JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 17(2), 96–100 Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. HJCP Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice Seeing the Forest or the Trees Ravi Dhar and Eunice Y. Kim Yale University Like many important theories that were originally tested in one domain, construal level theory has broadened the notion of temporal distance to psychological distance and examined the wide ranging implications of this construct on evaluation and behavior. This commentary seeks to take a step back to admire the “forest” that has been created and suggest additional extensions and implications along the different stages of consumer decision making: goal pursuit, evaluation by way of consideration-set formation and receptivity, and finally choice influenced by context, comparability of options, and post-choice happiness and regret. In the field of social psychology, dual processing theories have emerged as some of the most influential models in understanding and explaining the shift in people’s evaluation of objects and social situations. Many dual processing theories distinguish differences in processing along an intuitive, affective versus a deliberative, analytical dimension and hence the type of information that is emphasized (e.g., Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). More recently, however, construal level theory (CLT) with a purely cognitive orientation has risen to the forefront, focusing on the level of construals that receive greater attention or weight in evaluation. CLT states that people’s mental representations of stimuli that are psychologically near are low level and concrete while stimuli that are psychologically distant are high level and abstract. Trope, Liberman, and Wakslak (in press) outline the vast implications of CLT for research on the way individuals represent and evaluate objects and events, Like many important theories that were originally developed and tested in one domain, CLT has broadened the notion of temporal distance to other dimensions of psychological distance that has wide ranging implications. This commentary seeks to take a step back to admire the “forest” that has been created from CLT’s different “trees” and suggests additional extensions and implications along each of the stages of the realm of consumer decision making (cf. Simonson, Carmon, Dhar, Drolet, & Nowlis, 2001): awareness in the form of goal pursuit, evaluation by way of consideration-set formation and receptivity, and finally choices as influenced by context, comparability of options, and post-choice happiness and regret. We explore each stage in the following sections. CLT and Goal Pursuit Although most research on consumers has focused on the moment of choice, recent research has attempted to integrate choices with the consideration of their underlying goals (Fishbach & Dhar, 2006). An emerging trend in this literature has been shifting from the consideration of single goal and isolated choice settings to scenarios where people pursue multiple goals through a sequence of choices. For example, Fishbach and Dhar (2005) found that when in the presence of multiple competing goals, people can either opt to behave in ways that are consistent with a goal or behave in ways that disengage from one goal in favor of an alternate goal. It depends on whether an initial action is interpreted in terms of goal commitment or goal progress. The relative focus on goal-commitment versus goal-progress has, in turn, opposite implications for the direction of selfregulation through subsequent choice. When a goal-related action or behavior signals commitment to a goal, it increases goal motivation and thus increases the likelihood that an individual will subsequently behave in goal-consistent ways. However, when a goal-related action or behavior signals progress, the partial goal attainment serves as a justification to disengage from the goal temporarily and choose actions that serve other, even inconsistent, goals (Fishbach & Dhar, 2006). An interesting question is regarding the set of factors that can determine whether a specific action is interpreted in terms of goal progress or goal commitment. The fact that CLT distinguishes between a high-level identification in which an activity is linked to its superordinate Correspondence should be addressed to Ravi Dhar, Yale School of Management, 135 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: ravi.dhar@yale.edu SEEING THE FOREST OR THE TREES 97 purpose and a low-level identification in which the activity is linked to its subordinate means suggests that the construal level would determine the interpretation of an action. This posits that an individual who interprets his past goal-related actions in terms of low-level construal (e.g., studying in the library) may see it in terms of having made goal progress and be more likely to disengage from this goal and move to satisfy other goals as opposed to an individual who interprets his action in terms of high-level construal (e.g., doing well academically). We describe such a study later. Fishbach, Dhar, and Zhang (2006) also explored the implication of the above account by studying the effect of breaking up a goal into its subgoals—several goal-related actions—on subsequent behavior. They examined how individuals chose to engage in or disengage from subsequent goal-related actions after completing a subgoal, depending upon the relative focus on the specific subgoal attainment (presumably a low-level construal) relative to the higher order goal that initiated the action (presumably a high-level construal). In one study, they examined how individuals chose subgoals in various self-regulatory domains (e.g., preventing sun damage, succeeding academically, staying in shape). To vary the accessibility of the overall goal, participants were either primed with the superordinate goal or not. Next, participants rated their interest in pursuing a subgoal toward the overall instance, participants were asked to rate their interest in studying at night, after learning that they studied only in the morning. They found that in the absence of the goal prime, those who already pursued (vs. not pursued) an initial subgoal were subsequently less interested in similar, congruent subgoals which were seen as substitutable. However, in the presence of the goal prime, those who already pursued (vs. not pursued) an initial subgoal were subsequently more interested in other subgoals which were seen as complementary. Thus, those who studied during the day were subsequently less interested in studying at night when the focus was on the action by itself, and they were more motivated to study at night when the focus was on the overall goal. An interesting implication is whether the goal priming manipulation placed participants in a higher construal that led to an action being seen in terms of a higher construal and hence strengthened goal commitment. In lieu of priming the superordinate goal, CLT suggests that an activity in the distant future will be more likely to be identified in high-level terms. Fishbach et al. (2006) further found that by manipulating temporal distance, people construe the attainment of a subgoal as commitment to a higher superordinate goal when the subgoal is temporally distant. But when the subgoal is temporally proximal, its attainment is construed as progress toward that subgoal. The findings of these studies indeed lend support to the notion that construallevel mindset affects whether a progress or commitment mindset is evoked in interpreting a goal-related behavior. And more broadly, when manipulated to be in an abstract mindset or when primed to approach a goal abstractly, people may come to see beyond the imminent subgoal at hand and consider their actions as part of the broader superordinate goal. CLT and Evaluation: Consideration-set Formation Once individuals have determined which goals to pursue, consideration sets are ways to narrow down an array of options and approach another step closer to the final choice and the goal. There has been some research looking at multistage screening and decision-making process to determine the relative importance of attributes. For example, Chakravarti, Janiszewski, and Ulkumen (2006) examined the use and neglect of various prescreening information in the creation of consideration sets and arrival at ultimate choice. They found that information or attributes that were used in the creation stage are neglected in the choice stage. However, there seems to be little research as to whether particular types of attributes may receive greater attention in the respective screening and choice stages. Past research points at a potential for CLT to explain the types of product attributes considered at each stage. CLT might posit that in the formation of consideration sets, the consumer mindset is at a greater psychological distance from the moment of purchase, and hence abstract attributes of the products are crucial (e.g., quality). Conversely, at the time of the final purchase decision, it is the low-level, concrete, or peripheral features (e.g., price) that might be emphasized. In a similar vein, the choice between two “menus of options” might be made using high-level construals whereas the choice within a menu of a final purchase may be made considering the low-level construals. The senior author often finds himself going to a fast food restaurant that also has healthier options (a high-level construal) but inevitably ends up ordering the less healthy item from the menu once at the restaurant. CLT and Evaluation: Receptivity The third area of extension is the realm of preferences based on product features and distance. Thomas, Chadran, and Trope (2006) examined the effect of feature enhancement on purchase intent. In line with the results of Liberman and Trope (1998) that high-level construal corresponds with desirability while low-level construal corresponds with feasibility, Thomas et al. (2006) manipulated the salience of a product’s desirability (e.g., addition of features) or its feasibility (e.g., price) and showed its effect on purchase intent for near versus distant future. While purchase intent is certainly important, Kim, Dhar, and Novemsky (2007) posit that attention, persuasion, and recall of features of products are also crucial in consumer decision making and susceptible to construal effects. They introduce the concept of receptivity and its implications for advertising messages and subsequent evaluation and purchase intent of the target 98 DHAR AND KIM product. Receptivity can be defined as consumers’ conscious and unconscious readiness to accept, process, and respond to brand messaging. Receptivity is stimulated by a consumer’s needs, interests, and values and will fluctuate over time. One important variable that might moderate consumer receptivity is the temporal or spatial distance between the message communication and the actual consumption or the purchase decision. This “distance” can be thought of as psychological distance; as this distance increases, the stimulus takes on an increasingly higher level abstract construal. So as to increase consumer attention to ads and product claims, Kim, Dhar et al. (2007) hypothesize that advertisements’ claims should be congruent with the distance from which it will be viewed by consumers. Put differently, ads seen at some distance should accentuate the product’s core central features (e.g., cleaning effectiveness, etc. for detergents), while those ads seen from a close distance such as in-store messages should emphasize the product’s secondary peripheral features (e.g., on sale, easy to carry, etc.). In addition to featuring core central claims, the distant ad claims should emphasize the desirability of the product as opposed to its feasibility, while the reverse would be true for near ad claims (Liberman & Trope, 1998). As psychological distance increases, advertisements featuring higher level construal—core, central claims—will yield greater receptivity, while as psychological distance decreases, advertisements with low-level construal— peripheral claims—will produce greater receptivity. Furthermore, Kim, Dhar et al. (2007) propose that the effects of heightened attention persist over time. As mentioned above, the notion of receptivity includes how well consumers encode the advertising claims and to what extent consumers believe those claims. The prediction here is that distance-congruent claims will result in more attention which leads to better recall and perhaps greater ad believability. The effect of construal level on receptivity has practical implications for advertisers who seek to enhance the persuasiveness and believability of their ads and in turn increase the market share of their products. Many marketers believe that repeated exposure to same advertising messages and claims is the best way to affect purchase intent. In contrast, Kim, Dhar et al. (2007) hypothesize that marketers should expose consumers to differential claims that are distance congruent to increase receptivity. As receptivity to advertising messages increases, choices and future purchase intent should increase as well. CLT and Choice The implications of CLT for consumer choice are consistent with the viewpoint of behavioral decision theory (BDT) that has moved away from the notion of preformed stable preferences to a now widely accepted notion of constructed preferences leading to choices that are highly dependent on task or contextual factors (for a review, see Simonson et al., 2001). As such, one area of BDT is the study of context effects in choice; the compromise effect and the attraction effect are examples of shifting preferences based on different considerations in a choice situation (cf. Dhar & Simonson, 2003). Dhar, Nowlis, and Sherman (2000) attribute these context-influenced shifts in choices to individuals’ focus on local relational tradeoffs between the provided alternatives. An interesting question to examine then is whether the effects of the local tradeoff context would be attenuated when respondents are manipulated to take a higher level, abstract, and distant perspective. Within this framework, the shift in representation, evaluation, and behavior based on the psychological distance might enrich our understanding of the manner in which preferences are constructed, not only as a function of decision task or context but also based on the psychological distance from the decision. While CLT researchers have already identified interesting effects on choice, it has not been extended to understanding consumer choice between noncomparable options. Most of the literature in consumer decision making focuses on choice between two or more options that are of the same product category and are therefore comparable on several product attributes (e.g., two microwaves or two coffee makers). Much less research, however, has examined choices between noncomparable options or options that are not in the same product category (e.g., a microwave and a coffee maker). A major finding in this area of decision making is that consumers employ certain effortful strategies when choosing between noncomparable options; consumers tend to look at the abstract features rather than the concrete features of color, number of cooking options on a microwave, and number of cups of coffee that can be made per brewing (Johnson, 1984, 1988). And since it requires much effort to create an overall evaluation, it is believed that noncomparable choices are often more difficult. However, relatively little is understood about the antecedents and consequences of such difficulty for consumer choice. An important moderator of the difficulty of noncomparable choices can be the way in which the options are construed by the consumer. The difficulty of the choice task can be decreased or increased by manipulating consumers so that they are in an abstract or concrete mindset. In particular, a high-level construal should facilitate the combining of features into more abstract features and subsequently decrease the feeling of choice difficulty. A low-level construal, on the other hand, should inhibit such processes and lead to an increase in choice difficulty. Trope, Liberman, and Wakslak (2007) provide a review of the wide and numerous means through which construal level can be manipulated that has implications for choice among noncomparable options. In an ongoing project, Kim, Khan, and Dhar (2007) manipulated the construal level of consumers and examined its effects on noncomparable choice options. They found that the manipulation of the construal level of the choice has an effect on the perceived difficulty of the decision. By SEEING THE FOREST OR THE TREES 99 putting subjects in an abstract or concrete mindset using a how versus why task (Freitas, Gollwitzer, & Trope, 2004), they were able to affect decision difficulty ratings. Specifically, participants were first asked either to answer the question “why one studies” or “how ones studies.” After completion of this task, participants made a choice between two unrelated, noncomparable choices—$50 worth of video games and a $50 box of chocolates—and indicated on a scale how difficult they found the choice to be. As expected, those participants who had been put in the abstract mindset by answering “why one studies” found the choice significantly less difficult than those who had been put in the concrete mindset. Construal thus affected the decision difficulty of noncomparable options. An interesting extension would be to explore the potential consequences of the difficulty in noncomparable choices. In the real world, when individuals struggle with making a decision, they almost always have the option of not choosing and not purchasing either alternative, or of delaying the decision until a later time. Dhar (1997) has shown that when the decision is viewed as difficult, consumers’ preference for the no-choice or the deferral option increases even though the available options are viewed as being attractive. The prediction concerning no-choice or deferral option is that those consumers who are either in abstract mindsets or in choice situations presented in psychologically distant terms will experience less choice difficulty and will therefore exhibit less of a tendency to select the no-choice option than those consumers in concrete mindsets and psychologically proximal scenarios. In fact, Kim, Khan et al. (2007) found that construal levels affect not only decision difficulty ratings but also the degree of choice deferral in the above predicted pattern. They manipulated social distance as a means of inducing the high- and low-level construals. Following Eyal, Liberman, Trope, and Walther (2004, Study 4), participants were instructed to either make a choice for themselves or for an acquaintance. Those being asked to choose for an acquaintance were instructed to imagine an individual with whom they do not have a close relationship but see on a regular basis at work or in class, and write down his or her initials. Results show that those participants choosing among noncomparable options for themselves, and thus in a more concrete mindset, were more likely to defer the choice than those participants choosing for an acquaintance and in a more abstract mindset. Another potential consequence of the difficulty in noncomparable choices is the level of satisfaction with decisions. A construal manipulation should be able to affect the perceived ease as well as the ability to process abstractly or concretely, and in turn affect decision satisfaction. CLT and Post-choice