Psychological Science.
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247(4940),
301-306.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Vallacher, R., & Wegner, D. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification
and human behavior. Psychological review, 94(1), 3.
Voss, K., Spangenberg, E., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3), 310-320.
Wakslak, C., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is
unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 135(4), 641.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters: The role of
construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation
behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
Whittlesea, B. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235.
66
Wilson, D., Purdon, S., & Wallston, K. (1988). Compliance to health recommendations: A
theoretical overview of message framing. Health Education Research, 3(2), 161-171.
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face:
psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 989.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of
processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. The psychology of evaluation:
Affective processes in cognition and emotion, 189-217.
Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 9(2p2), 1.
Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist,
35(2), 151.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. the Journal of Marketing, 31-46.
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to
positively versus negatively framed advertising messages.Journal of Advertising, 28(2),
1-15.
Zhao, M., & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers' responses to
peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486-496.
Zhou, R., & Pham, M. (2004). Promotion and Prevention across Mental Accounts: When
Financial Products Dictate Consumers& Investment Goals. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(1), 125-135
VITA
Ju Yeon Han
Ju Yeon Han is currently a Ph.D. student at the Pennsylvania State University. Prior to
entering the doctoral program, Ju Yeon has 9 years of combined professional experience in the
hospitality industry with Samsung Shilla Hotel and Fairmont Raffles Hotel International in
rooms operations and revenue management and with Orbitz Worldwide as a market manager.
Ms. Han’s research interest areas are consumer behavior with special emphasis on experiences
and services. She is also conducting research in areas of pricing and advertising. She received
her bachelor’s degree in hospitality management from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and
a master’s degree in hospitality management from Cornell University, with emphases on services
marketing and revenue management.
In Fall 2015, Ju Yeon will start her academic career at the University of Houston as an
Assistant Professor.