Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 253–261 | Cite as

Construal-level mind-sets and the perceived validity of marketing claims

  • Scott WrightEmail author
  • Chris Manolis
  • Drew Brown
  • Xiaoning Guo
  • John Dinsmore
  • C.-Y. Peter Chiu
  • Frank R. Kardes
Article

Abstract

Prior research shows that the repetition of unfamiliar statements increases their subjective truthfulness. The present research shows that truth ratings can also be increased without repetition. Several different manipulations of low-construal-level mind-sets increased the perceived validity of a wide variety of marketing claims across a broad spectrum of products and industries. Mismatched construals reduced this effect. The results suggest that concrete construals enhance truth ratings when consumers focus on their intuitive feelings and impressions but not when they process marketing claims analytically.

Keywords

Construal-level theory Mind-sets Truth ratings 

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 136(4), 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: the use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–575). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freitas, A. L., 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(6), 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, D. T., & Gill, M. J. (2000). The momentary realist. Psychological Science, 11(5), 394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawkins, S. A., & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawkins, S. A., Hoch, S. J., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2001). Low-involvement learning: Repetition and coherence in familiarity and belief. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1140–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johar, G. V., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2007). Changing false beliefs from repeated advertising: The role of claim-refutation alignment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., & Kim, J. (2006). Construal-level effects on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Law, S., Hawkins, S. A., & Craik, F. I. M. (1998). Repetition-induced belief in the elderly: Rehabilitating age-related memory deficits. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liberman, N., & Forster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly(?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11(5), 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roggeveen, A. L., & Johar, G. V. (2002). Perceived source variability versus familiarity: Testing competing explanations for the truth effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(4), 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wyer, R. S., & Xu, A. J. (2010). The role of behavioral mind-sets in goal-directed activity: Conceptual underpinnings and empirical evidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang, M., & Wang, J. (2009). Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial dimension vs. other dimensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Wright
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chris Manolis
    • 3
  • Drew Brown
    • 2
  • Xiaoning Guo
    • 1
  • John Dinsmore
    • 1
  • C.-Y. Peter Chiu
    • 2
  • Frank R. Kardes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MarketingUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Department of MarketingXavier UniversityCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations