Most previous studies exploring the relative effectiveness of superiority and parity claims in comparative advertising were based on the regulatory focus theory. However, the findings of these studies provided limited implications for practice. The current research attempts to examine the relative effectiveness of superiority versus parity claims in comparative advertising from the perspective of construal level theory. Recent research has found that the fitness between message framing and construal level can enhance processing fluency of information. Specifically, loss-framed messages are more impactful when paired with low-level construals, whereas gain-framed messages are more effective when paired with high-level construals. Accordingly, the current study predicts that a superiority claim, which states sponsor brand is better than the competitors, is more effective in enhancing brand attitude than parity claim when the construal level is high. Conversely, a parity claim, which argues sponsor brand asserts parity with the comparison target, lead to more favorable brand attitude than superiority claims in the condition of low-level construal. This study conducted a (superiority claim vs. parity claim) × 2 (high-level construal vs. low-level construal) experimental designs to examine proposed hypotheses. The manipulation of construal level either highlighted a concrete “how” message or an abstract “why” message. The results showed that the superiority (parity) claim leads to more positive brand attitude and purchase intention than the parity (superiority) claim when customers are presented with message highlights an abstract “why” (concrete “how”) construal. Based on the findings, this study suggests that superiority claims combine with the “why”-oriented thoughts can enhance the effectiveness of the comparative advertising. In contrast, when parity claims are used, “how” -oriented, thoughts should be integrated in comparative advertising.

This research examines the impact of closing versus opening eyes on consumers’ decision making as to whether the decision context is driven by utilitarian versus hedonic motivation. The findings from three studies show that consumers processing advertising messages with their eyes closed are likely to use high-level, abstract processing, and thus more positively evaluate the utilitarian products (vs. the hedonic products). On the contrary, consumers with their eyes open are likely to use low-level, concrete processing, and thus more positively evaluate the hedonic products (vs. the utilitarian products). Implications for consumers and marketers are discussed.

Construal Level Theory (CLT) has been explored and researched in many different contexts. In an academic setting, the areas of CLT in time (temporal distance), physical space (spatial distance), and interpersonal/social distance are frequently revisited for the implications they may and often do have. High-level construals are associated with abstract thinking, while low-level construals are associated with more concrete thinking (Trope & Liberman, 2010). In today’s media-saturated world, it is important to understand how the branded messages the world receives affect the cognition of society as a whole. This project aims to explore what role, if any, branding and/or product placement has in the cognitive and performance abilities for various tasks. This will be tested by utilizing branded products in a task-completion challenge and measuring through both task performance and collected survey data from participants. This project will focus on the construal levels of individuals and how the use of and/or the engagement with a socially proximal branded item will affect perceived spatial distance. A study from Van Kerckhove, Geuend, & Vermeir (2014) found that construal levels impact behaviors. The results of their 2014 published study showed that individuals with a high construal (i.e. they thought more abstractly) were linked to a strong inclination to look up, whereas when individuals had lower-level construals (i.e. thinking more concretely) they were more likely to have a behavior of looking down. This ties into their paper’s title quite nicely – “the floor is nearer than the sky” – in that looking down at what is perceivable and spatially proximal is less likely to be viewed as ambiguous or abstract.

Preference Reversal and Discounting Everyone has experienced “procrastination”, for example, in the context of diet, quitting smoking, doing homework, etc. Despite a desirable goal in the long term perspective, people often divert their course for a minor gain of immediate future. “Marriage blue” is a typical example of such preference reversal along a temporal dimension. Wedding seems so desirable when it is planned. But as the wedding date approaches, one starts to focus minor issues in reality and becomes hesitant to get married. Such preference reversal along a time dimension has been considered as irrational behavior, and is often referred to as present bias or time inconsistency. Fields of Behavioral Economics and Behavioral Decision Theory try to explain the phenomenon using “discounting” along a time axis. Previous research has shown three well-known properties of “discounting over time”. (1) Invalidity of exponential discounting A discount rate is not constant, but decreases rapidly at first and later more gradually. (2) Amount effect A discount rate is larger for a small amount of money than for a large amount. (3) Sign effect A discount rate is larger for gain than for loss. The first property is used to explain “procrastination”. Exponential discounting, which assumes a constant discount rate over time, cannot explain the phenomenon because two utility curves, one for a large gain in further future and the other for a small gain in near future, never cross each other over time. On the other hand, hyperbolic discounting, with a declining discount rate over time, permits the crossing, thereby explaining “procrastination”. How about “marriage blue”? Unfortunately, neither exponential nor hyperbolic discounting can explain this phenomenon. By interpreting the initial desirability as gain and the minor issues as loss, the sign effect cannot explain the reversal, either. Perhaps more complicated discounting models are necessary. However, there exist many criticisms and complications for introducing complex discounting models. Construal level theory (CLT) with a minor twist can explain “marriage blue” in a simple manner, as will be shown. What is Construal Level Theory (CLT) ? CLT, which has been receiving increasing attention in Social Psychology and Consumer Behavior Studies, posits that people’s evaluation toward items and incidents differs by the psychological distance between oneself and the object. When the distance is close, people mentally construe the object in terms of low-level, detailed, and contextualized features. In contrast, when the distance is far, they construe the same object in terms of high-level, abstract, and stable characteristics. Such difference in mental construal leads to different evaluation and behavior, and thus preference reversal. Fiedler (2007) discusses different types of psychological distances, including temporal, spatial, social, certainty-related, informational, experiential, affective, and perspective distances. Using these general notions of “distance”, CLT becomes a powerful tool to explain various preference changes. Along social distance, choice of souvenir can differ whether it is for a work supervisor or for a family member. Along spatial distance, excitement toward bungee jump in the birth country of New Zealand when leaving airport in Tokyo can change to uneasiness when arriving at Oakland airport. Along experiential distance, an advanced medical treatment, which seems attractive from an outsider’s viewpoint, can change to anxiety for risk and side effect when you are the one to receive. Because “discounting” is used to explain preference reversal with varying time distance, it is rather natural to introduce this idea into CLT with appropriate adaptation. First, discounting applies not only to time distance but also to psychological distance in general. Then, the second property, “the difference in discount rates between low versus high amount of money” shall be translated to “the difference in discount rates between low versus high construal levels”. This conceptualization, which I refer to as GCLT, can explain “marriage blue” in a straightforward manner, when the high and low construal levels of wedding are interpreted, respectively, as the initial motive and the detail issues. Generalized Construal Level Theory (GCLT) Let us summarize the three propositions of the generalized construal level (GCLT). (1) [Generalization of distance] “Discounting” applies to psychological distances including time. (2) [Amount effect] Discount rate varies depending on the construal level: the higher the construal level, the smaller the discount rate. (3) [Sign effect] Discount rate is smaller for loss than for gain. The relationship between GCLT and CLT are as follows. 1) GCLT models the consequences of CLT using the idea of discounting. It does not mean GCLT can explain what CLT cannot. 2) GCLT introduces the notion of gain and loss into CLT. 3) While CLT usually discretizes the construal level (high vs. low), GCLT regards the construal level as continuous by nature. By modeling the input and output of CLT, GCLT bypasses the complicated and arguably controversial inner mechanism/process of human perception. GCLT can predict preference and behavior shift more easily as distance varies. There is no need to specify the functional form of discounting, such as exponential or hyperbolic. When the distance is limited to time and the construal level is limited to monetary amount, GCLT becomes consistent with the ordinary “discounting” of BDT, as it should. Empirical Studies The survey asks participants to choose one of two lotteries with the same expected return: one with a higher prize amount and the other with a higher winning probability. The reason for selecting a lottery is that attributes resulting in high and low construal levels are clearly defined and same for everyone. Previous research found that, in lottery choices, prize amount and winning probability lead to high and low construal levels, respectively. In other context, it is often ambiguous what attributes result in high and low construals. Moreover, such attributes can differ by people. We investigate how lottery choice changes when the psychological distance with the subject varies. We manipulate time distance through a lottery whose outcome is announced either tomorrow (short) or one month later (longer). We manipulate social distance through a lottery which is purchased either for yourself (short) or for a prize in a party at work (long). Proposition 1 The survey asks a respondent to choose either Lottery A or B, both of which have the same expected winning outcome of 1,000 yen. A half of the sample are asked to consider two cases of time distance (tomorrow and one month later), and the other half are asked to consider two cases of social distance (for yourself and for a prize in a party at work). The design is a within-sample study. The paired McNemar test is conducted to statistically check whether the proportion of respondents valuing prize amount (high construal) over winning probability (low construal) varies by distance. The result confirms the prediction by CLT, in which, for both time and social distances, respondents’ construal levels are higher when the distance is far and vice versa. Proposition 2 A respondent is asked to choose either Lottery A or B when Lottery R, an originally intended for purchase, is unavailable. Both Lotteries A and B have the same gain or loss in expected outcome of 1,000 yen. The difference is whether the gain or loss is due to the change in the prize amount or the winning probability. A half of the sample are asked to respond to two cases of time distance (tomorrow and one month later), and the other half are asked to respond to two cases of social distance (for yourself and for a prize in a party at work). Again, the design is a within-sample study. The paired McNemar test is conducted to statistically check whether the proportion of respondents valuing prize amount (high construal) over winning probability (low construal) varies by distance. The result shows that, for social distance, the respondents’ construal levels are higher when the distance is far and vice versa, under both gain and loss. It implies higher discount rate for a low construal level. For time distance manipulation, however, changing distance did not result in the construal level change under either gain or loss. Proposition 3 A respondent is asked to choose either Lottery A or B with the same expected winning outcome when the distance is far. The survey then asks whether she would switch from her initial choice when the distance becomes close. Switch from Lottery A to B trades off the loss in prize amount over the gain in winning probability. Likewise, switch from B to A trades off the gain in prize amount over the loss in winning probability. According to GCLT, switch is likely to occur from A to B but not in the other direction. This is because discounting of a high construal level (prize amount) in loss is small whereas discounting of a low construal level (winning probability) in gain is large, the net of the loss and the gain is likely to result in sign reversal as the distance becomes close. The chi-square test is conducted to statistically check whether the proportions of respondents switching from A and from B are the same. The result shows that, for both time and social distances, there are more switches from A to B than from B to A as the distance becomes close, thereby supporting Proposition 3. Conclusions Using two samples, students and web users, the survey study largely supports the three propositions of GCLT. The only exception is the amount effect in time distance. Our study could not confirm it using neither students nor web users.

