國立臺灣師範大學管理學院全球經營與策略研究所 碩士論文
Graduate Institute of Global Business and Strategy College of Management
National Taiwan Normal University Master’s Thesis
想像觀點對選擇困難的影響：以解釋水平為中介變數 How Imagery Perspective Affects Decision Difficulty:
Construal Level as a Mediator
黃毓雯 Huang, Yu-Wen 指導教授：張佳榮博士 Advisor: Chang, Chia-Jung Ph.D.
中華民國 110 年 10 月
October, 2021
I
想像觀點對選擇困難的影響：以解釋水平為中介變數
摘要
隨電商科技日益發展，消費者擁有更多購物選擇，同時選擇困難亦成為消費 者經常面臨的情境。當消費者產生選擇困難時，將會降低其滿意度，且可能引發 延後選擇甚至退貨等行為，因此如何從行銷手段上減少消費者選擇困難，是企業 與行銷人員必須了解的重要課題。本研究從解釋水平的角度深入探討，設計兩個 單因子受試者間實驗(第一人稱觀點；第三人稱觀點)以闡明想像觀點如何影響選 擇困難， 並證實當消費者使用第三人稱觀點想像時將會引發抽象思考、較高的 解釋水平，進而使其感知到較低的選擇困難；反之，第一人稱的想像觀點會降低 解釋水平，導致較高的選擇困難。本研究亦探討個體差異的影響，研究結果證實 認知需求對於想像觀點影響解釋水平的效果存在調節作用。此外，因應 COVID- 19 帶來的衝擊與改變，本研究自實體購物情境延伸至線上服務的選擇情境，以 更加了解後疫情時代的消費行為，並填補過往的對於線上購物行為的研究缺口。
關鍵字：選擇困難、想像觀點、解釋水平、認知需求
II
How Imagery Perspective Affects Decision Difficulty:
Construal Level as a Mediator
Abstract
This research designed two experiments to investigate the mechanism of how imagery perspective influences decision difficulty, which decreases consumers’
satisfaction and commitment to their choice. Two single factor designed experiments (actor perspective versus observer perspective) suggested that imagining from the actor perspective lowers one’s construal level, and thus is perceived as enhancing decision difficulty. In comparison, those taking the observer perspective represent things at higher construal levels and have less decision difficulty. Moreover, the experimental results suggested the need for cognition to moderate the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level. The findings herein extended the physical buying situation to online consumption, providing implications for marketers to further explore consumer behavior under the impact of COVID-19.
Keywords: decision difficulty, imagery perspective, construal level, need for cognition
III
Table of Contents
摘要 ... I Abstract ... II Table of Contents ... III List of Tables ... IV List of Figures ... V
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Literature Review ... 4
2.1. Decision Difficulty ... 4
2.2. Imagery Perspective ... 5
2.3. Construal Level ... 6
2.4. Imagery Perspective, Construal Level and Decision Difficulty ... 7
2.5. Need for Cognition ... 9
3. Method ... 11
3.1. Pilot Test ... 11
3.1.1. Procedure ... 11
3.1.2. Result and Manipulation Check ... 12
3.2. Experiment 1 ... 13
3.2.1. Participants and Design ... 13
3.2.2. Procedure and Materials ... 13
3.2.3. Results ... 17
3.3. Experiment 2 ... 21
3.3.1. Participants and Design ... 21
3.3.2. Procedure and Materials ... 22
3.3.3. Results ... 23
4. Discussion ... 28
4.1. Conclusion ... 28
4.2. Theoretical Contribution ... 29
4.3. Practical Contribution ... 30
4.4. Limitation and Future Research ... 32
References ... 34
Appendix A ... 39
Appendix B ... 49
Appendix C ... 59
Appendix D ... 69
IV
List of Tables
Table 1. The Results of the Pilot Test ... 13
Table 2. Results of Independent Samples T-test between IP and DD (Study 1) ... 17
Table 3. Results of Sobel Test (Study 1) ... 18
Table 4. Regression of Second Order Interaction (Study 1) ... 19
Table 5. Results of Independent Samples T-test between IP and DD (Study 2) ... 24
Table 6. Results of Sobel Test (Study 2) ... 25
Table 7. Regression of Second Order Interaction (Study 2) ... 26
V
List of Figures
Figure 1. Research Framwork ... 10 Figure 2. Interaction of IP and NFC (Study 1) ... 20 Figure 3. Interaction of IP and NFC (Study 2) ... 26
1
1. Introduction
In recent years, buying scenarios not only take place at in the stores near one’s home, but also in online shops. Especially after the occurrence of lockdown and the disruption of COVID-19, flourishing internet-based business allows consumers to buy everything from anywhere and have it delivered to their own place. Advanced marketing tools enable consumers to receive varied sorts of information both actively and passively. This environment offers consumers many more alternatives to choose from than ever before. While the related technology does indeed empower consumers to choose what to buy, they suffer from the trade-off between alternatives, and sometimes hesitate a great deal. When consumers perceive the decision difficult, they will perform in a more negative manner. Besides receiving less satisfaction, negative effects, such as emotional pain and a higher possibility of returning the purchased good occurs when consumers experience decision difficulty. Fortunately, some studies on imagery perspectives and decision difficulty aid our understanding of the hesitating situation (Thompson et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2013).
