Two experiments examined whether self-regulatory goals addressed in advertising claims influence product preferences and categorybrand associations. Experiment 1 provided evidence for the hypothesis that the fit between an advertising claim and consumers' regulatory focus has an impact on product preferences. Participants were more likely to prefer products presented in an advertisement with a claim compatible with the experimentally induced focus. Experiment 2 demonstrated that regulatory focus also has an impact on categorybrand associations. Category-brand associations were stronger when the claim of a target brand was compatible with the regulatory focus at the time category-brand associations were measured.
The authors assumed that automatic preferences based on lowerorder affective processes have a greater impact on choice when people focus on their affective response to choice options (affective focus) than when they try to find reasons for their preferences (cognitive focus). They further supposed that the impact of the focus during decision making is less important when the cognitive resources of consumers are constrained. In an experiment, participants had to choose between two options while the cognitive or affective focus and processing resources were manipulated. Measures of automatic preferences correlated with choice under an affective, but not under a cognitive, focus. In contrast to expectations, this effect of focus was not moderated by the manipulation of processing resources. Interestingly, the automatic measures contributed to the prediction of choice under an affective focus independently and apart from self-report measures.
The present research tested the assumption that implicit preferences fit the eagerness of a promotion focus, but not the need for safe judgments and decisions of a prevention focus. In three studies, we assessed individual differences in implicit preferences for consumer goods and investigated their influence on self-regulatory behavior. In line with expectations, implicit preferences predicted choice intentions (Study 1), single and repeated choices between consumer goods (Study 2), and the amount of product consumption (Study 3) better for individuals in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus. The results were found with two different measures of implicit preferences. Imagine that Tim is attending a conference in France. To his great pleasure he meets his former supervisor, Sharon, who asks Tim how everything is going. Enthusiastically, Tim outlines his ambitious plans and his hopes for his future career. At this moment, a waiter is offering a delicious French pastry as well as healthy fresh grapes. Tim feels pulled toward the pastry. Will he follow his spontaneous impulse? In this article, we draw on regulatory focus theory to advance the idea that the current selfregulatory orientation of an individual has an important impact on consumption behavior in these contexts. With regard to Tim's choice in the example, we assume that he would more likely rely on his impulsive response when his current selfregulatory orientation is determined by hopes and ideals related to his career, than when his current self-regulatory orientation is determined by thoughts about his responsibilities in teaching or his plans to obtain a safe lifetime position. Regulatory focus theoryRegulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997(Higgins, , 1998(Higgins, , 2002 suggests that self-regulatory orientations are a major source for differences in evaluation, behavior, and experiences. Specifically, the theory distinguishes between a promotion and a prevention focus as two basic motivational orientations that direct information processing and self-regulatory behavior. The theory proposes that even if most people try to approach pleasant states and to avoid unpleasant states, they can do so in different ways. First, promotion-and prevention-focused individuals are assumed to differ in their strategic inclinations to approach a desired end state. Promotion self-regulation is concerned with approaching matches with a desired state, whereas prevention self-regulation is concerned with avoiding mismatches with a desired state. For example, to keep a slim figure, a promotion-focused individual would be more likely to exercise (approach a match), whereas a prevention-focused individual would be more likely to avoid eating fatty foods (avoiding a mismatch). Furthermore, the theory posits that promotion-focused individuals are more sensitive to the presence and absence of positive outcomes, and preventionfocused individuals are more sensitive to the presence and absence of negative outcomes. For instance, a promotionfocused individual might be more aw...
In three studies, an easy-to-apply response time task that differentiates between recognition and approach speed was applied. The results indicate that individuals recognized and approached positive stimuli faster than negative stimuli (Pilot Study). But, when the choice options differed less in valence, approach movement time was a better predictor of consumer choice and willingness to pay than recognition time (Study 1) and a better predictor of consumer choice than self-reports when the choice was made with an affective compared to a cognitive focus (Study 2). Moreover, approach movement time, but not recognition time correlated with other implicit measures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.