An interesting question to consider through the lens of CLT is what happens once individuals have made their decisions. In other words, when do people make better decisions as reflected by their happiness with the chosen option? It is possible that immediate satisfaction may reflect the lowlevel construal of the choice option such as the details of the decision and the peripheral features of the product. But over time or when looking back on the decision, individuals might naturally take a more distant perspective looking at quality, central features of products, and other overall preferences. To the extent that the choice at the moment focused on lower level construals, individuals may feel less happy if they forgo options that were superior on higher level features and therefore be more inclined to reverse their decisions. Unhappiness or less happiness in turn inevitably leads to regret (for a related discussion see Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007). It would be interesting to explore the idea that choice regret is moderated by the perspective, whether near or distant, that individuals take when reevaluating a past decision or selection. A related question is the potential contribution of CLT in understanding the fundamental differences in people’s concurrent and retrospective (or prospective) reports of experiences. As Schwarz, Kahneman, and Xu (in press) summarize, retrospective reports as well as prediction of future feelings often converge but simultaneously and systematically diverge from concurrent report of their feelings (e.g., pleasure from their children). These differences have been explained in terms of an accessibility model such that concurrent ratings reflect the real time affective experience (e.g., crying or needy child) whereas the retrospective evaluations are often based on semantic knowledge or general beliefs as the episodic memory of the experience may no longer be available (e.g., enjoyment from having kids). Interestingly, a testable hypotheses based on CLT would be that people show a greater reliance on the general beliefs even when the episodic memory is available but the evaluation is psychologically distant. CONCLUSION The strength of CLT theory is in its ability to provide a parsimonious understanding of how evaluations change on the basis of the psychological distance. The emphasis of the theory is on evaluation differences based on shifting cognitive representation, but clearly evaluations of objects that are psychologically distant might also differ due to motivational factors. Although CLT offers a cognitive account for many such phenomena, we think an integration of emotional and motivational considerations within the CLT framework will help us understand a wider variety of choices that are driven by multiple considerations. For example, motivational biases such as optimism are likely to enhance the importance of central aspects of goals that will be pursued in the distant future as opposed to the resource constraints. This is especially true with regard to goals that are difficult to regulate (e.g., studying, eating healthy) and whose 100 DHAR AND KIM pursuit enhances one’s self-perception. An interesting area for future consideration would be how these motivational considerations would impact evaluations when more than one dimension of psychological distance is manipulated simultaneously. For example, when evaluations involve both social and temporal distance (e.g., making a choice for self versus other for the near or the distant future), motivational considerations suggest that temporally distant choices for self might be seen as being different than temporally distant choices for others. As we have outlined in this commentary, few recent theories have had the impact that CLT has on the field in explaining and understanding a wide range of evaluations and behaviors. For the reasons outlined here, we feel CLT will continue to contribute to the expanding research in social cognition and behavioral decision theory. And every once in a while, it is important and beneficial to step back and take stock of the ripple effects that each tree has on the vast beauty of the CLT forest. REFERENCES Chakravarti, A., Janiszewski, C., & Ulkumen, G. (2006). The neglect of prescreening information. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 642–653. Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 215–231. Dhar, R., Nowlin, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146–160. Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 781–795. Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370–377. Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2006). Dynamics of goal-based choice: Toward an understanding on how goals commit versus liberate choice. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (forthcoming). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press. Fishbach, A., Dhar, R., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Subgoals as substitutes or complements: The role of goal accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 232–242. Freitas, A., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739–752. Johnson, M. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 741–753. Johnson, M. (1988). Comparability and hierarchical processing in multialtemative choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 303–314. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics & Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kim, E. Y., Dhar, R., & Novemsky, N. (2007). Consumer receptivity of psychologically near and distant product advertising messages. Manuscript in preparation, Yale University. Kim, E. Y., Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17. Manuscript in preparation, Yale University. 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, 5–18. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). San Diego, CA: Academic. Schwarz, N., Kahneman, D., & Xu, J. (in press). Global and episodic reports of hedonic experience. In R. Belli, D. Alwin, & F. Stafford (Eds.), Using Calendar and Diary Methods in Life Events Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., Dhar, R., Drolet, A., & Nowlis, S. M. (2001). Consumer research: In search of identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 249–275. Thomas, M., Chadran, S., & Trope, Y. (2006). The effects of temporal distance on purchase construal. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University. Trope Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 3–18.
소비자 심리학 저널, 17(2), 96–100
저작권 © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
HJCP 숲이나 나무를 보다: 시사점
소비자 선택을 위한 해석수준이론
숲과 나무 보기 Ravi Dhar와 Eunice Y. Kim
예일대 학교
원래 한 영역에서 테스트된 많은 중요한 이론과 마찬가지로 해석 수준 이론
시간적 거리의 개념을 심리적 거리로 확장하고
평가와 행동에 대한 이 구조의 광범위한 의미. 이 논평
한 걸음 물러서서 조성된 "숲"에 감탄하고 추가적인 제안을 하고자 합니다.
소비자 의사결정의 다양한 단계에 따른 확장 및 함의: 목표 추구, 고려 세트 형성 및 수용성을 통한 평가, 최종 선택
상황, 옵션의 비교 가능성, 선택 후의 행복과 후회에 의해 영향을 받습니다.
사회 심리학 분야에서 이중 처리 이론
가장 영향력 있는 모델로 떠올랐다.
사물과 사회적 상황에 대한 사람들의 평가 변화를 이해하고 설명합니다. 많은 이중 처리
이론은 직관적, 감정적 대 심의적, 분석적 차원에 따라 처리의 차이를 구별합니다.
따라서 강조되는 정보의 유형(예:
Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
그러나 최근에는 해석수준이론(CLT)
순전히인지 적 지향이 최전선에 올랐습니다.
평가에서 더 큰 관심이나 가중치를 받는 해석의 수준에 초점을 맞춥니다. CLT는 심리적으로 가까운 자극에 대한 사람들의 정신적 표상이
심리적으로 거리가 먼 자극은 높은 수준이고 추상적입니다. 트로피, 리버맨,
및 Wakslak(보도 중)은 CLT의 광범위한 의미를 설명합니다.
개인이 표현하고 평가하는 방식에 대한 연구
사물과 사건, 많은 중요한 이론처럼
원래 하나의 도메인에서 개발되고 테스트된 CLT는
시간적 거리의 개념을 다른 차원으로 확장
광범위한 영향을 미치는 심리적 거리.
이 논평은
씨엘티의 다양한 '나무들'이 만들어낸 '숲'과
각각에 따라 추가 확장 및 의미를 제안합니다.
소비자 의사결정 영역의 단계(cf. Simonson, Carmon, Dhar, Drolet, & Nowlis, 2001):
목표추구의 형태, 고려사항에 의한 평가
형성과 수용성, 그리고 최종적으로 영향을 받는 선택
상황, 옵션의 비교 가능성 및 선택 후 행복
그리고 후회. 다음 섹션에서 각 단계를 살펴봅니다.
CLT 및 목표 추구
소비자에 대한 대부분의 연구는
선택의 순간에, 최근 연구는 선택을 그들의 근본적인 고려와 통합하려고 시도했습니다.
(Fishbach & Dhar, 2006). 이에 새롭게 떠오르는 트렌드
문학은 단일 고려에서 이동했습니다.
사람들이 시나리오에 대한 목표 및 격리된 선택 설정
일련의 선택을 통해 여러 목표를 추구합니다. 을 위한
예를 들어, Fishbach와 Dhar(2005)는
여러 경쟁 목표의 존재, 사람들은 둘 중 하나를 선택할 수 있습니다
목표와 일치하는 방식으로 행동하거나 행동하다
다른 목표를 위해 하나의 목표에서 벗어나는 방식으로. 이는 초기 조치가 목표 헌신 또는 목표 진행 측면에서 해석되는지 여부에 따라 다릅니다. 그만큼
목표 헌신 대 목표 진행에 대한 상대적 초점
차례로 후속 선택을 통한 자기 규제 방향에 대해 반대되는 의미를 갖습니다. 목표 관련일 때
행동이나 행동은 목표에 대한 헌신을 의미합니다.
목표 동기를 증가시켜 가능성을 높입니다.
개인이 이후에 목표 일관성 있게 행동할 것이라는 점
방법. 그러나 목표 관련 행동이나 행동 신호가 진행될 때 부분적인 목표 달성은 일시적으로 목표에서 이탈하고 선택하는 것을 정당화하는 역할을 합니다.
일관성이 없는 다른 목표에 기여하는 행동(Fishbach
& 다르, 2006). 흥미로운 질문은 세트에 관한 것입니다.
특정 조치가 있는지 여부를 결정할 수 있는 요인
목표 진행 또는 목표 약속의 관점에서 해석됩니다.
CLT가 활동이 상위에 연결된 높은 수준의 식별을 구별한다는 사실
서신은 Yale School의 Ravi Dhar에게 보내야 합니다.
관리, 135 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511.
이메일: ravi.dhar@yale.edu
숲이나 나무 보기 97
활동의 목적 및 하위 수준 식별
하위 수단과 연결되어 있음을 암시합니다.
레벨은 행동의 해석을 결정합니다. 이것
자신의 과거 목표를 해석하는 개인이
낮은 수준의 해석 측면에서 행동(예:
도서관)은 목표 진행을 이룬 측면에서 볼 수 있습니다.
이 목표에서 이탈하고
다음과 같은 다른 목표를 충족 자신의 행동을 높은 수준의 해석 측면에서 해석하는 개인(예:
학문적으로도). 우리는 나중에 그러한 연구를 설명합니다.
Fishbach, Dhar, Zhang(2006)도 다음을 탐구했습니다.
의 효과를 연구하여 위 설명의 의미
목표를 하위 목표로 나누기 - 몇 가지 목표 관련
조치 - 후속 조치에 대해. 그들은 개인이 후속 작업에 참여하거나 참여를 해제하는 방법을 조사했습니다.
하위 목표를 완료한 후 목표 관련 조치에 따라
특정 하위 목표 달성에 대한 상대적인 초점에 따라
(아마도 낮은 수준의 해석)
작업을 시작한 주문 목표(아마도 높은 수준의
해석). 한 연구에서 그들은 개인이 어떻게
다양한 자기 규제 영역에서 하위 목표를 선택했습니다(예: 태양 손상 방지, 학업 성공,
모양). 전체 목표의 접근성을 변경하기 위해 참가자는 상위 목표로 프라이밍되거나 그렇지 않았습니다.
다음으로 참가자들은 하위 목표 추구에 대한 관심도를 평가했습니다.
전체 사례에 대해 참가자들에게 평가를 요청했습니다.
밤에 공부하는 것에 대한 관심
아침에만 공부했다. 그들은 부재에서 그것을 발견
목표 프라임의 초기 하위 목표를 이미 추구한(추구하지 않은 것과 비교하여) 사람들은 이후에 관심이 적었습니다.
대체 가능한 것으로 간주되는 유사하고 일치하는 하위 목표. 그러나 목표 프라임이 존재하는 경우,
이미 추구한(추적하지 않은) 초기 하위 목표는
이후에 다른 하위 목표에 더 관심이 있습니다.
상호보완적으로 본다. 그래서 그 동안 공부한 사람들은
이후 낮에는 밤에 공부하는 데 관심이 줄어들었습니다.
행동 자체에 초점이 맞춰져 있을 때
밤에 집중할 때 더 의욕적으로 공부할 수 있습니다.
전반적인 목표.
흥미로운 의미는 목표 프라이밍 여부입니다.
조작은 참가자를 더 높은 해석에 배치했습니다.
더 높은 의미의 관점에서 행동을 이끌어 냈습니다.
따라서 목표 헌신이 강화되었습니다. 상위 목표를 프라이밍하는 대신에 CLT는 다음과 같은 활동을 제안합니다.
먼 미래는
높은 수준의 용어. Fishbachet al. (2006)
시간적 거리를 조작함으로써 사람들은
하위 목표가 시간적으로 멀리 떨어져 있을 때 더 높은 상위 목표에 대한 헌신으로 하위 목표 달성. 하지만
하위 목표가 시간적으로 근접할 때 그 달성은
하위 목표를 향한 진전으로 해석됩니다. 의 발견
이러한 연구는 실제로 해석 수준의 사고방식이 진전 또는 헌신 여부에 영향을 미친다는 개념을 뒷받침합니다.
사고방식은 목표와 관련된 행동을 해석할 때 불러일으킨다.
그리고 더 넓게는 추상적으로 조작될 때
마음가짐이나 목표에 추상적으로 접근할 준비가 되었을 때,
사람들은 임박한 하위 목표 너머를 볼 수 있습니다.
그들의 행동을 더 넓은 상위 목표의 일부로 생각하십시오.
CLT 및 평가: 고려 설정 형성
개인이 추구할 목표를 결정한 후,
고려 사항 집합은 일련의 범위를 좁히는 방법입니다.
옵션을 선택하고 최종 선택에 한 걸음 더 다가서십시오.
그리고 목표. 결정하기 위해 다단계 선별 및 의사결정 과정을 살펴보는 일부 연구가 있었습니다.
속성의 상대적 중요성. 예를 들어, Chakra varti, Janiszewski 및 Ulkumen(2006)은 사용을 조사했습니다.
그리고 고려 세트 생성 및 최종 선택에 도달하는 데 있어 다양한 사전 선별 정보를 무시합니다.
그들은 다음에서 사용된 정보나 속성을 발견했습니다.
생성 단계는 선택 단계에서 무시됩니다. 그러나 특정 유형의 속성이 더 큰 관심을 받을 수 있는지 여부에 대한 연구는 거의 없는 것 같습니다.
각각의 심사 및 선택 단계. 과거 연구 포인트
CLT가 제품 유형을 설명할 가능성이 있는 경우
각 단계에서 고려되는 속성. CLT는
고려 집합의 형성, 소비자 사고 방식은
구매 순간부터 더 큰 심리적 거리에 있기 때문에 제품의 추상적 속성(예: 품질)이 중요합니다. 반대로 결승전 때는
구매 결정은 저수준, 구체적 또는 주변부입니다.
강조할 수 있는 기능(예: 가격). 유사한
정맥, 두 가지 "옵션 메뉴" 사이의 선택은
높은 수준의 해석을 사용하여 만든 반면 내 선택은
최종 구매 메뉴는
저수준 해석. 수석 저자는 종종 자신을 찾습니다
더 건강에 좋은 옵션도 있는 패스트푸드점에 가기
(높은 수준의 해석) 그러나 필연적으로
레스토랑에서 한 번 메뉴에서 덜 건강한 항목.
CLT 및 평가: 수용성
확장의 세 번째 영역은 선호도 기반 영역입니다.
제품 기능 및 거리에. 토마스, 차드란,
Trope(2006)는 기능 향상의 효과를 조사했습니다.
구매 의도에. Liberman의 결과에 따라
Trope (1998) 그 높은 수준의 해석 에 응하다
낮은 수준의 해석이 타당성과 일치하는 반면, Thomas et al. (2006)은
제품의 선호도(예: 기능 추가) 또는 타당성(예: 가격)이 구매 의도에 미치는 영향
가까운 미래와 먼 미래를 위해. 구매 의도가 확실히 중요하지만 Kim, Dhar, Novemsky(2007)는
제품의 특징에 대한 관심, 설득, 회상
또한 소비자 의사 결정에 중요하며 해석 효과에 취약합니다. 그들은 다음과 같은 개념을 도입합니다.
광고 메시지에 대한 수용성과 그 의미
대상에 대한 후속 평가 및 구매 의도
98 다르와 김
제품. 수용성은 소비자가 받아들이고, 처리하고,
브랜드 메시지에 응답합니다. 수용성은 a에 의해 자극된다
소비자의 요구, 관심 및 가치에 따라 변동될 수 있습니다.
시간이 지남에 따라. 소비자 수용성을 조절할 수 있는 중요한 변수 중 하나는 시간적 또는 공간적 거리입니다.
메시지 소통과 실제 소비 또는 구매 결정 사이. 이 "거리"는
심리적 거리로 생각; 이 거리만큼
증가, 자극은 점점 더 높은 수준에 걸립니다
추상적 해석. 소비자의 관심을 높이기 위해
광고 및 제품 클레임, Kim, Dhar et al. (2007) 가설
광고의 주장은 다음과 일치해야 합니다.
소비자가 볼 수 있는 거리. 놓다
다르게, 약간의 거리에서 보이는 광고는
제품의 핵심 중심 기능(예: 세척 효과,
등), 매장 메시지와 같이 가까운 거리에서 보이는 광고는 제품의 부수적인 주변 기능(예: 세일 중,
휴대 등). 핵심 중앙 클레임을 특징으로 하는 것 외에도
먼 광고 주장은 바람직함을 강조해야 합니다.
제품의 타당성과 반대되는 반면, 그 반대
거의 광고 주장에 대해 사실일 것입니다(Liberman & Trope, 1998).
심리적 거리가 멀어짐에 따라 더 높은 수준의 해석(핵심, 중심 주장)을 특징으로 하는 광고는
더 큰 수용성, 반면 심리적 거리
감소, 낮은 수준의 해석을 가진 광고—
주변 주장 - 더 큰 수용성을 생성합니다.
또한 Kim, Dhar et al. (2007)
고조된 주의력의 효과는 시간이 지나도 지속됩니다. 위에서 언급했듯이 수용성의 개념에는 얼마나 잘
소비자는 광고 주장과 어느 정도까지 인코딩합니다.
소비자는 이러한 주장을 믿습니다. 여기서의 예측은
거리가 일치하는 주장은 더 많은 관심을 끌 것입니다.
더 나은 회상과 아마도 더 큰 광고 신뢰 능력으로 이어집니다. 해석 수준이 수용성에 미치는 영향은 이해도를 향상시키려는 광고주에게 실질적인 영향을 미칩니다.
광고의 설득력과 신뢰성
제품의 시장 점유율을 높입니다. 많은 마케터
동일한 광고 메시지 및 주장에 반복적으로 노출되는 것이 구매 의도에 영향을 미치는 가장 좋은 방법이라고 믿습니다. ~ 안에
대조적으로, Kim, Dhar et al. (2007)은 마케터가
수용성을 높이기 위해 거리가 일치하는 차등 주장에 소비자를 노출시켜야 합니다. 에 대한 수용성으로
광고 메시지 증가, 선택 및 향후 구매
의욕도 높아져야 한다.
CLT와 선택
소비자 선택에 대한 CLT의 의미는 일관적입니다.
행동결정이론(BDT)의 관점에서
미리 형성된 안정적인 선호도 개념에서 작업에 크게 의존하는 선택으로 이어지는 구성된 선호도라는 현재 널리 받아들여지는 개념으로 이동했습니다.
또는 상황적 요인(검토를 위해 Simonson et al.,
2001). 따라서 BDT의 한 영역은 컨텍스트 연구입니다.
선택의 효과; 타협 효과와 매력
효과는 선택 상황에서 서로 다른 고려 사항에 따라 선호도가 바뀌는 예입니다(cf. Dhar & Simonson,
2003). Dhar, Nowlis 및 Sherman(2000)은
개인의 초점에 대한 선택의 상황에 영향을 받는 이동
제공된 대안 간의 로컬 관계 트레이드오프.
그렇다면 검토해야 할 흥미로운 질문은
로컬 트레이드 오프 컨텍스트의 영향이 약화됩니다.
응답자가 더 높은 수준을 취하도록 조작될 때,
추상적이고 먼 관점. 이 프레임워크 내에서
에 기반한 표현, 평가 및 행동의 변화
심리적 거리는 우리의 이해를 풍부하게 할 수 있습니다
기본 설정이 구성되는 방식이 아니라
의사 결정 작업 또는 컨텍스트의 기능으로만
결정으로부터의 심리적 거리에 대해.
CLT 연구자들은 선택에 대한 흥미로운 효과를 이미 확인했지만 비교할 수 없는 옵션 사이의 소비자 선택을 이해하는 데까지 확장되지는 않았습니다.
소비자 의사 결정에 관한 대부분의 문헌은 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.
동일한 두 개 이상의 옵션 중에서 선택할 때
제품 범주이므로 여러 항목에서 비교할 수 있습니다.
제품 속성
댓글