Have you ever imagined yourself using a cookware, bicycle, furniture or every product you see on online advertisement? How does the scene picturing you experiencing the benefit of the product look like? Mental imagery is defined as a mental activity to visualize a concept or relationship (Lutz & Lutz, 1978). Mental imagery helps consumers depicting the benefits of a product, and is a widely used marketing tool to influence consumers’ preference and promote their purchase intention, encouraging them to form positive attitudes toward the product. Especially in the age of a flourishing e-commerce environment, digital media dominates the internet world
2
by visualization, such as pictures, video and even virtual reality, augmented reality, and so on. These media help people experience products in an easier way; on the other hand, being primed with a specific perspective may increase decision difficulty.
This study takes the point of view of construal level theory, which characterizes how abstract people represent the event, to investigate further on how imagery perspective influences decision difficulty. When people face a trade-off scenario, a higher degree of abstraction may bring a solution (Xu et al., 2013).
In 2019, an unexpected global crisis happened. The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown disrupted many industries and suddenly changed consumers’ daily life, not only in buying things on the internet, but also in working (Zwanka & Buff, 2021), educating and even amusing oneself online became our habits (Sheth, 2020). The pandemic shocks supply chains, and consumers thus face insufficient resources. Due to fear of lack of supplies in addition to price increases, related research shows that consumers tend to buy more, and that the global crisis triggers both panic and impulsive buying (Naeem, 2020).
Responding to the restriction of social distance, internet-based industry is flourishing and companies started to provide various online entertaining services, such as Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and so on (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020; Kaur et al., 2020). In this study, an online music streaming service choice scenario experiment was designed to investigate whether the mechanism of how imagery perspective impacts decision difficulty causes an online situation, and discusses the application of
3
online marketing tools to lessen consumers’ decision difficulty and build deeper connections between business and consumers.
Furthermore, in order to explore the relationship between imagery and cognitive mindset, this research also focuses on individual differences, which significantly influence the way people feel, think and behave. The need for cognition is a fundamental personality trait that varies in persons, reflecting the way people process and judge information (Petty et al., 2009). People with a higher need for cognition, compared with those with a lower need for cognition, tend to elaborate relevant information when making decisions, while unconcerned with whether or not they are interested in the topic. However, there are few research studies on how personality influences imagery perspective and the construal level. In the orientation of exploring cognitive activity and behavior, this study aims to fill the research gap by explaining how the need for cognition influences the relationship between imagery perspective and the construal level as a moderator.
This study extends our present understanding of consumer behavior by investigating how decision difficulty is affected in the marketing research field, especially in product choosing scenarios. Besides, the construal level, the cognitive mechanism behind imagery perspective and decision difficulty, is investigated to clarify the relationship from the viewpoint of how abstract the individual’s mindset is.
Moreover, participants’ need for cognition is measured in deliberating the importance of individual difference that influences one’s cognition and behavior. Two experiments are conducted and suggestions concluded for marketers to generate strategies in the post-pandemic era.
