The Impact of
Counterfactual Thinking
on Persuasion
K A I - YU WA N G , P H. D.
G OODMA N S CHOOL OF BUS I N ESS, BROCK UN I V ERSITY, CAN ADA
N AT IONA L UN I V E RSITY OF K AOHS I U N G, M A RCH 1 3 , 2 0 1 4
What is Counterfactual Thinking?
oCounterfactual thinking (CFT) - a mental process that simulates
possible routes or measures to negate what has happened.
o “if only I had chosen that number, I would have been a millionaire
now”
o“if only I had taken a different route to the airport the other day, I
would have not been caught in the traffic, missed my flight, and
wasted one day time at the airport.”
oCounterfactual thoughts can account up to 12% of all the
thoughts occurred to our mind on a daily base (Summerville & Roese,
2008).
What is Counterfactual Thinking?
Content
Upward: Generate alternatives that are better than actuality (could have
made things better). If only I wake up earlier, I would not get in the traffic
jam.
Downward: Generate alternatives that are worse than actuality (things
could have been worse). At least I still get a seat in the next flight.
Structure
Additive: Thoughts in which people wish they could add an action to
reality. If only I had set the alarm, I would not oversleep.
Subtractive: Thoughts in which people wish they could remove an action
from reality. If only I had not come home late last night, I would not
oversleep.
4
If only I had purchased a TV with an
extended warranty,
I would not have to spend so much money on
this repair.
--Upward counterfacutals
At least, I did not purchase the model with the longer
warranty and smaller screen, because I enjoy my large
screen TV.
--Downward counterfactuals
5
If only I had purchased the SONY TV,
I would have enjoyed the excellent customer
service.
--Additive counterfacutals
If only I have not purchased the Toshiba TV, I would
not now bear with the poor customer service.
--Subtractive counterfactuals
6
CFT Research Papers
Wang, K., Liang, M. and Peracchio, L. Strategies to Offset Dissatisfactory
Product Performance: The Role of Post-purchase Marketing, Journal of
Business Research. Volume 64, Number 8, August, 2011.
Wang, K., Yang, X. and Jain, S. Negative Consumption Episodes,
Counterfactuals and Persuasion - Association for Consumer Research
Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, October, 2012.
Wang, K. and Zhao, G. Counterfactual Thinking and Consumers’ Preference
for Product Feasibility - American Marketing Association Winter Marketing
Educators’ Conference, Orlando, Florida, February, 2014.
Wang, K., Bublitz, M. and Zhao, G. Counterfactual Thinking and
Consumers’ Health Choices and Behaviors- working paper, 2014.
The Impact of Counterfactual
Thinking on Postpurchase
Evaluation
K A I - YU WA N G , BROCK U N I V ERSITY, CA N A DA
M I N L I L I A N G, S U N Y - BROCK PORT
L AUR A A . P E R ACCHIO, U N I V ERSI TY OF W I S CONSIN - MI LWAU K EE
8
9
Introduction
“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
Shakespeare
Focus of Research
• Examine how CFT influences people’s product evaluations after a
satisfying or dissatisfying purchase experience.
• Explain the process underlying the formation of evaluations.
10
Research Questions
How and when does CFT influence consumers’ product evaluations
after experiencing product satisfaction or dissatisfaction?
Does motivation provide a potential boundary condition for the
negative cycle of upward CFT?
What is the process underlying the formation of product evaluations?
11
CFT and Outcome Valence
Positive outcome: more downward counterfactuals + greater
satisfaction
Negative outcome: more upward counterfactuals + greater
dissatisfaction.
(Roese, Sanna, and Galinsky, 2005; Schwarz and Bless, 1992; Markman et al., 1999)
  downward counterfactuals 
  upward counterfactuals 
The latter situation could turn out a negative cycle.
12
The Moderating Role of Motivation
Upward CFT might be inhibited in order to change negative affect,
but only when people have more ability or resources to overcome
upward CFT and engage in downward CFT (Roese et al. 2005; Taylor 1991).
Motivation/NFC
Positive outcomes do not motivate people to expend cognitive effort
processing information unless called for by other goals (Schwarz 1990; Bless,
Bohner, Schwarz, and Strack 1990).
13
Overview of Two Studies
oStudy 1 investigates whether higher motivation can break the
reciprocal cycle of upward CFT when people encounter a negative
purchase outcome and explores the effects that underlie this process.
oStudy 2 provides an extension of study 1 and establishes the
robustness of the documented findings. A follow-up customer survey
replaced the CFT instruction to induce participants to engage in CFT.
14
Study 1: Method
Participants: 113 students
Procedure
• Each was randomly distributed a survey booklet.
• First viewed one of the two versions of computer purchase scenarios.
• Each was provided with one of the two instruction sets
• Completed NFC items.
• Evaluated the Product (not useful/useful, unappealing/appealing, not easy to
use/easy to use, not excellent value/excellent value, and not a worthwhile
purchase/a worthwhile purchase).
• Wrote down thoughts that occurred to them during the purchase experience.
15
Product Evaluation:
Purchase Outcome x Thinking Instruction x NFC
6
5.43
5.23
5
5.28
5.06
4
3
Negative Outcome
No CFT
instruction
CFT
instruction
Product Evaluation
Product Evaluation
Positive Outcome
CFT
instruction
6
5
4
No CFT
instruction
4.60
*
4.27
*
5.10
3.54
3
Low NFC
High NFC
Low NFC
High NFC
16
Study 2: Overview
Contribution:
•Replicate study 1 and further explore the process that underlies these
effects.
Purpose:
• Bring research into a more naturalistic marketing context.
• Investigate whether a follow-up customer survey can induce
customers to think counterfactually.
Research Design: 2 x 2
•Thinking Instruction: follow-up survey vs. no follow-up survey
•Motivation: high vs. low
Dependent variables: Product evaluations and Thoughts
17
Motivation
High-processing-motivation condition
• Participants were informed that they were part of a small group of people
participating in the study. Their opinions were extremely important to the
company represented in the survey.
Low-processing-motivation condition
• They were told that they were among a large number of students at many
universities. Their opinions might be used after aggregating them with those
of other students.
(Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994; Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1997)
18
Study 2: Method
Participants: 54 students
Procedure
• Similar to the procedure in study 1.
Study 2 differed from study 1 in three ways:
• Only the negative-outcome purchase scenario was employed.
• The CFT instruction was replaced with a follow-up customer survey.
• Respondents’ processing extensiveness (motivation) was manipulated
following a procedure used in previous research (Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994;
Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1997).
19
Product Evaluation:
Thinking Instruction x Motivation
Product Evaluation
*
No Follow-up
Survey
Follow-up Survey
5
4.41
*
4.49
4
3.90
*
3.71
3
Low
Motivation
High
Motivation
20
Contributions and Applications
Theoretical contributions
• Provide evidence that cognitive ability and resources –NFC and motivation—
impact the direction of CFT.
• Explore the impact of counterfactual thinking on product evaluation.
• Explain the process underlying the formation of product evaluations.
Managerial applications
• Comment cards and satisfaction surveys
• Service/product failure recovery
21
Counterfactual Thinking
and Consumers’ Preference
for Product Feasibility
KAI-YU WANG, BROCK UNIVERSITY, CANADA
GUANGZHI ZHAO, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, USA
Introduction
oFocus of Research
oExamine how CFT might activate a process- (vs. outcome-)
focused mindset and influences product choice
preference for product attributes (feasibility vs.
desirability) following a negative consumption episode in
a related/unrelated domain.
oExplain the underlying mechanism of the observed effects.
CFT Literature Review
oImmediate emotional consequences
oRegret or happy, depending of the direction of CFT (Markman et al., 1993; Rajagopal
et al., 2006).
oDownward CFT can make individual feel rejoiced; whereas upward CFT make
individuals feel regretful.
oDecision-making and behavior
oAnticipated counterfactuals: house insurance purchase (Hetts et al., 2000)
oAnticipated regret and responsibility: brand and price (Simonson, 1992)
CFT Literature Review
oCognitive implications
oPrime or activate certain information-processing styles.
oFollowing a negative consumption experience CFT can make consumers more
cautious in buying a replacement product (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman, 2002).
oContent-neutral CFT influences: CFT can alter or prime certain cognitive
mentality and information-processing styles that influence individuals’
behavior in a domain or context that is detached from and independent of
the original CFT experience.
