Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. When Does a Higher Construal Level Increase or Decrease Indulgence? Resolving the Myopia versus Hyperopia Puzzle Author(s): Ravi Mehta, Rui (Juliet) Zhu, and Joan Meyers-Levy Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41, No. 2 (August 2014), pp. 475-488 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676968 . Accessed: 08/11/2014 22:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions When Does a Higher Construal Level Increase or Decrease Indulgence? Resolving the Myopia versus Hyperopia Puzzle RAVI MEHTA RUI (JULIET) ZHU JOAN MEYERS-LEVY Existinginquiryonself-controlrevealsaninconsistency.Themainstreamresearch onmyopicbehaviorsuggeststhatconsumers’useofahighversuslowconstrual levelshouldleadthemtoexhibitlessindulgence.However,morerecentworkon hyperopiaimpliestheopposite.Thisresearchattemptstoresolvethisdiscrepancy. Inparticular,itisproposedanddemonstratedthatthelevelatwhichaconsumer construes information (i.e., abstract vs. concrete), interacts with his or her self- focus,andbothfactorsjointlydetermineaconsumer’sindulgencelevel.Whenthe selfisnotsalient,outcomesimpliedbythemyopialiteratureensue.Butwhenthe selfisfocal,theoppositeoutcomesanticipatedbythehyperopialiteratureobtain. C onsumers confront self-control dilemmas with great perspective, which heightens the salience of global long- regularity.Willyouhaveasnackofachocolatefudge term benefits. Thus, individuals who adopt a higher con- or a piece of fruit? Will you splurge on a plasma TV or strual level are less likely to fall prey to myopic behavior. replacethedeterioratingroofonyourgarage?Willyoujoin Yet another more recent stream of research points to an friends for a weekend getaway or spend the time finishing opposite form of self-control failure. This literature on hy- a major project with a looming deadline? The mainstream peropia contends that many people overcontrol and persis- literatureonself-controlfocusesonpeople’stendencytobe tently deprive themselves of indulgences (e.g., Keinan and myopic or shortsighted. Indeed, individuals often display Kivetz 2008; Kivetz and Keinan 2006). In fact, there is self-control failure because they succumbtoshort-termhe- reasontobelievethatmanyindividualsperceivethemselves donicpleasuresratherthanrealizingthelongertermbenefits to be hyperopic, implicatingasignificantself-controlprob- thatcanemergefromself-restraintandprudentactions(Fu- lem of excessive farsightedness. According to Kivetz and jitaetal.2006;TropeandFishbach2000).Notably,research hiscoauthors(KeinanandKivetz2008;KivetzandKeinan in thisareahasshown thatonewaytoreducesuchmyopia 2006; Kivetz and Simonson 2002), one way to overcome istoencourageindividualstoadoptahigherconstruallevel thishyperopictendencyistoinducepeopletoadoptamore (e.g.,AgrawalandWan2009;Fujitaetal.2006).Construing distanttemporalperspective,anoutlookthathasbeenshown issues at a higher level entails adopting a more abstract toelicitahigherconstruallevel(Liberman,Sagristano,and Trope 2002). Keinan and Kivetz (2008) argue that a more RaviMehta([email protected])isassistantprofessorofbusinessad- distant choice perspective induces feelings of missing out ministrationattheUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign,350Wohlers in life, which then induces regret and leads to corrective Hall,Champaign,IL61820.Rui(Juliet)Zhu([email protected])ispro- indulgence, for example, by choosing hedonic luxuries. fessorofmarketingattheCheungKongGraduateSchoolofBusiness,Beijing, These two lines of research reveal an apparent inconsis- China100738.JoanMeyers-Levy([email protected])istheHolden-Werlich tency. The classic self-control literaturethatfocusesonmy- ProfessorofMarketingattheCarlsonSchoolofManagement,Universityof Minnesota,Minneapolis,MN55455.FinancialsupportfromtheSocialSci- opia suggests that a higher construal levelshouldreducein- encesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanadaisgratefullyacknowledged. dulgence (Fujita et al. 2006). Yet the latter work on hyper- opia proposes that excessive self-control also can be prob- Mary Frances Luce served as editor and Rebecca Ratner served as as- sociateeditorforthisarticle. lematic and that a higher construal level should boost in- dulgence.AsKivetzandKeinan(2006)havenoted,research ElectronicallypublishedMay30,2014 is needed that not only clarifies and integrates these two 475 (cid:2)2014byJOURNALOFCONSUMERRESEARCH,Inc.●Vol.41●August2014 Allrightsreserved.0093-5301/2014/4102-0014$10.00.DOI:10.1086/676968 This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 476 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH lines of thinking but also provides a more cohesive model indulgence compared to inducing a low construal level, of self-control. which can be achieved by asking people how they can ac- Acentralgoalofthisresearchistoofferameansofdoing complish the same goals (Fujita et al. 2006). just that, namely, resolving the seeming inconsistency and Whilemyopiahasoccupiedthecentralfocusoftheclassic enabling us to anticipatewhenahigherconstruallevelwill literature on self-control failure, an emerging stream of re- increaseor decreaseindulgence.Weproposethattheeffect searchhasidentifiedanotherformofaself-controlproblem of construal level on indulgence is likely to be moderated called hyperopia (e.g., Haws and Poynor 2008; Kivetz and by whether an individual focuses on the self. Self-focus Keinan 2006). Hyperopia entails excessive farsightedness generally activates thoughts about what a person perceives whereby individuals may haveso wellinternalizedtheval- tobehisorherprevalentbehaviorpattern(MarkusandWurf ues offered by attending to responsibilities and necessities 1987; Verplanken and Holland 2002). In consumption sit- (e.g.,engaginginself-control)thattheyexperiencedifficulty uations, these thoughts are likely to concern the person’s bringingthemselvestopartakeinenjoyableindulgences.In routine consumption pattern. Extant research that has at- other words, this type of imbalance is the opposite of my- temptedtodirectlyassesspeople’sroutineconsumptionpat- opia,asindividuals’emphasisonself-controlimpedestheir tern found that in such studies, a majority of consumers ability to enjoy life’s pleasurable indulgences. Hyperopia exhibited a hyperopic tendency (e.g., Keinan and Kivetz hasbeenshowntobeprevalentamongparticipantsinextant 2008; Kivetz and Keinan 2006). If this is the case, thenan studies (Keinan and Kivetz 2008; Rick, Cryder and Loew- individualinaconsumptioncontextwhofocusesontheself enstein 2008). For example, in a study reported by Kivetz should activate thoughts about his or her hyperopia, which andSimonson(2002)thatqueriedtravelersofwide-ranging entails forgoing pleasurable indulgences. If this individual demographics, 63% of these people chose a prize for ane- then adopts a higher level of construal that involves per- cessity(e.g.,grocerycredit)overoneforaluxuryofequiv- ceiving matters globally from a broadly encompassing per- alent value (e.g., a massage or facial). spective, (s)he is likely to feel regret over missing out on Interestingly,researchhasfoundthatwhenpeopleareled the very enjoyment that life offers. Accordingly, this indi- to reflect on indulgence opportunitiesfromamorepsycho- vidual should deliberately increase indulgence at present logicallydistant(vs.proximate)vantagepoint,theyindicate —an outcome predicted by the hyperopic literature. How- feelingsofmissingoutinlifeandreportexperiencingregret ever, if, alternatively, a person does not focus on the self (HawsandPoynor2008;KivetzandKeinan2006).Tothen and therefore abstains from thinking about his or her con- counteract this state of affairs and avoid future regret,they sumption disposition, adoption of a higher construal level are likely to commit to indulgence (Keinan and Kivetz should produce the outcome suggested by the classic self- 2008). This suggests that one way to overcome hyperopia controlliterature;thatis,thepersonshouldmanifestreduced is to introduce greater psychological distance. And greater indulgenceatpresent.Thisshouldoccurbecausethehigher versuslesspsychologicaldistancehasbeenshowntofoster construal level is instead likely to bring to mind global, a high construal level (Liberman et al. 2002; Liberman, societallyinculcatedprinciplesthatfavorprudentbehaviors. Trope,andStephan2007).Thus,researchonhyperopiasug- Thus, this research makes an important contribution by gests that a high versus low level of mental construal will offeringreconciliationofanapparentdiscrepancyintheself- promptindividualstoindulgemore.Infact,HawsandPoy- controlliteratureaboutwhetherahigherconstruallevelwill nor (2008) similarlysuggestthatconstruallevelmayactas increase or decrease indulgence (e.g., Keinan and Kivetz a remedy for hyperopic tendencies by helping consumers 2008 vs. Fujita et al. 2006). We demonstrate and clarify toseethepossiblebenefitsofindulgentpurchasesandgoals. why, contrary to the prevailing view in the self-control lit- The preceding two streams of research on myopia and erature,ahighconstruallevelwillnotalwaysleadtoreduced hyperopia are provocative, yet they seem to suggest a dis- indulgence. Further, our work sheds light on critical mod- crepancy.Whereasresearchonmyopiacontendsthatahigh erators of the preceding effects. versuslowconstruallevelwillreduceindulgence(e.g.,Fu- jita et al. 2006), research on hyperopia implies just theop- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND posite(e.g.,KeinanandKivetz2008).Thisraisestheques- Traditional research on self-control has focused on one tionofwhataccountsforthisapparentdiscrepancyandwhat type of self-control failure, that of myopia. Myopia occurs mightexplainwhichoutcomeislikelytoemergeandwhen. when individuals favor short-term over long-term benefits To overview our efforts, we reasoned that a key to re- (Hoch and Loewenstein 1991; Mukhopadhyay and Johar solvingthediscrepantoutcomesintheself-controlliterature 2005).Extendingonthis,researchonconstrualleveltheory could be whether people are aware of their typical con- suggests that a high versus low level of mental construal sumptionpattern(e.g.,theirhyperopictendency)whenthey reduces myopia because it prompts people to think more encounter an indulgence opportunity. Thus, our theorizing abstractly about global bigger picture concerns, like long- involvedconsideringbothwhatmightmakeconsumersrec- term goals rather than short-term interests (Agrawal and ognize their hyperopic tendencies, and, more importantly, Wan 2009; Fujita et al. 2006). Thus, inducing a high con- produce the opposing consequences reported in the litera- struallevel—say,byaskingindividualstoappraisewhythey ture.Ourresearchindicatesthatthepresenceversusabsence wishtoaccomplishcertaingoals—hasbeenshowntoreduce ofaprimethatpromptsself-focus(whichmakesone’scon- This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MEHTA, ZHU, AND MEYERS-LEVY 477 sumptiontendenciessalient)whencombinedwithahighor donisminconsumptionsettings.Importantly,scholarshave lowconstruallevelcaneffectivelyaccountforthediscrepant found that most people exhibit a significant degree of self findings observed previously. deprivation or “tightwaddedness” in extant studies (Kivetz Specifically,wetheorizethatwhetherpeoplefocusonthe and Simonson 2002; Rick et al. 2008). Hence, we propose self may moderate the influence of construal level on in- that