4
2. Literature Review
2.1. Decision Difficulty
Decision difficulty is defined as the tendency to find decisions challenging (Schwartz et al., 2002). Simon (1955) suggested that the cognitive resources of people are limited at any time. When perceiving making a decision as difficult, people tend to minimize the amount of effort in order to preserve their cognitive resources. As a result, it’s important for marketers to know about both the reason and result of decision difficulty. Decision difficulty leads to avoiding action (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Lan, 2018), negatively influencing the readiness of the decider and resulting in a tendency to postpone the purchase, lower commitment to their choice (Thompson et al., 2009) and decrease consumers’ confidence (Song et al., 2019) and satisfaction (Fitzsimons, 2000).
There are many factors that cause decision difficulty, ranging from the decision environment, such as the number of alternatives, which cause information overload (Hu
& Krishen, 2019), to consumers themselves, including individual differences like maximizing personality (Cheek & Goebel, 2020). Broniarczyk and Griffin (2014) point out that the three primary sources are task complexity, trade-off difficulty and preference uncertainty. Even though decision difficulty has vital importance to marketers, how the process of forming attitude influences decision difficulty and whether the theory can be applied to online buying scenario remain unclear.
5
2.2. Imagery Perspective
Individuals can easily imagine themselves in a future event. They can adopt one of two visual viewpoints: the actor perspective or observer perspective, known as imagery perspective (Libby & Eibach, 2002). From the actor perspective, they see the image like the natural viewpoint through their own eyes. From the observer perspective, they see themselves and the surrounding environment as if others, external observers, are watching them (Libby et al., 2007). Take riding a bike for example; when imagined from an actor perspective, people see their hands holding handlebars and their thighs flexing hard to pedal; from an observer perspective, people see themselves sitting on the bike, wearing helmet and jacket and may see the entire two tires, just like an out- of-body situation.
Different perspectives are often manipulated by marketers by means of affecting people’s attitude formation and behavior intention. With marketing technology progressing, imagery perspective is discussed in the application of augmented reality (Park & Yoo, 2020). According to the researches on consumer behavior, people show stronger purchase intention on products tied to their identity when taking observer perspective (Soliman et al., 2017); they feel more intense emotion related to the event when taking the actor perspective (Holmes & Mathews, 2010). Past research also suggests that taking different imagery perspectives causes bias concerning self- perception (Niese et al., 2019).
Moreover, different imagery perspectives result in different levels of decision difficulty (Goodman & Malkoc, 2012). Saine et al. (2018) suggest that people who perceive more difficulty in making a choice, tend to experience status quo bias and stick
6
to the default option when imagining from an actor perspective, due to viewing the trade-off more distinctly. We offer the following hypothesis:
H1: Imagining from actor perspective causes more decision difficulty, while imagining from observer perspective leads to less decision difficulty.
In addition to decision difficulty, prior studies showed that imagery perspective changes one’s abstraction level. Libby et al. (2009) suggest that when mentally imagining, people taking the observer perspective focus on higher life beliefs and abstract meanings such as health. These results are consistent with construal level theory; therefore, this study takes the construal level into consideration.
2.3. Construal Level
Construal level characterized people mentally represent an event with different levels of abstraction (Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). According to construal level theory, the construal level can be divided into high or low level, and explain how abstract people represent extrinsic stimuli or events. The theory stems from the theory of categorization (Rosch, 1975) and widely explains how humans think and behave.
Higher construal level increases the tendency of linking objects with higher goals, thus reflecting the stable characteristic of a person, whereas lower construal level represents greater contextuality (Semin & Fiedler, 1988). If objects are construed at higher level, they will be grouped in broader categories (Liberman et al., 2002). For example, people at relatively high levels may represent both “playing video games” and
“eating ice cream” as stress-releasing activities. In other fields, changing construal level
7
also changes people’s behaviors by arousing self-control (Fujita et al., 2006), personal perception (Kivetz & Tyler, 2007), etc.
Additionally, construal level has significant influence on consumers’ decision- making process (Schneider et al., 2020). The concept has been applied in research on consumption under the influence of COVID-19 pandemic, such as online food delivery (Cai & Leung, 2020) and travel-related decisions (Craig et al., 2021). Shifting construal level from higher to lower enhances one’s consideration of alternatives in a bottom-up manner. For example, when buying insurance, people with lower construal level compare the differences between insurance plans while those with higher level may think about other conceptual alternatives such as savings (Liberman et al., 2007).
Prior studies dedicated to exploring what alters construal; the dominant topic in construal theory must be psychological distance, including its four dimensions:
temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical distance (Trope et al., 2007), what regulates construal level and what influences one’s evaluation, attitude or behavior. When the event is in the present, taking place right here, happening to yourself rather than others and without uncertainty, people are more likely to represent this event at lower levels, which indicates having a concrete mindset, focusing on subordinate and contextual details. Beside psychological distance, construal level is affected by altering imagery perspective.
2.4. Imagery Perspective, Construal Level and Decision Difficulty
According to prior research, mental imagery has significant influence when people process information (Schlosser, 2003). Changing one’s perspective of mental imagery
8
has shown to impact consumers' information processing style (Libby & Eibach, 2011).
Adopting the observer viewpoint, which means seeing oneself and the surrounding environment, evokes a tendency to process information through a top-down method, making people pay more attention to the abstract terms of the object.
Additionally, adapting different perspectives alters one’s construal level (Shaeffer et al., 2015). When people imagine themselves from the actor perspective in a purchasing scenario, they process the information at lower levels of construal through a bottom-up approach, which results in a more concrete mindset. In contrast, imagining from the observer perspective arouses higher level construal, top-down processing and a more abstract mindset.
Prior research also showed that activating different construal levels affects the weight when comparing different features among products, such as focusing on central or peripheral attributes, thus taking either essence or details into consideration (Förster et al., 2004). People who represent an object at a higher construal level are outcome- focused (e.g., the ability I’ll get after finishing an online course), while those representing at lower levels are means-focused and tend to focus on the concrete features of an object (e.g., how much tuition would cost).
Xu et al. (2013) suggest that those who adopt lower construal levels perceive more decision difficulty due to a larger perception of the details of the object. People representing at a lower construal level (i.e., having a concrete mindset) tend to focus on feasibility and spend more time and effort comparing attributes between options, thus feeling it difficult to make a choice from a large product assortment. In comparison,
9
with higher construal level and abstract mindset, even though facing a large product assortment, people perceive fewer similarities and process less trade-off, hence reducing decision difficulty. Consequently, this research assumes the following:
H2: Construal level mediates the relationship between imagery perspectives and decision difficulty. In other words, adopting the actor perspective shifts one’s construal to a lower level, leading to more decision difficulty.
2.5. Need for Cognition
Cacioppo and Petty (1982) define need for cognition (NFC) as the level at which people enjoy cognitive activity requiring their effort. They posit that NFC reflects people’s motivation to engage in cognitive activity rather than their ability. People with high NFC show more willingness to acquire and deliberate on available information related to the stimuli or event when forming their attitude. They show more preference to issue-relevant thinking and have a more positive attitude toward tasks that are more complex or requiring their analysis (Cacioppo et al., 1986). Compared with high NFC, people with low NFC show less motivation to engage in cognitive activity and tend to use cognition heuristics when deciding.
NFC is an important individual difference that influences people’s behavioral intention. It’s widely studied in many domains, such as group decision-making in an organization (Kearney et al., 2009) and advertisement and marketing (Haugtvedt &
Petty, 1992). Kearney et al. (2009) posit that NFC increases elaboration of task-relevant information, thus moderating the relationship between team performance and team member diversity, and facilitating creative work or innovation. Haugtvedt and Petty
10
(1992) assert that people with high NFC show a more persistent attitude when facing counter arguments about a product. In recent years, the influence of the need for cognition is further discussed after the occurrence of COVID-19: social distancing and mask-wearing behavior (Xu & Cheng, 2021), and international social media using behavior (Su et al., 2021).
The experiments on temporal focus, NFC and construal level designed by Lan (2018) proved that NFC affects construal level. Their study suggested that when people consider present or past situations, those with higher NFC discuss the details of the context more, thus leading to lower construal levels and more concrete mindset. In contrast, people with lower NFC thinking about present or past are less analytical and tend to ignore details, thus have a more abstract mindset and higher construal level.
Based on prior studies, this research posits the following:
H3: Need for cognition moderates the relationship between imagery perspectives and construal level. People with higher NFC tend to think at lower construal levels while people with lower NFC have higher construal levels.
Figure 1. Research Framwork
11
3. Method
3.1. Pilot Test 3.1.1. Procedure
To ensure the effectiveness of the manipulation of imagery perspective, an online pilot test was designed. At the beginning of the test, participants were instructed to read an explanation (Libby et al., 2007) on the difference of two perspectives, and were randomly assigned to an actor or observer condition:
When you imagine yourself doing something, there are two kinds of perspectives you can adopt:
(1) The actor perspective: “Engaging in an action, experiencing it from your own perspective, and thinking about how it feels and looks to you as you do it.”
(2) The observer perspective: “Engaging in an action but watching yourself in the action from the outside, as an observer would watch someone else doing it. You are able to see yourself, as well as your surroundings.”
Every participant then watched two short videos, picturing the view of skateboarding in separate corresponding perspectives, to help them visualize. After watching two videos, they were instructed to close their eyes and imagine themselves riding a bike on the street with a specific perspective, actor or observer (Buehler et al., 2012). They then described the details of the picture in their imagery, to indicate whether they imagine from the assigned perspective. Finally, they answered “which perspective did you use when you imagined?” to check whether or not they imagined as instructed.
12
3.1.2. Result and Manipulation Check
To check the effect of the manipulation of imagery perspective, 53 participants took part in the pilot test. After reading the explanation of the two perspectives and watching the two example videos, the participants could imagine the bike riding scenario more easily.
There were 25 samples in the actor perspective condition. If participants assigned to the actor perspective narrated about the movement of hands, thighs or knees, action related to the handlebars, details about handlebars and bicycle, emotions or feelings of riding, the manipulation was considered as successful. Descriptions in successful samples were as follows: “I saw my hands holding handlebars”, “I saw the bell, brake cable and my bag in the basket”, “I felt a little nervous because of the uneven terrain”,
“When I looked down, I saw my foot stepping on the pedal”, etc. The success rate of the actor perspective manipulation was 92%.
With the observer perspective, there were 28 samples. If participants assigned to the observer perspective narrated about the appearance, such as wearing a helmet or hat, the color of their clothes or the bike, their facial expression, their back, side face, or whole person, the manipulation were considered as successful. Descriptions in the successful samples were as follows: “I looked tired”, “my hair was a mess because of the wind and my sweat”, “I wore a white cap”, “I saw my back, riding the bike hard”,
“My bike was white”, “There was much dirt on my rear wheel and the splash guard,”
etc. The success rate of the observer perspective manipulation was 82%.
13
Those only mentioning the landscapes, street views or staff may be seen in both perspectives; as which perspective they adopted couldn’t be recognized, they were considered as having failed. If their answer didn’t fit their assigned perspective or they chose the wrong perspectives in the last question (Which perspective did you use when you imagined?), the sample was considered as failed. For example, one who was in the actor perspective condition yet chose the “observer perspective” failed in the manipulation.
Table 1. The Results of the Pilot Test
Imagery Perspective Number of Samples Success Rate
Actor Perspective 25 92%
Observer Perspective 28 82%
3.2. Experiment 1
3.2.1. Participants and Design
The experiment was single factor between-subject designed (imagery perspective:
actor versus observer). The participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Then, the decision difficulty, construal level and need for cognition were tested. A total of 161 participants took part in this study: 92 participants were assigned to the actor perspective and 69 to the observer perspective; 104 participants were female and 57 were male, with most aged “21-25 years old” (N21-25=84).
3.2.2. Procedure and Materials
First, this experiment used the same manipulation as the pilot test to ensure that the participants were fully into their assigned imagery perspective state. The participants read the explanation about two perspectives and watched two demonstration videos shot from corresponding perspectives to understand two kinds of
14
imagery perspectives. Then, the participants closed their eyes to imagine riding a bike for thirty min and described the scene they pictured.