CFT Literature Review
oTwo common dimensions to differentiate CFT (Gleicher et al. 1990; Nan,
2008; Roese & Olson, 1993)
oContent: upward vs. downward
oStructure: additive vs. subtractive
oUpward CFTs are common in consumption context and are especially
like to occur when consumers experience negative consumption
outcome (e.g., product failure) (Roese, Sanna, & Galinsky, 2005; Wang et al.,
2010).
oBoth additive counterfactuals and subtractive counterfactuals are likely
in consumption context.
oCFT essentially involves mental simulations of the process of following
certain sequences of action, taking certain behavior
courses/routs/paths, and performing certain actions to negate a reality.
CFT Literature Review
oProcess-related mental activities:
oentails individuals to re-live how an incident
happened, figure out which steps went wrong, and
ofinally come up the necessary steps or alternative
courses to negate the incident.
Recall the process…
Simulate alternatives…
CFT Literature Review
oPriming certain process-focused cognitive mindsets:
oPrime a relational processing style which subsequently
makes individuals focus more on relationships and
associations between stimuli and boosts individuals’
creativity (Kray et al., 2006).
oProblem-solving process CFT on product failure (e.g.,
failed electricity surge protectors) can lead consumers to
extend extra effort to scrutinize claims made about
surge protectors in ads and process ad information
(Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman, 2002).
CFT Literature Review
oTwo basic routes through which CFT influences
individuals (Epstude & Roese, 2008):
ocontent-specific route:
Product failed due to an
electricity surge
Scrutinize surge protector ad
information
ocontent-neutral route
Missing flight
Buy a book and order a meal in
the airport
Product Feasibility and Desirability
oProduct feasibility: how easily to operate the product
(Goodman & Malkoc, 2012).
o(Computer software) Smaller file size, less time to download
oProduct desirability: the value of owning the product.
o(Computer software) Higher product quality rating, a complete set of features
oFeasibility is negatively, but desirability positively, related
to the number of product beneficial features (Thompson, et al.,
2005).
Feasibility or Desirability?
oDirect vs. indirect experience (Hamilton & Thompson, 2007)
oProduct trial vs. reading a product description/ad
oInterruption (Goodman & Malkoc, 2012)
Construal level theory
(Liberman & Trope, 1998)
Low/concrete level: “how-to”
High/abstract level: “why”
Feasibility
Desirability
Feasibility or Desirability?
oDecision time frame: near vs. far future (Zhao et al., 2007)
o1 month vs. 3 months
Process
Feasibility
Construal level theory
(Liberman & Trope, 1998)
Outcome (end state)
Desirability
oConsumers’ process- versus outcome-focus mindset can be
activated by various market condition factors. One such factor is
counterfactual thinking.
CFT and Feasibility and Desirability
Considerations
oCFT often takes the form of a conditional proposition, in which
individuals identify alternative routes or processes to mutate factual
events.
oCFT may activate a process-focused information processing mentality
and sensitize individuals to procedural information.
oindividuals who engage in CFT thinking about “how” things would have
turned out differently are more likely to process-focused when they are
directed to mutate possible actions in the process in order to alternate
outcomes (Liberman, Macrae, Sherman, & Trope, 2007; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007).
oWe expect that CFT individuals construe an activity in a manner of
procedural actions.
Research Hypotheses
After a negative consumption episode,
oH1: CFT individuals will weigh product feasibility more heavily than
product desirability when making a decision in a subsequent
consumption event. They will evaluate a high-feasibility product
more favorably than a high-desirability product.
oH2: Individuals who do not engage in CFT will weigh product
feasibility and desirability equally because both feasibility and
desirability considerations should be equally important when making
a decision. Their preferences between a high-feasibility product and
a high-desirability product should not be different.
