Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising

Research on mental simulation finds differential effects for process versus outcome focus. We manipulate the focus of participants' thoughts while viewing advertisements and find that under low to moderate involvement, argument strength has a greater effect on behavioral intentions when participants focus on the process versus the outcome of product use. This differential advantage of process-focused thought reverses under conditions of high involvement. The apparent reason for the sensitivity of process-focused thought to argument strength under low to moderate involvement is that a process focus leads to the relatively spontaneous formulation of a plan to purchase given strong, but not weak, ad arguments.

[1]  R. M. Alexander,et al.  Sources of Power , 1982 .

[2]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[3]  T. Chartrand,et al.  THE UNBEARABLE AUTOMATICITY OF BEING , 1999 .

[4]  J. Bruner.  Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[5]  C. Anderson.  Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal influences. , 1983 .

[6]  J. Bettman,et al.  Influencing Consumer Judgments Using Autobiographical Memories: A Self-Referencing Perspective , 1993 .

[7]  Sherry K. Schneider,et al.  Coping and the Simulation of Events , 1989 .

[8]  J. Carroll.  The Effect of Imagining an Event on Expectations for the Event: An Interpretation in Terms of the Availability Heuristic. , 1978 .

[9]  Craig A. Anderson,et al.  Behavioral Scripts and Personal Intentions 2 Imagination and Expectation : The Effect of Imagining Behavioral Scripts on Personal Intentions , 2002 .

[10]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Data analysis in social psychology. , 1998 .

[11]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[12]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Harnessing the imagination. Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. , 1998, The American psychologist.

[13]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Self-Relevant Scenarios as Mediators of Likelihood Estimates and Compliance: Does Imagining Make It So? , 1982 .

[14]  A C C Gibbs,et al.  Data Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[15]  Anthony Paul Kerby,et al.  Narrative and the Self , 1991 .

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

[17]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Elaborating on Elaboration: The Distinction between Relational and Item-specific Elaboration , 1991 .

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

[19]  N. Pennington,et al.  Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. , 1986 .

[20]  Jennifer Edson Escalas.  IMAGINE YOURSELF IN THE PRODUCT : Mental Simulation, Narrative Transportation, and Persuasion , 2004 .

[21]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[22]  S. Fiske.  Social cognition and social perception. , 1993, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  R. Abelson.  Psychological status of the script concept. , 1981 .

[24]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment , 1996 .

[25]  R. Schank,et al.  Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story , 1995 .

[26]  T. Brock,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology the Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives Text Quality Individual Differences and Situational Influences Transportation Scale Items Gender Differences Discriminant Validation: Need for Cognition Effect of Text Manipulation Beli , 2022 .

[27]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[28]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies , 1977 .