Using visualization to alter the balance between desirability and feasibility during choice

We extend Wyer, Hung and Jiang's (2008) analysis of visualization to consider how it could overcome the tendency for consumers to focus much more heavily on end states and goals that products and services are intended to meet and underweight the steps consumers need to take to bring about those outcomes. We summarize related literature on consumers' mental construal of end state desirability in relation to feasibility and apply it to rebate redemption, where there is strong evidence that consumers make suboptimal economic decisions that underweight redemption feasibility. Our data confirm benefits for visualization but only for those who have a propensity to visualize. Both visualization and equivalent thought about rebate redemption steps produce choice reversals and attitude–behavior inconsistency.

[1]  D. Soman.  The Illusion of Delayed Incentives: Evaluating Future Effort–Money Transactions , 1998 .

[2]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Construing Consumer Decision Making , 2007 .

[3]  T. Silk.  EXAMINING PURCHASE AND NON-REDEMPTION OF MAIL-IN REBATES: THE IMPACT OF OFFER VARIABLES ON CONSUMERS' SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PROBABILITY OF REDEEMING , 2004 .

[4]  Klaus Fiedler,et al.  Construal Level Theory as an Integrative Framework for Behavioral Decision-Making Research and Consumer Psychology , 2007 .

[5]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior , 2007 .

[6]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Fluency of Consumption Imagery Generation and the Reversed Effects of Imagery Appeals , 2005 .

[7]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  From Thought to Action: Effects of Process-Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance , 1999 .

[8]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  A Multiple Pathway Anchoring and Adjustment (MPAA) Model of Attitude Generation and Recruitment , 2006 .

[9]  Robert B. Cialdini,et al.  Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals , 2005 .

[10]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising , 2004 .

[11]  When Imagination Hinders Behavior : The Effects of Outcome versus Process-Oriented Thinking on Decision Difficulty and Performance , 2008 .

[12]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[13]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. , 2007, Journal of consumer psychology : the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology.

[14]  John G. Lynch,et al.  When do you Want It? Time, Decisions, and Public Policy , 2006 .

[15]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Resource Slack and Propensity to Discount Delayed Investments of Time Versus Money , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  R. Dhar,et al.  Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice , 2007 .

[17]  H. Rao Unnava,et al.  An Imagery-Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Print Advertisements , 1991 .

[18]  Rebecca W. Hamilton,et al.  Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers’ Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences , 2007 .

[19]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Narrative-based representations of social knowledge: Their construction and use in comprehension, memory, and judgment , 2002 .

[20]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment , 2008 .

[21]  Y. Trope,et al.  The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. , 1998 .

[22]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Process versus outcome thought focus and advertising. , 2003 .