Method
oStudy 1 CFT and Action Identifications
oStudy 2 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability) Considerations in
Ad Persuasion
oStudy 3 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability) Considerations in
Choice Preferences
oReplicates the findings of study 2 using a choice task with music
players and examines the underlying mechanism.
Study 1 CFT and Action identifications
o Purpose
oTest whether CFT influences respondents’ action identifications
(procedural vs. ends).
oDesign
oOne factor between-subjects design (CFT vs. control)
oN= 56 (33 females and 23 males, aged 19-66) recruited
through Mturk.
oRead a job interview scenario and imagined that they missed
a flight for a job interview.
Study 1 CFT and Action identifications
oIndependent
oCFT: generate “if only” thoughts (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman 2002)
oDependent measures
oBehavior identification form (BIF): a 25-item dichotomousresponse questionnaire (Vallacher & Wegner 1989)
oVoting: making a ballot (how to) or influencing the election (ends)?
oResults:
oCFT individuals had higher preferences for the “how to” action
identifications (M = .51) than the control group (M = .40, F (1, 54) =
4.85, p < .05).
CFT scenario
Job Interview
You and a friend have to go to an important job interview in Chicago by plane today. Yesterday, your friend
who is an early riser offered to pick you up at home very early this morning to go to the airport together.
Since you were invited to a dinner that evening and imagined that you would be coming home a bit late
that night, you considered that you could sleep an extra 15 minutes this morning if you drove yourself to
the airport; you therefore declined your friend’s proposal.
This morning you were so tired that you didn’t hear the alarm clock and you woke up later than expected.
You quickly took a shower, brushed your teeth, got dressed, and jumped into your car to go to the airport,
but you looked into the rear view mirror and noticed your neighbor had parked his car in front of your
apartment and just blocked your drive way. You got out your car and spent some minutes having your
neighbor remove his car. Once you got on the freeway, to your surprise, you found the traffic was slower
than usual. You eventually managed to reach the airport, only to discover that your flight had just
departed.
Later you hear from your friend, who tells you that the interview went well, and thinks he has a good
chance of being hired. You said to yourself, “what a day!”
BIF (Vallacher & Wegner 1989)
a. Getting organized
b. Writing things down
2. Reading
a. Following lines of print
b. Gaining knowledge
3. Joining the Army
a. Helping the Nation's
defense
b. Signing up
4. Washing clothes
a. Removing odors from
clothes
b. Putting clothes into the
machine
5. Picking an apple
a. Getting something to eat
b. Pulling an apple off a branch
1. Making a list
Study 2 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Ad Persuasion
o Purpose
oInvestigate whether and how such CFT induced information processing
focus influences an individual’s preference for product feasibility and
desirability in an ad advertising persuasion setting.
oDesign
o2 (CFT: CFT vs. control) x 2 (product features: high-feasibility
vs. high-desirability) between-subjects factorial design
oN= 135 (undergraduate respondents in Canada)
oRead a hypothetical missing flight experience episode.
CFT scenario
Missing Flight
You bought a vacation package to Acapulco, Mexico for spring break 2009. The package includes air travel
from the local city and six nights in a hotel that is close to the clubs, has a large pool, is on the beach, and
includes all of your breakfasts. Your friends, who will be your roommates at the hotel, leave on the Friday
before spring break, but you have a prior commitment and have to leave on Saturday. You are really
looking forward to getting away from the cold.
On Saturday morning, you board the plane from your hometown to Chicago. You have to transfer to a
different plane in Chicago. When you get to Chicago, you quickly check the screen inside the terminal and
see that your flight is leaving from gate B1. When you get to B1, you find there are no people waiting in
the gate area. You go to an airline agent behind the counter and ask when the flight to Acapulco, Mexico
leaves. She checks her screen and says, “I’m sorry, you have come to the wrong gate. The correct
departure gate is H64, which is in another terminal.” You can not believe it and double check the screen.
The airline agent is right and you have misread the screen earlier.
CFT scenario
Missing Flight
Your flight will departure in 35 minutes. It will take about 15 minutes to ride the connection train to get to
gate H64. The airline agent informs you that she can call an express cart to transport you to gate H64 in 10
minutes and charge $25 for the service. You feel you have plenty of time and decide to take the train to
gate H64. So, you follow the signs and take a walk to the train station. It takes you five minutes. You barely
miss a leaving train when you get to the station and have to wait a couple of more minutes for the next
train. Eventually, you board the train and sit down. Five minute later and after a couple of stops, you
suddenly realize you are going in the wrong direction. You quickly get off the train at the next stop, wait a
couple of more minutes at the station, and board the right train. About 15 minute later, the train stops at
your terminal. You jump off the train and run toward to gate H64.
When you get to gate H64, you find there is no one in the gate area, except an airline agent. When you
approach her and tell her that you are here for the flight to Acapulco, she says, “I’m sorry, we have just
finished boarding that flight. The airplane has pulled away from the terminal. You’ll have to go to the
customer service desk around the corner. They will reschedule you for the next available flight.” You go to
the customer service desk and only to find out that the next available flight will be in tomorrow Sunday
afternoon.” You find yourself a seat, sit down, and say to yourself, “what a waste of time! I waste two days
of my break!”
Study 2 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Ad Persuasion
oIndependent
oCFT: generate “if only” thoughts (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman 2002)
oDependent measures
oAd evaluations ( = .93), product evaluations ( = .91), purchase intentions
( = .86)
oAd focus: product feasibility and desirability
oResults:
oManipulation check: The high-feasibility product (M = 5.23) was rated higher
than the high-desirability product (M = 4.53, F (1, 133) = 4.58, p < .05) on
product feasibility whereas the high-desirability product was rated higher
than the high-feasibility product (p < .05) on product desirability.
Study 2 Results
7
High Feasibility Low
Desirability
Ad Attitude
6
High Desirability
Low Feasibility
5
4
Purchase Intention
7
High Feasibility Low
Desirability
6
High Desirability
Low Feasibility
5
4
3
3
2
CFT
Control
Counterfactual Thinking
2
CFT
Control
Counterfactual Thinking
Study 3 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Choice Preferences
oPurpose
oReplicates the findings of study 2 using a choice task with music
players and examines the underlying mechanism.
oDesign
o2 (CFT: CFT vs. control) x 2 (choice features: high-feasibility vs.
high-desirability) between-subjects factorial design
oN= 171 (undergraduate respondents in a Midwestern State)
oRead a hypothetical digital camera consumption scenario.
oLooked for a MP3 player with a voice recorder in order to
complete a course project.
Study 3 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Choice Preferences
oIndependent
oCFT: generate “if only” thoughts (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman 2002)
oDependent measures
oProduct evaluations ( = .92), purchase intentions ( =
.94)
oMediator
oImportance of product features (easiness to use and
simplicity to operate)
CFT scenario
Broken Camera
Imagine that it is the beginning of the summer. You are about to go on a vacation with your best friends,
which you’ve been looking forward to for a long time. You want to capture all the great moments and
scenery when you are on vacation, so you bring your brand new digital camera. You just bought the
camera a couple of weeks ago and invested a good deal of time, money, and effort on buying the camera.
It is your favorite model and you love it very dearly.
Now, you are with your friends at your dream vacation place in southern Florida. It is a gorgeous day
though the temperature is high. You and your friends arrive at a beautiful beach. You leave your brand
new camera on the sand beside your backpack and jump into the water. After playing a while in the water,
you want to take some pictures to capture the fun moments. You go back to the beach, pick up your
camera and try to turn on the camera. It does not work. You try several other things, nothing works. You
get your friends to help, but no one can figure out the problem. You are upset and feel very frustrated and
eventually, you give up on the camera. That day, you keep wondering: “what happens to my new camera?”
CFT scenario
Broken Camera
After getting home, you call the 1-800 service number that came with your camera. You talk to the
representative on the phone. After some checking, the representative says that you should bring the
camera to the service facility. You drop it off at the service facility. Two days later, you get a call from the
service center. It turns out that the camera battery was overheated and burned due to high heat. The
camera was severely damaged. The repair charge will be costly without the manufacturer warranty. You
realize that this warranty does not cover circumstances beyond the manufacturer’s control, nor problems
caused by failure to follow the care and operating instructions listed in the manual. You go back home and
read the user’s manual. You find the user’s manual indeed warns users the particular conditions (including
beach) under which to operate the camera. It calls for user’s care and lists a couple of precautious
measures for preventing potential damages to the camera and especially to the particular battery in the
camera. You say to yourself, “what an unfortunate experience!”
High-feasibility
High-desirability
“First, this player has a good overall rating
(3.5 out of 5 stars). Secondly, this model
gives you an average sound recording
quality with one fixed recording quality
setting at a WMA-formatted 56Kbps. The
average recording quality probably will not
impress your professor and also may make
it harder for you to transcribe the voice
recordings. Thirdly, it has a 2GB integrated
flash memory, with which you can record
up to 7 hours interview.
“First, this player has an excellent overall
rating (4.5 out of 5 stars). Secondly, this
model gives you a super sound recording
quality with an adjustable recording
quality setting that tops out at a WMAformatted 128Kbps. The super recording
quality may impress your professor and
also makes it easier for you to transcribe
the voice recordings. Thirdly, it has a 4GB
integrated flash memory, with which you
can record up to 10 hours interview.
However, this player is easy and straight
forward to use. It does not require the
user to manually set the recording modes
or recording quality settings. In addition, it
has a build-in microphone for recording,
which does not need any extra time to
install the driver software or to connect
and set up a microphone. It is ready for
voice recording at any time.”
However, this player requires the user to
manually set the recording modes and
recording quality settings every time
before starting voice recording. In
addition, it requires a plug-in microphone
for recording, which takes approximately
15 minutes to download and install the
driver software, to connect and set up the
microphone.”
The CNET editor summarizes the bottom
line as: “Some limitations on creating high
quality of voice recordings and smaller
memory size, but quick to set up and easy
to operate.”
The CNET editor summarizes the bottom
line as: “Creation of excellent quality of
voice recordings and larger memory size,
but time consuming to set up and tedious
to operate.”
Study 3 Results
6
High Feasibility Low
Desirability
5
High Desirability
Low Feasibility
4
Purchase Intention
Product Attitude
6
High Feasibility Low
Desirability
5
High Desirability
Low Feasibility
4
3
3
2
2
CFT
Control
Counterfactual Thinking
CFT
Control
Counterfactual Thinking
Mediation Effect (Zhao et al., 2010)
a=.91**
Importance of
Product
Feasibility
a x b = .74, 95% C.I. = .29 to 1.25
b=.81**
Product
Evaluations
CFT x Product
Attributes
c=.80*
Conclusions
oAmong the few studies that strike a relationship between CFT and information
processing.
oAdvances our understanding of how reflecting a past consumption episode could
influence individuals’ considerations in product choice preferences.
o Demonstrates that CFT induced by a prior consumption episode could influence individuals’ subsequent
information processing and choice preferences.
o CFT individuals evaluate high-feasibility products more favorably than high-desirability products.
oProvides additional evidence to the CFT literature in regard to the content-neutral
pathway (Epstude & Roese, 2008).
o Another content-neutral effect: construal level
Makes a contribution to construal level theory by demonstrating the effect of CFT on
construal level.
o
o
Psychological distance: temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance and hypotheticality
Counterfactual Thinking
and Consumer Health
Choice Preferences and
Behaviors
KAI-YU WANG, BROCK UNIVERSITY, CANADA
MELISSA BUBLITZ, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN -OSHKOSH, USA
GUANGZHI ZHAO, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, USA
Introduction
oObesity is a serious and costly disease throughout the
world, particularly in North America.
oOver 1/4 of Canadian adults and 1/3 of American adults are obese
(Ogden, Carroll, Kit, and Flegal, 2012; PHAC and CIHI 2011).
oThe costs of obesity, including medical care and loss of worker
productivity, are substantial (America: $270 billion; Canada: $30
billion) and rising (Society of Actuaries 2011).
oHealth problems such as diabetes and heart disease
oOther adverse effects: self-esteem and depression
Research Objectives
oHealth halo effects (i.e., cognitive biases)
oIndividuals’ judgments in terms of healthy eating and living habits are
not always correct.
oWhen asked to think about alternatives, they are more likely to correct
health halo effects (Chandon & Wansink, 2007).
oWe propose that CFT, reflecting upon past events and
generating possible alternatives, influences the effectiveness of
health communications and individuals’ health decisions.
oProvide recommendations for designing effective health
messages for social marketing strategies.
Research Hypotheses
oH1: When respondents engage in CFT, they evaluate high
feasibility-low desirability choices more favorably and are more
likely to adopt the advertised choice than high desirability-low
feasibility choices after experiencing a diet plan failure. The
reverse effects are observed for respondents who do not engage
in CFT.
Literature Review
oGoal pursuit (Gollwitzer et al., 1990)
oDeliberative mindset: weigh the pros and cons of potential goals.
oImplemental mindset: engage individuals to think about when, where and
how to implement a chosen goal.
oImplementation intentions can
olead to immediate action initiation (Brandstatter, Lengfelder, and Gollwitzer 2001).
ohelp individuals’ to meet their health goals (Adriaanse, Gollwitzer, De Ridder,
Wit, and Kroese 2011).
oIf CFT can activate a process-focused (i.e., “how to”) cognition orientation as
proposed, CFT should induce an implemental mindset and a high feasibility-low
desirability choice will further facilitate their action initiation.
Research Hypotheses
oH2: Respondents who engage in CFT and make a high
feasibility-low desirability choice produce greater behavioral
outcomes than those who make a low feasibility-high desirability
choice and than those who do not engage in CFT, regardless of
their choice.
Research Framework
Feasibility
(vs. desirability)
Ad
Current
Dieters
Role of
Self Monitoring
(Burke et al., 2011; Kong et al., 2012)
Tracking
Behavior
Health
Behavior/
Outcome
Study 1 CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Ad Persuasion and Behavior
Outcomes
o Purpose
oInvestigate whether and how such CFT induced information processing
focus influences an individual’s preference for health service feasibility
and desirability in an ad advertising persuasion setting and its behavior
outcome.
oDesign
o2 (CFT: CFT vs. control) x 2 (product features: high-feasibility
vs. high-desirability) between-subjects factorial design
oN= 120 (undergraduate respondents in Canada)
oRead a hypothetical new year’s resoultion episode.
CFT scenario
New Year’s Resolution
Imagine that at the start of this year (January 1, 2013) you made a New Year’s Resolution to make more
healthy choices and eat reasonable sized portions with the goal of losing weight and feeling better.
Essentially you decided you would go on a diet! For most of January things were going great. It was
beginning to pay off; you had lost several pounds and were feeling great. However, on February 3rd you
went to a big Super Bowl party. It had been a while since you indulged in your favorite snack foods and
you hadn’t had pizza or chicken wings since starting your diet. Your favorite pizza is served; everyone is
having a great time. When you try to pass on a second piece of pizza your friend says “you have been so
good, you deserve to enjoy yourself once and a while, you can always go back on your diet tomorrow” so
you eat more than you had planned on. When the team you are rooting for scores you get excited and
want to celebrate, you end up drinking more you had budgeted for the night even though low calorie
sodas and water were also available. Since that time you have had trouble getting your diet back on track.
You have gained back the weight you lost in January and just can’t seem to find the motivation to stay on
your diet.
Phase I: CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Ad Persuasion
oIndependent
oCFT: generate “if only” thoughts (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman 2002)
oDependent measures
oAd evaluations, web service evaluations
oMediator
oImportance of service features (easiness to use and simplicity
to operate)
oControl
oWeight control service experience and importance, height and
weight
Phase II: CFT and Feasibility (vs. Desirability)
Considerations in Behavior Outcomes
oAfter using participants to use the service for two weeks,…
oDependent measures
oWeb service use evaluations, general and feature use
frequency, food intake tracking frequency, self-monitoring
oBehavior outcome measures
oReports of progress, nutrition, fitness
Expected Results
Feasibility Ad
Tracking
Frequency
Desirability Ad
Feasibility Ad
Desirability Ad
CFT
No CFT
Dieters
No CFT
CFT
Non-Dieters
Thank you!
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?