NOT ALL ADVERTISEMENTS ARE CREATED EQUAL: THE …

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


Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 30

Manipulation Check .......................................................................................................................... 32


Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 5 METHOD AND RESULTS OF STUDY 2 ...................................................................... 38

Pretest .................................................................................................................................................... 38


Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 39


vi

Main Study ............................................................................................................................................ 40


Measurements .................................................................................................................................... 42

Manipulation Check .......................................................................................................................... 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.


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).


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


Error 287.23 127 2.262

Total 3308.889 132


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


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.


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.


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).


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 *

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


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


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


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


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


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.

Documents

NOT ALL ADVERTISEMENTS ARE CREATED EQUAL: THE …