최근 기능성 게임의 긍정적인 영향에 대한 결과가 부각되면서 그에 대한 연구와 개발이 활성화 되고 있다. 기능성 게임은 기획단계에서부터 의도적인 목적을 가진 게임으로, 이용자에 대한 설득과 그에 따른 의식과 행동의 변화를 추구한다. 따라서 그러한 설득 효과를 극대화하기 위해서는 기능성 게임에서 이용자들이 선택적 행위를 하는 과정 속에서 작동하는 심리적 요소들을 정리하고 이에 대한 효율적 방안을 제시할 필요가 있다. 그러나 이용자들의 선택과 관련한 관점들을 고려하고 그에 따른 태도와 행위의 결과를 이론적으로 접근한 연구는 부족한 상황이다. 본 연구에서는 이용자들의 심리적 거리 관념을 중심으로 그에 따른 행위에 중점을 두는 해석수준이론을 적용하여, 기능성 게임에 개괄적으로 적용할 수 있는「CLT in process-outcome serious game model」을 제안하였다. 이를 통해 이용자들의 의사결정 과정에 해석수준의 개념과 효과들을 적절히 적용한다면 이용자들의 가치와 목적 중심의 설득을 강화할 수 있을 것이다. 또한, 이러한 모델은 기능성 게임의 개발자와 연구자들에게 궁극적으로 그 효과를 증대시킬 유용한 틀로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

사회자본과 같은 소셜게임의 사회적 영향에 관한 연구들은 다수 있었으나 연구 간의 상반된 결과로 인해 그 영향력을 명확히 할 수 없었다. 이에 본 연구에서는 소셜게임 이용이 사회자본을 증가시킬 것이라는 가설을 해석수준 이론을 도입하여 확인하였다. 해석수준과 사회자본, 게임이용시간/종류 등에 대한 설문을 실시하여 각 수치간의 상관관계와 상호작용을 분석하였다. 그 결과, 상위해석수준 사람들에게서 교량형 자본과 소셜게임 이용시간 사이에서만 긍정적 관계를 확인할 수 있었다. 이 특징은 타 온라인 게임에서는 나타나지 않아 소셜게임의 관계망적 특성이 이용자들 간의 긍정적인 관계의 증가와 관련이 있음을 알 수 있다. 한편으로는 해석수준이론이 매체의 긍정적 활용연구에 있어 중요한 관점임을 확인하였다.