self-focused individuals are likely to reflect on their dulgenceandresolvetheinconsistencyintheliterature(see own (frequently hyperopic) behavior and thereby perceive fig.1).Thisfollowsbecauseself-focusaltersthecontentof themselves as hyperopic (Bem 1965;KivetzandSimonson people’s current thoughts, and thus the cognitions that are 2002). Further, if these self-focused individuals perceive subject to either a high or low construal level. To explain, themselves in this manner and concurrently employ either extensive research indicates that priming the self activates a high or low construal level, their construal level should self-knowledge, including awareness of one’s chronic ten- affect their interpretation of and reaction to theirperceived dencies(e.g.,Markus1977;MarkusandWurf1987).Thus, hyperopictendency.Thisfollowsbecauserelianceonahigh if individuals engage in self-focus shortly before or while construal level promotesdecontextualizedthoughtthatem- they assess a consumption opportunity, they are likely to phasizessuperordinategoalsandfostersabstractideationof becomeawareoftheirstandardconsumptionhabits,namely, pertinent issues from a global perspective, whereas a low the extent to which they routinely display prudence or he- construal level elicits more concrete and detailed thought FIGURE1 THEJOINTEFFECTOFSELF-FOCUSANDCONSTRUALLEVELONINDULGENCE:ACONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 478 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH about local matters (Liberman and Trope 1998; Trope and lead to less indulgence (e.g., Fujita et al. 2006; Liberman, Liberman 2003). Trope, and Wakslak 2007). To clarify, suppose an individual encountersanappealing Notethattheprecedingtheorizingrevealsaveryinteresting consumptionopportunitywhentheselfbecomesfocal,sothat distinction.Theheightenedindulgencethatweexpecttoob- s/he becomes aware of his or her consumption pattern (i.e., serveunderlowerconstrualwhentheselfisnotsalientshould hyperopia), plus s/he employs a high construal level. The resultfromrelativelymindless,impulsivebehavior(Vohsand latter is likely to make this individual reflectgloballyorex- Faber 2007), which is very different from the deliberatede- pansively on his/her hyperopic consumption pattern and re- cision to indulge that we theorize will occur among self- lated issues or questions. This might prompt thought about focused individuals who adopt a high construal level. The whythispersonbehavesinahyperopicmannerandwhether former involves impulsive indulgence that is absent of suchbehaviorenhancesthemeaningofhis/herlife.Themean- thought, while the latter represents deliberate indulgence, ing of life—say, to enjoy one’s brief journey of life and which ensues from an intentional correction process aimed living—is likely to be at odds with the individual’s salient at mindfully overcoming regret over missed pleasures. everydayhyperopicbehaviorandinduceregretaboutmissing We test our hypotheses and the logic on which they are opportunitiestoenjoylife’spleasures.Inturn,suchregretis basedinfiveexperiments.Studies1aand1bassessourbasic apt to cause the individual to correct his/her hyperopic ten- hypothesis, demonstratingthatself-focus,thekeymoderator dencybyenactingadeliberatedecisiontoengageinindulgent in our theory, can reconcile the discrepancy that appears in behavior at the present moment. Hence, this logic suggests the self-control literature. Study 2 offers evidence for the that self-focused individuals who employ a higher construal proposedunderlyingprocess,namely,thatregretmediatesthe level should pursue greater indulgenceorindicateawilling- keyoutcomes.Study3providesfurthersupportforourfocal ness to spend more on pleasurable indulgences. hypothesisandvalidatesthetwoalternativemotivationsthat Notethatthisoutcomeshouldnotoccur,however,among canfosterindulgence—mindlessimpulsivityversusdeliberate individuals who engage in self-focus but adopt a relatively intention. Finally, our last study illustrates our anticipated low construal level. Although the salienceof theselfagain effectsinthecontextofareallife-likechoicescenario.More should lead such individuals to recognize their hyperopic critically, however, it also assesses the content of people’s tendency, their low construal level, which induces them to thoughtsabouttheirchoicesandtherebyprovidescompelling focus on the incidental details and concrete issues of ev- evidence of the proposed underlying processes. erydaylife,shouldrenderthemoblivioustoboththebroader perspective trade-off created by their hyperopic tendency EXPERIMENT 1A and any regret that this trade-off might provoke. Instead, theseindividualsarelikelytoconsidertheirsalienthabitual Method hyperopic consumption pattern and view it as a cue as to howtheyshouldbehave(Bem1965),promptingarelatively Stimuli. The experiment employed a 2 (self-focus: pre- low level of indulgence. Hence, integrating thistheorizing, sentvs.control)#2(construallevel:highvs.low)between we hypothesize that when people engage in self-focus, we subjectsdesign.Self-focuswasmanipulatedthroughtheuse should observe outcomes that align with those implied by of a mirror (Duval and Wicklund 1972). In the self-focus present condition, participantscompletedthestudyinacu- the hyperopic literature: a high versus low construal level bicle in which a mirror faced them. This mirror and thus should foster greater indulgence. self-focus was absent in the control (i.e., self-focus absent) The process and outcome that ensues should differ when condition.Further,tomanipulateconstruallevel,weadopted theselfisnotsalientatthetimeofaconsumptionopportunity. a procedure used by Freitas, Gollwitzer, and Trope (2004). Inthissituation,awarenessofone’sconsumptiondisposition Inthehighconstruallevelcondition,participantsresponded (i.e.,aroutinehyperopictendency)shouldbelacking.When to a series ofqueriesaboutwhytheywouldengageineach theseindividualsadoptahighconstruallevel,theabsenceof of two activities, namely, health improvement and mainte- such self-awareness should preventthepreviouslydiscussed nance, and staying connected with family and friends. In feelings of regret from surfacing. However given these in- the low construal level condition, they did the same for dividuals’ use of a high construal level, they are likely to queries about how they would engage in these activities. evaluateconsumptionopportunitiesthroughtheabstractlens Toassessindulgence,allparticipantswereprovidedwith of societally approved principles and norms, for example, a bowl of 50 M&M candies at the beginning of the study wisevaluesofprudence(Fujitaetal.2006).Thisshouldlead and were told that they could snack on these while com- theseindividualstoreduceindulgence.Yetwhenthesesame pleting the study. The number of M&Ms eaten by the par- non-self-focusedindividualsadoptalowconstruallevelthat ticipants was used to measure indulgence. stimulates thought about local issues and their details, such astheappealingconcreteaspectsofimmediateconsumption Procedure. Sixty-eight undergraduate students (44 fe- opportunities,thisshouldelevateimpulsiveindulgence(Vohs males) at the University of British Columbia participated in and Faber 2007). In short, when the self is not focal, the thestudyinexchangefor$5each.Thestudywasruninsmall outcomes should align with thoseimpliedintheclassicmy- groupsofnomorethanfourpeoplepersession.Uponarrival, opialiterature,namely,ahighversuslowconstruallevelwill participantswereescortedtoadeskinacubicleandrandomly This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MEHTA, ZHU, AND MEYERS-LEVY 479 assignedtooneofthefourtreatments.Thoseintheself-focus FIGURE2 presentconditionwereseatedinacubiclewithamirrorfacing them, whereas for those in the control condition the mirror MEANNUMBEROFM&MSEATEN(EXPERIMENT1A) was absent. Participants began by completing the construal levelmanipulationtaskdescribedearlier.Uponfinishingthat task,theexperimenterplacedabowlwith50M&Msoneach desk and told the participants to feel free to snack on them as they worked on the rest of the study. Next, participantsratedtheircurrentfeelingson12items, usinga7-pointscale(1pnotatall;7pverymuch).Four oftheseitemsconcernedpositivemood(happy,cheerful,ex- cited,upbeat),fourconcernednegativemood(sad,depressed, glum, upset), and the remaining four concerned nervous-re- lated feelings (anxious, nervous, tense, tight). The presenta- tionorderofthese12itemswasrandomized.Afterthismood check, participants completed several filler tasks (e.g., they evaluated several neutral messages) for about 15 minutes. Next, they answered four involvement questions on 7-point scales (1 p not at all; 7 p very much). These questions askedthemtoindicatetheextenttowhichtheyenjoyeddoing thetasks,weremotivatedtocompletethestudy,exertedeffort during the study, and thought that the study was interesting. The study ended with some demographic questions. After participantsweredoneandhadleft,theexperimentercounted the number of M&Ms that were left in their bowls. Discussion Results Theresultsofexperiment1asupportourbasichypothesis Ashypothesized,asignificanttwo-wayinteractionofself- andshowthatincludingself-focusasamoderatorreconciles focusandconstruallevelemergedonthenumberofM&Ms the opposing views about how construal level affects in- eaten, which served as a measure of indulgence (F(1, 64) dulgence. Replicating outcomes reported in the myopialit- p 11.02, p ! .01; see fig. 2). Participants in the self-focus erature (Fujita et al. 2006), we found that when self-focus present condition ate significantly more M&Ms when they was absent, a low versus high construal level prompted employedahigh(Mp21.59)versusalowlevelofconstrual greaterindulgence.Incontrast,whenself-focuswaspresent, (Mp9.82;t(64)p2.16,p!.05).Incontrast,participants anoppositepatternthatconcurswiththehyperopialiterature in thecontrolconditionrevealedtheoppositepattern.They (KivetzandSimonson2002)wasobserved,suchthatahigh ate more M&Ms when they adopted a low (M p 20.88) versus low construal level led to greater indulgence. versusahigh(Mp7.12;t(64)p(cid:2)2.53,p!.05)construal While the findings from this study are encouraging, one level. Examination of the other two contrasts in the inter- limitationwasthatourtasksthatvariedself-focusandcon- actionrevealedthatwhenparticipantsemployedahighcon- struallevelwerenotonlydetachedfromeachother,butthey struallevel,theyatemoreM&Mswhenself-focuswaspre- seemed quite opaque and unnatural. Further, our findings sent versus absent (t(64) p 2.66, p ! .05). Yet when simply assume that inducing self-focus in a consumption participants adopted a low construal level, they indulged contextleadspeopletoperceiveandthinkaboutthemselves morebyeatingalargerquantityofM&Mswhenself-focus astypicallyhyperopicintheirconsumptionpattern.Instudy was absent versus present (t(64) p (cid:2)2.03, p ! .05). Thus, 1b, we seek to address these concerns. We enhance the these data uphold our central hypothesis. directness and face validity of our manipulations, assess To assess whether our manipulations inadvertently af- directly whether people perceive themselves as hyperopic, fectedparticipants’moodorinvolvement,weexaminedour and seek to conceptually replicate the preceding findings. measures of these responses. Themooditemsthatassessed positive (a p .89), negative (a p .90) and nervous (a p EXPERIMENT 1B .91) feelings were each averaged to create three mood in- dexes. No treatment effects were observed on any of these Method indexes (all t ! 