The Influence of Consumers’ Lay Theories on Approach/Avoidance Motivation

This research suggests that consumers’ approach/avoidance tendencies depend on their implicit theories about the world around them. Entity theorists believe in the immutability of the world, and thus they are not influenced by whether a persuasive message is framed in terms of approach or avoidance. In contrast, incremental theorists believe that the world is mutable, and thus they are influenced by the message frame. This proposition is supported in two studies that feature advertising messages. The mechanism underlying these effects differs as a function of implicit theory orientation. Entity theorists’ focus on the outcome and incremental theorists’ reliance on the process form the basis for the observed findings. A third study reveals that when a consumer's implicit theory is violated, these findings are reversed. The authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications.

[1]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement , 1990 .

[2]  D. Maheswaran,et al.  When More May Be Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Responses to Different Comparative Frames , 2006 .

[3]  P. Herr,et al.  Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective , 1991 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[5]  Maria L. Cronley,et al.  Comparative Advertising: Effects of Structural Alignability on Target Brand Evaluations , 2002 .

[6]  A. Young Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) , 2011 .

[7]  Maria L. Cronley,et al.  Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts , 2004 .

[8]  Durairaj Maheswaran,et al.  For Better or For Worse? Valenced Comparative Frames and Regulatory Focus , 2007 .

[9]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Joseph C. Nunes,et al.  The Malleable Brand: The Role of Implicit Theories in Evaluating Brand Extensions , 2010 .

[11]  C. Dweck,et al.  Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. , 1998 .

[12]  John W. Payne,et al.  Factors Affecting the Impact of Negatively and Positively Framed Ad Messages , 1997 .

[13]  S. Posavac,et al.  Valenced Comparisons , 2004 .

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength and resistance processes. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[16]  F. Heider The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[17]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[18]  N. Schwarz Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[19]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[20]  C. Dweck,et al.  Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction and control: implications for motivated person perception. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  Affective Intuition and Task-Contingent Affect Regulation , 2004 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[23]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  C. Dweck,et al.  Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  R. Thaler Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[26]  Jeffrey W. Sherman,et al.  Person theories and attention allocation: preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information. , 2001 .

[27]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice , 2006 .

[28]  C. Dweck,et al.  Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives , 1995 .

[29]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic, Heuristic, or Both Types of Processing Occur , 2004 .

[30]  D. Maheswaran,et al.  Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of-Processing Perspective , 2000 .

[31]  C. Dweck,et al.  Implicit Theories and Evaluative Processes in Person Cognition , 1997 .

[32]  John J. Skowronski,et al.  Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. , 1987 .

[33]  D. Maheswaran,et al.  The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitment on Persuasion , 2005 .

[34]  C. S. Poon,et al.  Lay personality knowledge and dispositionist thinking: A knowledge-activation framework , 2006 .

[35]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences , 1992 .

[36]  C. Dweck,et al.  Person theories and attention allocation: preferences for stereotypic versus counterstereotypic information. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  Exploring the boundaries of the framing effect: The moderating roles of disparate expected values and perceived costs of judgmental errors , 1995 .