Construal Level Theory As an Integrative Framework for Behavioral Decision-Making Research and Consumer Psychology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 17(2), 101–106 Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. HJCP Construal Level Theory as an Integrative Framework for Behavioral Decision-Making Research and Consumer Psychology Construal Level Theory And Decision Making Klaus Fiedler University of Heidelberg In this comment to Trope, Liberman and Makslak’s lead article, I refrain from any attempt to review or recapitulate the growing body of research in social psychology in general and in consumer science in particular that is explicitly devoted to construal level theory (CLT). Rather, granting the status of CLT as a leading contemporary theory, with rich implications and applications in consumer science, I concentrate on recent phenomena in judgment and decision making for which CLT provides an implicit account. Specifically, CLT affords an integrative framework for understanding a whole variety of preference reversals—a major challenge for students of consumer behavior. Trope, Liberman, and Wakslak’s (2007) review of the already confirmed, and future research will further confirm, empirical support for construal level theory (CLT) estab- the authors’ “… hope that approaching various dimensions lishes CLT as a leading contemporary theory of mental con- under the umbrella of psychological distance will create a strual, with rich implications and applications in consumer unifying theoretical framework that will stimulate explora- science. Extending their discussion, this paper concentrates tion and allow us to parsimoniously understand a range of on recent phenomena in judgment and decision making and seemingly unrelated psychological phenomena.” highlights how CLT provides an integrative framework for Impressed and overwhelmed by the convergent evidence understanding a wide variety of preference reversals. from so many substantial CLT studies reviewed by Trope, Without doubt Trope and Liberman’s (2003) construal- Liberman, and Wakslak (2007)—who can afford covering level approach has become a prominent topic for social psy- only the most recent ones—in my comment I refrain from chology in general, and for research on judgment and deci- any attempt to recapitulate this huge research program or sion making in particular (see also Liberman, Sagristano, & even to discuss single study in detail. Presupposing that Trope, 2002; Trope & Liberman, 2000). The lead article of readers will have read and enjoyed the lead article, I rather the present JCP issue demonstrates, vividly, that construal confine myself to several issues that were not included but level theory (CLT) has rich and important implications for could have been included in the review, further enhancing explaining and predicting consumer behavior in such the comprehensiveness and the integrative potential of CLT. diverse paradigms as purchasing decisions and intentions, Thus, what I have to say is for the most part meant to com- brand representation, negotiations, risk taking, and impa- plement and expand the findings and implications advanced tience when consumer problems unfold over a longer period by proponents of CLT with other findings from the judg- of time. CLT affords a sound answer to the call for new ment and decision-making literature, for which CLT pro- large-scale and comprehensive theories with integrative vides an elegant integrative account, although they emerged power and a broad domain of application (Kruglanski & in different theoretical contexts. My perspective on such Thomson, 1999). In contrast to this paucity of “big theories” implicit or incidental CLT findings draws on a synopsis of in recent psychology, CLT does offer a broad, generative all kinds of preference reversals in (consumer) decision and theory of psychological distance. Recent research has choice that have intrigued and fascinated decision research- ers for a long time and that are central to current theorizing in this area. Indeed, I have come to use CLT as an organiz- Correspondence should be addressed to Klaus Fiedler, University ing framework for teaching behavioral decision making, as of Heidelberg, Department of Psychology, Hauptstrasse 47-51, 69117 I try to explain students the common underlying principles Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] leading to preference reversals. 102 FIEDLER PREFERENCE REVERSALS REFLECT sesses about the decision options. Regardless of the abstract- CHANGES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE ness or construal level of the available information or the relevance to desirability or feasibility, distance is a monotonic Preference reversals are central to consumer psychology, function of sample size, or the numerosity of available facts, both theoretically and practically (Chapman & Johnson, experiences, details, and knowledge units. The lesser the dis- 1995; Hsee, 1996; Slovic, 1995). The ultimate goal of tance to an object, the denser the amount of information and, advertising and marketing campaigns is to change consum- conversely, the denser the information, the lesser the distance. ers’ product preferences and choices. Marketing strategies, Related to, but clearly distinct from, informational dis- involving pricing policy or brand extension, are motivated tance is experiential distance, that is, whether the available by the possibility that they can impact consumer prefer- information, whatever its amount, is based on first-hand ences. Negotiation means to influence one’s opponent’s information (e.g., the consumer’s own prior experience) or preferred decision option, after all. The purpose of market second-hand and third-hand information (based on commu- surveys and interviews is to capture consumers’ preference nication from other people, literature, or media). structure and the malleability of their preferences across Affective distance is of course related to social dis- time and context. Given the rationality constraints and the tance, but is conceptually distinct in notable respects. For need to maximize payoffs in economic settings, the possi- instance, it makes a difference whether consumers learn bility of preference reversals provides both a threat and a about the holiday options in “warm,” emotionally chance to practitioners and scientists. charged pictures and films or in “cold,” descriptive text Preference changes often reflect movements on a sources. Such variation in the modality and style of psychological-distance dimension, the central variable of advertising should not be confused with social distance CLT. Let us illustrate this with an example that I will con- distinctions, such as self versus other, ingroup versus tinue to use throughout this comment. Imagine a consumer outgroup, or distinctions between persons varying in who has to make a (forced) choice between two options or familiarity or similarity to oneself. products, say, two different offers for a holiday in some Last but not least, I suggest a dimension called perspec- Mediterranean country. Typical of complex multiattribute tive distance to account for the influence of the commit- decisions, the two holiday options differ in terms of several ment, the myopia, and the exclusion of alternatives that attributes, some of which are central to the inherent value or characterize the cognitive and motivational state in a very “desirability” of a holiday trip (e.g., beauty of the country, late, advanced stage of the decision process. For instance, a deep culture, attractions, your idea of what you ever wanted consumer who has already expended much effort in calcu- to see and do), whereas other attributes load on “feasibility” lating cost, reading books, organizing excursions, commit- aspects (e.g., money and time constraints, convenient air- ting oneself to partners or friends will see the decision port, language problems, political climate). Assuming that problem from a, or with a, mindset that blinds him or her for the overall attraction of both options is not too unequal and alternative aspects that might lead to alternative decisions. that one option, D, is superior in desirability attributes The question whether the same theory, CLT, applies in whereas the other option, F, is superior in terms of feasibility the same way to all these distance dimensions, or whether concerns, the standard CLT finding says that D should be CLT’s domain is confined to a subset of distance effects preferred from a large distance, but the preference for F (e.g., extensional aspects such as time, space, and information should increase as distance decreases. With regard to tempo- density) and less applicable to other aspects (e.g., intensional ral distance, the most commonly researched distance dimen- aspects such as emotional closeness and commitment) is not sion, D should be preferred when the holiday is to take place only an open empirical question, but also an intriguing and next year, whereas F should be preferred next week or today. very interesting one. Thus, when consumers are emotionally To be sure, there are various distance dimensions that close and tightly committed to a desired good, would the can affect consumer’s choice. Trope et al. (2007) base their way they construe the objects really shift from its inherent review on four major dimensions: temporal, spatial, social, value to its pragmatic value and feasibility? and certainty-related distance. Thus, preference reversals of the two holiday trips, D and F, are not restricted to changes from the far-away to the near future; they may also occur A SYNOPSIS OF PREFERENCE REVERSALS when planning holiday in neighboring