1). In addition, we averaged each partici- pants’ responses to the four involvement itemstocreatean Stimuli. Similar to our previous study, experiment 1b involvementindex(ap.79).Notreatmenteffectsemerged employeda2(self-focus:presentvs.control)#2(construal on this index either (all t ! 1). level:highvs.low)betweensubjectsdesign.Ourself-focus This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 480 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH manipulationnotonlyvariedwhetherparticipantsactivated of going to the party (i.e., greater indulgence) when they thoughts about the self, but it also directly manipulated adopted a low (M p 3.88) versus a high construal level, whether participants thought about their own consumption although this effect only approached significance (M p pattern or not. Specifically, we asked participants to think 3.22; t(164) p (cid:2)1.62, p p .10). Results of the other two and then write about either their own (self-focus present contrastsintheinteractionreplicatedtheoutcomesobserved condition)oranaverageAmerican’s(controlcondition)typ- in study 1a. When participants adopted a high construal ical consumption pattern. Building on this, we then altered level,theyreportedahigherlikelihoodofattendingtheparty participants’ construal level by asking them to think about when self-focus was present versus absent (t(164) p 2.15, theirlifeoranaverageAmerican’slifefromeitherabroader p!.05),butthereversewastrueamongthosewhoadopted (i.e., high construal) or a day-to-day (i.e., low construal) a low construal level (t(164) p (cid:2)2.29, p ! .05). perspective (see the appendix for the exact manipulation instructions). Discussion Next,participantsreceivedafairlyrealistic,everydaylife, indulgence decision scenario. They were asked to imagine Theresultsofthisstudyfurthersupportthebasicpremises that a good friend was leaving town and hosting a good- of our theorizing. Using more direct and natural manipu- bye party later in the evening, which they had planned to lations, they demonstrate that the presence or absence of attend.However,duringtheafternoon,theirbossgavethem self-focus moderates whether construal level will heighten an urgent task of preparing an important presentation for or reduce indulgent behavior. We observed this regardless thenextday.Becausethepresentationrequiredconsiderable of whether participants engaged in self-focus without any work, if they attended the friend’s party they would not be mentionoftheirconsumptionpattern(study1a)ortheywere abletoprepareadecentpresentation.Participantswerethen asked explicitly to think and writeabouttheirconsumption asked to indicate on a 7-point scale their likelihood of at- tendency (study 1b). In addition, study 1b reconfirmed our tending the party (i.e., the indulgence measure). foundationalpremisethatmostpeopleapparentlyinfertheir consumption pattern by reflecting on their prevalent (hy- Procedure. A total of 168 North American consumers peropic) behavior and thus perceive themselves as hyper- (100 females) who were members of Amazon Mechanical opic. Yet, interestingly, when participants were asked to Turk (MTurk) completed the study in exchange for asmall characterize the consumption pattern of the average Amer- sum.Participantswererandomlyassignedtooneofthefour ican,themajorityclaimedthatothersareroutinelyimpulsive conditions and completed the manipulation task first. Then (i.e., low in self-control). These observations suggest that theywerepresentedwiththedecisionscenarioandindicated most of us don’t just act but actually perceiveourselvesas their likelihood of attending the party. hyperopic.Still,weapparentlyseeourselvesasunique,per- ceiving that others are habitually impulsive. Results In our next experiment we extend these findings by at- tempting to shed lighton acriticalprocessthatwepropose First, we assessed how participants characterized their underlies the findings of the prior studies. In particular, we own versus an average American consumer’s consumption contend and seek to demonstrate that when individuals en- pattern. Results corroborated our pilot study, verifying that gage in self-focus and employ a high (vs. a low) construal mostconsumersviewthemselvesashyperopic.Specifically, level, they are likely to experience heightened feelings of 79% of the participants (67 of the 85 participants in the regret, which then leads to heightened consumption of in- self-focus present condition) who were asked to describe dulgences among these individuals. theirownconsumptionpatternviewedthemselvesassome- one who controls or keeps his/her desires in check mostof EXPERIMENT 2 the time, while 19% (16 individuals)viewedthemselvesas impulsivebuyers.Further,andratherinterestingly,81%(67 Method individuals) of the 83 participants in the control condition regarded the average American consumer as impulsive, Stimuli. Experiment 2 manipulated self-focus and con- whileonly12%(10individuals)sawtheaverageAmerican strual level in the same manner as study 1a. In addition, to as someone who controls himself or herself. assess indulgence, participants were asked to indicate the Next,weconducteda2(self-focus)#2(construallevel) maximum amounts of money they were willing to pay for ANOVAonthemeasurethatassessedparticipants’decision five different hedonic products. These hedonic products about whether to attend the party. Here a significant two- werechosenbasedonapretest.Twenty-threeindividualsat way interaction emerged (F(1, 164) p 9.86, p ! .01). Par- the University of British Columbia were asked to rate a ticipantsintheself-focuspresentconditionreportedahigher number of products on 7-point scales anchored as 1 p a likelihood of attending the party (i.e., greater indulgence) necessity (i.e., utilitarian good) and 7 p a luxury (i.e., he- whentheywereaskedtothinkaboutlifefromahigh(Mp donic good). Using these data, we selected the top fivehe- 4.09)versuslowconstruallevel(Mp2.95;t(164)p2.83, donic goods that received ratings significantly higher than p ! .01). Participants in the control (i.e., self-focus absent) the midpoint value (i.e., 4). These goods included dinner condition, on the other hand, reported a higher likelihood for two at a chic restaurant (M p 6.30; t(22) p 11.35, p This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MEHTA, ZHU, AND MEYERS-LEVY 481 ! .001), a bottle of fine champagne (M p 6.13; t(22) p FIGURE3 7.18, p ! .001), a sleekly styled portable travel grill (M p 5.87; t(22) p 9.26, p ! .001), a plasma-integrated HDTV AVERAGEWTPFORHEDONICPRODUCTS(EXPERIMENT2) (M p 5.78; t(22) p 6.51, p ! .001), and a trendy Swatch sports watch (M p 5.70; t(22) p 5.15, p ! .001). We also administered a second dependent measure, namely, a 10-item anagram task that explored participants’ potentialfeelingsofregret.Fiveoftheseanagramswerefor words associated with regret (i.e., remorse,mistake,regret, missed, and repent), while the remaining five represented neutral words (i.e., porch, truck, month, phone, and drink). Participants’responsetimetosolveeachoftheseanagrams wasmeasuredinmilliseconds.Weexpectedthatintheself- focuspresentcondition,individualswhoadoptedahigh(but not a low) construal level would be faster in solving the regret-related anagrams, but these individuals’ response times would be comparable to those of other individuals whensolvingneutralanagrams.Suchdifferencesshouldnot be observed, however, among participants in the self-focus absent condition. Procedure. Sixty-threestudents(45females)attheUni- versity of British Columbia participated in the study for course credit. The study was run in small groups of up to NOTE.—Analysiswasdonewithstandardizedvaluesofwillingness fourpeople.Allparticipantscompletedthestudyonlaptops topay(WTP).However,forpurposesofillustration,rawmeansare and were assigned randomly to one of the four treatments. presentedinthisfigure. Self-focuswasmanipulatedbyeitherplacingornotplacing a mirror in each work space. Whenpresent,themirrorwas positioned so that it faced participants as they completed the study. Participants first responded to the why or how Next, we analyzed participants’ response times (RT) for questions that manipulated construal level. Then they in- correctlysolvedanagrams.Eachindividual’sRTforthefive dicatedtheirwillingnesstopay(WTP)sumsforeachofthe regret-relatedanagramswereaveragedandthenstandardized five hedonic products identified earlier. Next, participants to create a regret anagram index. Similarly, we constructed completedtheanagramtaskdescribedearlier.Allanagrams astandardizedneutralanagramindexforthefiveneutralan- were presented one at a time in random order. Finally, par- agrams. A three-way mixed design ANOVA on RT for cor- ticipants answered several demographic measures. rectly solved anagrams revealed a significant interaction of self-focus, construal level, and anagram type (F(1, 59) p Results 11.04,p!.01).Further,thetwo-wayinteractionofself-focus and construal level was significant for the regret anagram Eachparticipant’sWTPsumsforallfivehedonicproducts index (F(1, 59) p 6.59, p ! .05) but not for the neutral wereaveragedandthenstandardizedtocreateaWTPindex. anagram index(F!1).Follow-upexaminationoftheregret A 2 (self-focus) # 2 (construal level) ANOVA revealed a anagram index upheld predictions. Participants in the self- significantinteractionontheWTPindex(F(1,59)p11.70, focus present condition solved the regret anagrams faster p ! .001; see fig. 3). As expected, participants in the self- when theyadoptedahigh(Mp9.91secondsperanagram) focus present condition reported higher WTP sums for the versusalowconstruallevel(Mp14.96secondsperanagram; hedonic products (i.e., higher indulgence) when they em- t(59) p (cid:2)3.12, p ! .05). No difference emerged among ployed a high (M p $402.51) versus a low construal level participantsintheself-focusabsentcondition(M p highconstrual (Mp$222.47;t(59)p2.04,p!.05).Thoseinthecontrol 13.47andM p12.68secondsperanagram;t!1). lowconstrual (i.e.,self-focusabsent)condition,ontheotherhand,reported Investigating the other two contrasts, when participants higher WTP sums (i.e., higher indulgence) when they adoptedahighconstruallevel,theysolvedtheregretrelated adopted a low (M p $441.37) versus high construal level anagramsfasterwhenself-focuswaspresentversusabsent(t (M p198.48; t(59) p (cid:2)2.80, p ! .01). Analyses of the (59) p (cid:2)2.26, p ! .05). Yet such differences were absent other two contrasts in the interaction also upheld our the- when construal level was low (t(59) p 1.39, p 1 .17). orizing. When participants adopted a high construal level, Finally, we conducted mediation analysis to test our the- theyreportedhigherWTPsumswhenself-focuswaspresent orizing that regret mediates the effect of construal level on versusabsent(t(59)p2.39,p!.05).Butwhenparticipants indulgence when self-focus is present. When self-focus is engagedinalowconstruallevel,thereversewastrue(t(59) absent,however,peopleareunlikelytoexperienceregret,and p (cid:2)2.45, p ! .05). thus regret should not mediate the effect of construal level This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 482 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH on indulgence in the control condition. We employed a test sentconditionwereaskedtocircleallself-relatedpronouns of moderated