Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 171–181 | Cite as

The moderating role of construal level on the evaluation of emotional appeal vs. cognitive appeal advertisements

  • Felix SeptiantoEmail author
  • Loren Pratiwi


This article proposes that construal level moderates consumer evaluation of different appeals (emotional vs. cognitive appeals) in advertisements. Low-level construal is associated with close psychological distance; this condition implies that people with low-level construal can feel an emotion more intensely than those with high-level construal. Consequently, consumers with low-level construal could positively relate with the emotional appeal ad, and they would evaluate an ad with emotional appeal more favorably than an ad with cognitive appeal. However, this effect does not occur among consumers who construe information at high-level, due to the fact that they are able to focus on the central and positive features of different appeals.


Construal level Emotional appeal Cognitive appeal Persuasion Advertising 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from Ansley Burns and Charmant Sengabira Ndereyimana for the participation of their students in this research. The authors are also thankful to Joshua Littleton and Lilian Florian for their assistance to proofread this article. Finally, the authors acknowledge the constructive feedback from the editor and two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: a construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 436–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2011). Cognitive and affective matching effects in persuasion: an amplification perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1415–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeBono, K. G. (2006). Self‐monitoring and consumer psychology. Journal of Personality, 74(3), 715–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Kuschel, S. (2008). The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox, S. R. (1997). The mirror makers: a history of American advertising and its creators. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Frijda, N. H. (1992). The empirical status of the laws of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 6(6), 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han D., Duhachek A., & Agrawal N. (2014). Emotions shape decisions through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2013). When time flies: how abstract and concrete mental construal affect the perception of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 336–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herzog, S. M., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liberman, N., & Förster, 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
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007a). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–381). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007b). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2007). Attitude change. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 565–586). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, N. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCrea, S. M., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Sherman, S. J. (2008). Construal level and procrastination. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1308–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, K., & Kim, Y. (2012). I will like it later but not now: the roles of temporal distance and guilt in hedonic product evaluation. Seoul Journal of Business, 18(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  25. Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. The Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Duke, S. C. (2011). Self-control at high and low levels of mental construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 938–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsai, C. I., & Thomas, M. (2011). When does feeling of fluency matter? How abstract and concrete thinking influence fluency effects. Psychological Science, 22(3), 348–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Van Boven, L., & Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 872–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2009). Cognitive consequences of affirming the self: the relationship between self-affirmation and object construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 927–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, S., Manolis, C., Brown, D., Guo, X., Dinsmore, J., Chiu, C.-Y. P., & Kardes, F. R. (2012). Construal-level mind-sets and the perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian School of BusinessUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringParahyangan Catholic UniversityBandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations