Previous studies offered inconsistent empirical results for the influence of customer participation on service satisfaction. One possible explanation for this inconsistency is that existing conceptualizations of customer participation do not clearly differentiate the distinct roles of customer participation in service. To address this gap, Dong and Sivakumar (2015) have proposed an updated classification for customer participation based on “output specificity,” which refers to the degree to that the nature of the output is influenced by the person who provides the resource. The output of the customer participation can either be “specific” or “generic”. The “specific output” is defined as the expected service outcome can be idiosyncratic depending on whether the service is provided by the customer or the employee. In contrast, “generic output” refers to expected service outcome is well defined regardless of whether it is delivered by the service provider or the customer. How output specificity of customer participation influences service satisfaction still lacks of empirical examination.

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.