mediation(Preacher,Rucker,andHayes2007) inapassage(e.g.,I,me),whilethoseinacontrolcondition toassessthestrengthofthehypothesizedindirect(mediation) circled allwordsthatwerearticles(e.g.,a,the;Verplanken effect(i.e.,theeffectofconstruallevelonWTP)thatiscon- and Holland 2002). The passages used were comparablein ditionalonthevalueofamoderator(i.e.,thepresenceversus word count, number of pronouns or articles, and structure. absence of self-focus). A 5,000 resample bootstrap analysis As in study 1a, construal level was varied by asking par- indicated a significant conditional indirect (i.e., moderated ticipants to answer a series of why or how questions. mediation) effect at the p ! .05 level when self-focus was Thekeydependentvariablewasparticipants’willingness present (95% CI, 29.90 to 192.59). In contrast, when self- to pay (WTP) sums for five hedonic and five utilitarian focus was absent (i.e., our control condition), the indirect products. These products were chosen based on a pretest effect was not significant (95% CI, (cid:2)70.28 to 48.11). detailedearlierinstudy2.Inadditiontousingthesametop five hedonic goods employed in study 2, we also included Discussion the top five utilitarian products (i.e., a polyester camping tent with polyethylene sheeting and fiberglass, a conven- The results of study 2 replicate those of our previous tional three-seat upholstered sofa, a high quality upright studies, supporting our hypothesis that self-focus interacts suitcase,amicrowaveoven,andacurrenteditionmarketing withconstrualleveltojointlyaffectindulgencelevel.More textbook).Ratingsofeachtypeofproductloadedonsingle critically, however, the findings also verify that when self- factors and were averaged, yielding separate hedonic and focus is present (though not when it is absent),ahighcon- utilitarian product indices (a p .74 and .72, respectively). struallevelstimulatesfeelingsofregret,whichthenprompts A pairwise t-test revealed a significant difference between greater indulgence. the two indices, confirming that the hedonic product index These findings make significant progress by demonstrat- (Mp5.96)wasindeedratedhigherthantheutilitarianindex ing a focal underlying process that drives the observed ef- (M p 4.05; t(22) p 8.86, p ! .001), on the 7-point scale fects. Next, we delve deeper to further understand the dif- anchoredas1panecessity(i.e.,utilitariangood)and7p ferentprocessesthatinfluencepeople’sindulgencebehavior a luxury (i.e., hedonic good). when the self is salient versus when it is not. Recall that Procedure. Sixty-five students (42 females) at the Uni- we theorized thatnon-self-focusedindividualswhoadopta versity ofBritish Columbiaparticipatedinthestudyfor$10 low construal level engage in indulgence impulsively or each. Upon arrival, they were assigned randomly to one of mindlessly,meaningthattheywillbedrawntoandrespond thefourbetween-subjects(self-focusandconstruallevel)con- indulgentlytoreadilyperceivableappealingaspectsofwhat- ditions and informed that they would complete several un- ever offerings they encounter. In contrast, the indulgence related tasks. A cover story informedself-focuspresent(ab- exhibited by self-focused individuals who employ a high sent) participants that a recent study suggested that people construal level arises from these individuals’ mindful and who detect pronouns (articles) accurately can actually com- deliberateintentions.Inthiscondition,individualsareintent prehend messages better. Thus, to test this, they would be on avoiding the regret that they have come to realize due givenaprintedpassageandaskedtocircleeitherallpronouns tothesalienceoftheirroutine(i.e.,hyperopic)consumption (e.g., I, me; self-focus present condition) or articles (e.g., a, pattern and high construal thinking. Hence, these latter in- the; control condition). In reality, this constituted the self- dividuals should only indulge in products or services that focus priming task. To complete the guise, participants sub- offer a truly pleasurable sensory experience (e.g., hedonic sequently ratedhowwelltheyunderstoodthepassage.They products). If however, the offering presents littleor no real then completed the remaining tasks on a computer. opportunity to satisfy these individuals’ desire for pleasur- Construal level was manipulated via a series of why or able experiences (e.g., they are basic utilitarian items), we how questions. Then participants viewed 10 randomly or- should not observe higher indulgence. On the other hand, deredcolorpicturesofproductsonacomputerscreen.Each becausenon-self-focusedindividualswhoadoptalowcon- was accompanied by abriefdescriptionoftheitem.Partic- strual level behave impulsively, they shouldrespondindul- ipants were asked to indicate the amount they would be gently to both hedonic and utilitarian offerings so long as willing to pay for each good. such offerings display some perceivable appeal (Vohs and Faber 2007). Experiment 3 tests these predictions by ex- aminingthesumsthatpeoplearewillingtopayforhedonic Results and utilitarian goods. For each participant, separate WTP indices werecreated forthefivehedonicandfiveutilitarianproductsbyaveraging EXPERIMENT 3 the sums recorded for the products of each type. These Method values were standardized to control for inherent price dif- ferencesbetweenhedonicandutilitarianproducts(seetable Stimuli. This study manipulated three factors using a 1formeansofz-valuesanddollarvalues).Resultsrevealed mixed design: self-focus, construal level, and product type asignificanttwo-wayinteractionofself-focusandconstrual (varied within-subjects). Participants in the self-focus pre- level (F(1, 61) p 6.59, p ! .05), which was qualified by a This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MEHTA, ZHU, AND MEYERS-LEVY 483 TABLE1 product in question delivers genuine sensory pleasure(i.e., ishedonic)andthusprovidesanopportunitytocorrecttheir MEANDOLLARVALUESANDZVALUESFORWILLINGNESS hyperopic behavior. These findings are important as they TOPAY(EXPERIMENT3) imply that the motivations of these individuals entail rela- tively thoughtful, deliberate, and intention-focused cogni- Hedonicproducts Utilitarianproducts tion. On the other hand, when individuals refrained from Control Self-focus Control Self-focus self-focus,weobservedahigherWTPforutilitarianaswell Dollarvalues: as hedonic products when construal level was low. This Lowconstrual 378.80 262.78 267.93 202.45 observationdovetailswiththeviewendorsedintheliterature Highconstrual 262.12 388.08 142.94 153.73 onmyopia,whichsuggeststhatimpulsivityoccursunthink- Zvalues: Lowconstrual .37 (cid:2).38 .44 .07 ingly and fosters a higher level of indulgence (i.e., higher Highconstrual (cid:2).39 .43 (cid:2).28 (cid:2).22 WTP) when individuals adopt a low rather than high con- strual level. Notable too, our observation that non-self-fo- cused individuals displayed the aforementioned effect for three-way interaction that included product type (F(1, 61) both hedonic and utilitarian products aligns with findings p 4.32, p ! .05; see fig. 4). As anticipated, a significant reported by Vohs and Faber (2007, 544). Indeed, these re- two-way interaction between self-focus and construallevel searchers concluded that impulsive behavior is insensitive emerged for the hedonic products (F(1, 61) p 11.32, p ! to whether an item (e.g., product) is desirable in terms of .01).Plannedcontrastsindicatedthatparticipantsintheself- either its hedonic or utilitarian features. focus present condition reported higher WTP (i.e., greater Our last study pursues two goals. One goal is to show indulgence)whentheyadoptedahighversusalowconstrual that self-focus will moderate the impact of construal level level (Mp$388.08 vs. $262.78;F(1, 61) p 5.98, p !.05). on indulgence in a realistic choice context. To do this, we However, those in the self-focus absent (control) condition asked people to choose between two options—a hedonic revealed the opposite pattern. Their WTP and thus indul- productthatclearlyoffersindulgentsensorypleasureanda gencewasgreaterwhenconstruallevelwaslowversushigh utilitariangoodthatsatisfiesmorepracticalneeds.Asecond (Mp$378.80vs.$262.12;F(1,61)p5.35,p!.05).The andmorecriticalgoalistooffermoredirectandcompelling other two contrasts indicated thatwhen construallevelwas evidence of the precise process that accounts for the out- high, self-focused versus non-self-focused participants in- comes in each of our four focal treatment conditions. To dicated higher WTP (F(1, 61) p 6.23, p ! .05), yet the accomplish this, we collected individuals’ thoughts about reverseoccurredwhenconstruallevelwaslow(F(1,61)p their choices and coded them for evidence of the choice 5.13, p ! .05). process that was used. Analysis of the utilitarian products revealed only a sig- nificant main effect of construal level (F(1, 61) p 4.24, p ! .05), indicating that WTP for such products was greater EXPERIMENT 4 in the low versus the high construal level condition. Al- Method though the interaction ofself-focusandconstruallevelwas not significant on the utilitarian product index (F ! 1), we Stimuli. As in our previous studies, a 2 (self-focus) # examined the planned contrasts to assess our predictions 2 (construal level) between subjects design was used. We (Winer1971).Theoutcomeswereasweanticipated.Inthe varied both factors using a temporal imagination task that self-focus present condition, WTP was relatively low and was adapted from one used by Forster, Friedman, and Lib- comparable regardless of construal level(M p$153.73, erman (2004). Because a more remote temporal distance high M p $202.45; F ! 1). However, in the self-focus absent induces a higher construal level (Liberman et al. 2007), low (control) condition, WTP was higher when participants participantsinthehigh(low)construallevelconditionwere adopted a low versus a high construal level(Mp$267.93 asked to imaginelifefiveyearsfromnow(tomorrow).Yet, vs. $142.94, F(1, 61) p 4.46, p ! .05). inadditiontothis,wealsomodifiedthewordingofthistask to simultaneously vary self-focus. Specifically,thoseinthe Discussion self-focus present condition were asked to imagine their lives,whilethoseinthecontrol(i.e.,self-focusabsent)con- The findings of study 3 support both our theory and our dition were asked to imagine life in general. To clarify, claims about the differing motivations that underlie the in- instructions in the high construal level/self-focus present dulgent behavior of those who do versus do not engage in (control) condition read, “We would like you to travel in self-focus. Wefoundthatwhenaself-focusprimewaspre- time. Close your eyes for about two minutes and imagine sent, individuals who employed a high construal level be- your life (life in general)fiveyearsfromnow.Thinkabout havedindulgently(i.e.,werewillingtopaymore)onlywhen what your life (life in general)would be like,wherewould the target good was a hedonic product. Thus, while self- you (people) be, how would you (they) be living, or what focused individuals who adopt a high construal level may would you (they) be doing.” Our key dependent variable feel regret when their hyperopic tendency is salient, this wasachoicetask.Participantswereaskedtochoosebetween regretisunlikelytostimulateindulgentbehaviorunlessthe ahedonicoption,whichofferedamoreindulgentexperience This content downloaded from 134.84.192.101 on Sat, 8 Nov 2014 22:14:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions