Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 615–628 | Cite as

It’s all in the mindset: Effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages

  • Gergana Y. NenkovEmail author


The current research shows that the persuasive impact of messages can be maximized if their framing is matched to where target consumers are in their decision making process at the time they evaluate the message. Results from two experimental studies show that consumers who are in the predecisional phase of decision making are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed using psychologically distant orientation (i.e., focusing on the future or targeting a distant other), whereas consumers who are in the postdecisional phase are more likely to be persuaded by messages using psychologically close orientation (i.e., focusing on the present or targeting a close other). Evidence of the process through which these effects occur is provided by showing that consumers in a pre- versus postdecisional mindset identify their actions in terms of the actions’ high- versus low-level identities, respectively.


Temporal and social psychological distance Deliberative and implemental mindsets Action identification Framing effects Decision status Persuasion 



I gratefully acknowledge the financial support from a Kelly Faculty Research Award provided by Boston College. I would like to thank Jeff Inman, Kay Lemon, and Adam Brasel for helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "We" avoid pains: the role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 33–49. doi: 10.1086/321946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192–203. doi: 10.2307/3152047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, S., Andrews, C. J., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2000). Nutrition ad claims and disclosures: interaction and mediation effects for consumer evaluations of the brand and the ad. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 531–542. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. Tory Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior, vol. 2 (pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  9. Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 526–547). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119–1127. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 706–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It’s time to vote: the effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(April), 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Labroo, A. A., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Psychological distancing: why happiness helps you see the big picture. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(February), 800–809.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, L., & Ariely, D. (2006). Shopping goals, goal concreteness, and conditional promotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nenkov, G. Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Pre- versus postdecisional deliberation and goal commitment: the positive effects of defensiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 106–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: the conceptualization and measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 403–421. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.Google Scholar
  23. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3.Google Scholar
  26. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(August), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carroll School of ManagementBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations