5
The Effect of Construal Matching on Consumers’ Evaluative Judgments
Psychological distance influences consumers to form evaluations based on different product features. We demonstrate that independent of its features, a product is evaluated more favorably when it is distant, or close, in various psychological distances than when it is distant in one dimension but close in another dimension.
Extended Abstract
Construal level theory (CLT) posits that psychological distance, defined as the distance of an event from the perceiver’s direct experience, can be specified in four dimensions: temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance and hypotheticality (or probability) (Liberman, Trope, and Stephan 2007). Research to date has focused on the premise that as the psychological distance of a product increases, its evaluations are more influenced by its primary, essential, high-level features, as compared with its secondary, peripheral, low-level features (Liviatan, Trope, and Liberman 2008; Todorov, Goren, and Trope 2007; Trope and Liberman 2000). As an extension of CLT, we propose a construal matching effect in which psychological distance influences evaluations of a product independent of its features.
Specifically, we propose that there is a greater degree of match when the product is psychologically distant, or close, in various dimensions. For example, a gift to be purchased in a few months’ time for a causal acquaintance involves a temporally distant future as well as a socially distant person, and is said to have a good match in its psychological distances (i.e., the gift is psychological distant in both dimensions). Similarly, a gift to be purchased in a few days’ time for a good friend involves a temporally close future and a socially close person, and hence is also said to have a good match in its psychological distances. Conversely, there will be a poor match when the product is psychologically distant in one dimension, but close in another dimension. Thus, a gift to be purchased in a few months’ (few days’) time for a good friend (causal acquaintance) is said to have a poor match in its psychological distances, as it involves a temporally distant (close) future yet a socially close (distant) person.
We further hypothesize that a product with a greater match in psychological distances will be evaluated more favorably. Since the more psychologically remote an object is, the higher the level it is construed (Liberman et al. 2007), a match in the psychological distances implies a consistency in the construal level of the object along each dimension. For instance, a temporally remote purchase for a casual acquaintance will be construed primarily with high-level features along the temporal and social dimensions. This requires activating a relatively small set of features and thus is cognitively less demanding. Conversely, a poor match implies that different dimensions call for different levels of construal. For instance, a temporally remote purchase for a good friend will necessitate representations of both high- and low-level features simultaneously. This involves activating a relatively large set of features and thus requires greater mental efforts.
In prior investigations on the phenomenal feelings of metacognitive experiences, ease in processing product information leads to a sense of feeling right (or feeling appropriate) about the product (Lee and Aaker 2004; Reber, Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004). This feeling right yields enhanced evaluations of the product, as people misattribute such experience to a higher quality of the product. Because of the lower cognitive demand in comprehending its information, this research suggests that people are more likely to feel right about a product when it has a greater match in psychological distances. This will stimulate a more favorable evaluation of the product. In other words, a product would be evaluated more favorably when it has a greater match in psychological distances. Further, the feeling right experienced in processing its information would mediate such effect.
We assessed our ideas using scenario experiments that undergraduate students participated for cash reimbursement. Study 1 tested the effect of the match in psychological distances on product evaluations. In the scenario, participants would depart for a trip five days later (near future condition) or nine months later (distant future condition) and considered a hotel for their trip from a choice set of three hotels (high base probability condition) or 15 hotels (low base probability condition). Here the base probability pertained to the chance for a particular hotel being chosen, which was much higher in the 3-hotel choice set (i.e., 1/3) than in the 15-hotel choice set (i.e., 1/15), given that the participants had no idea about any of the hotels. Then, participants were given information of a hotel from their choice set and asked to evaluate the hotel. Consistent with our proposed construal matching effect, participants who would depart five days later evaluated the hotel more favorably when the hotel was from a 3-hotel versus 15-hotel choice set. Yet, participants who would depart nine months later evaluated the hotel more favorably when the hotel was from a 15-hotel versus 3-hotel choice set. These results support our idea that a greater match in psychological distances could enhance product evaluations.
Study 2 was conducted to explore the mechanism underlying the proposed construal matching effect. In the scenario, participants considered a CD as a gift for their good friend (socially close gift recipient) or a casual acquaintance (socially distant gift recipient). They were asked to read a review of the CD. The author of the review acted as the influencer in participants’ decision to purchase the CD and was described as a student from participants’ university (socially close influencer) or a working adult (socially distant influencer). Results showed that participants who read a review written by a socially close (distant) influencer evaluated the CD more favorably when their gift recipient was socially close (distant) versus distant (close). More importantly, the feeling right participants experienced in processing the review mediated the interactive effect of the social distances of gift recipient and influencer on evaluation of the CD. These findings support our idea that the feeling right aroused in the process of evaluation drives the enhanced evaluations under construal matching.
In sum, we proposed and demonstrated a construal matching effect that a product is evaluated more favorably when it has a greater match in psychological distances. While previous research on psychological distances focuses on how product features shape consumers’ evaluations, our proposed construal matching effect is driven by the feelings generated from the processing of product information.
References
Baron, Reuben M. and David Kenny (1986), “The Moderator‐Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1173–82.
Brown, Jacqueline J. and Peter H. Reingen (1987), “Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (December), 350–62.
Cesario, Joseph, Heidi Grant, and E. Tory Higgins (2004), “Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from ‘Feeling Right’,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (March), 388–404.
Clore, Gerald L. (1992), “Cognitive Phenomenology: Feelings and the Construction of Judgment,” in The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. Leonard L. Martin and Abraham Tesser, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 133–64.
Eyal, Tal, Nira Liberman, Yaacov Trope, and Eva Walther (2004), “The Pros and Cons of Temporally Near and Distant Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (6), 781–95.
Feick, Lawrence and Robin A. Higie (1992), “The Effects of Preference Heterogeneity and Source Characteristics on Ad Processing and Judgments about Endorsers,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (June), 9–24.
Förster, Jens (2009), “Relations between Perceptual and Conceptual Scope: How Global Versus Local Processing Fits a Focus on Similarity Versus Dissimilarity,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 88–111.
Gino, Francesca, Jen Shang, and Rachel Croson (2009), “The Impact of Information from Similar or Different Advisors on Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (2), 287-302.
Higgins, Tory E., Lorraine C. Idson, Antonio L. Freitas, Scott Spiegel, and Daniel C. Molden (2003), “Transfer of Value from Fit,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (June), 1140–53.
Kim, Hakkyun, Akshay R. Rao, and Angela Y. Lee (2009), “It’s Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (April), 877–89.
Kim, Kyeongheui, Meng Zhang, and Xiuping Li (2008), “Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (December), 706–13.
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (February), 205–18.
Lee, Angela Y. and Aparna Labroo (2004), “The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151–65.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Elena Stephan (2007), “Psychological Distance,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Vol. 2, ed. Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford, 353–83.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Cheryl Wakslak (2007), “Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 113–17.
Liviatan, Ido, Yaacov Trope, and Nira Liberman (2008), “Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others’ Actions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (5), 1256–69.
Nan, Xiaoli (2007), “Social Distance, Framing, and Judgment: A Construal Level Perspective,” Human Communication Research, 33 (4), 489–514.
Reber, Rolf, Norbert Schwarz, and Piotr Winkielman (2004), “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
Reber, Rolf, Piotr Winkielman, and Norbert Schwarz (1998), “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments,” Psychological Science, 9 (1), 45–48.
Schwarz, Norbert and Gerald L. Clore (2007), “Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Vol. 2, ed. Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford, 385–407.
Todorov, Alexander, Amir Goren, and Yaacov Trope (2007), “Probability as A Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 473–82.
Torelli, Carlos J., and Andrew M. Kaikati (2009), “Values as Predictors of Judgments and Behaviors: The Role of Abstract and Concrete Mindsets,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (1), 231–247.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2000), “Temporal Construal and Time‐Dependent Changes in Preference,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 876–89.
Wangenheim, Florian V. and Tomas Bayon (2004), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Services Switching: Measurement and Moderating Variables,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (9/10), 1173–85.