To clarify how adopting a different imagery perspective influences one’s mindset and the process of forming attitude, after the practice of imagining riding a bike, the participants imagined choosing from two apartments with desirability and feasibility trade-off. This study aims to confirm the important role that mindset plays in imagery perspective. According to prior researches, one’s mindset and attitude determine the perceived difficulty when facing feasibility-desirability trade-off (Hsieh & Yalch, 2020;
Thompson et al., 2009). Feasibility is defined as the ease in engaging in the action or the effort cost in choosing the option (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987), while desirability is defined as the benefit derived from the option (Hsieh & Yalch, 2020).
This decision-making scenario is based on an experiment designed by Thompson et al. (2009) and adjusted to make it more similar to the situation of renting an apartment in Taiwan. In the choosing scenario, the square of the apartment stands for desirability and the distance to school or company, which reflects how much time they will spend on commuting every day, which stands for feasibility. Two apartments are at the same price and other unmentioned condition are also the same.
Participants read the following description:
You are an office worker looking for an apartment to live by yourself. After spending time looking for an appropriate apartment, you excluded other alternatives and targeted on two apartments below:
Apartment A:
15
sharing house
sharing public space like restroom and living room with other roommates
smaller personal room
closer to workplace (10 min on foot) and convenient to public transportation
Apartment B:
suite
having your own restroom and living room
larger space
far from workspace (1 h in your commuting way) and public transportation
Please adopt actor perspective (or observer perspective) and imagine Apartment A and Apartment B separately, i.e., picture your daily routine or habits and how you would feel living in this apartment every day. Which apartment do you prefer?
After deciding which apartment to rent, participants rated the decision difficulty, did the behavioral identification form and evaluated the need for cognition.
Decision difficulty
Decision difficulty is measured by 9 items, including perceived difficulty, readiness, confidence, satisfaction to their choice and tendency to postpone (Fitzsimons, 2000; Thompson et al., 2009) with a 7-point Likert scale (1 for “strongly disagree”, 7 for “strongly agree”). The results of reliability analysis revealed acceptable reliability towards the 9 above items (Cronbach’s alpha=.93).
16
Construal level
To measure the level of abstract presentation (Kim & John, 2008; Lan, 2018), this experiment used the Behavioral Identification Form (BIF) designed by Vallacher and Wegner (1989). There are 25 behaviors with two statement each. The participants chose one statement that they personally considered the most suitable to the behavior. The statements they chose represent their level of abstraction and were used to evaluate the construal level. Each behavior could be identified in terms of how the behavior was completed, or why the behavior was done. For example, locking the door can be identified in two different ways: “putting a key into the lock” or “securing the house.”
If participants chose the statement describing why the behavior was done, each item was coded as 1 point. Conversely, if they chose the statement describing how the behavior was done, it was 0 points. The total score is regarded as the construal level.
The higher the score, the more abstract the participant represents.
Need for cognition
Participants rated the need for cognition by answering how much they agreed with the 18 statements. The measurement scale was developed by Cacioppo and Petty (1982).
The statements include: “I prefer complex to simple problems”, “I like having the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking”, “I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours”, and another 15 items. Each item used a 7-point Likert scale for evaluation (1 for “strongly disagree”; 7 for “strongly agree”) and was calculated into the average score to represent the level of NFC. The results of that reliability analysis revealed acceptable reliability toward the 9 above items (Cronbach’s alpha=.91).
17
3.2.3. Results
After collecting the data, this study’s analysis was done with SPSS statistics software. The two kinds of imagery perspective were converted into dummy code: 0 for actor perspective and 1 for observer perspective.
Main effect
According to the result of independent samples T-test, imagery perspective affects people’s decision difficulty (referred to as “IP” and “DD” in the table below). The decision difficulty of people adopting the actor perspective significantly differs from those adopting the observer perspective. People adopting the actor perspective tend to perceive more difficulty regarding their decision. In contrast, imagining from the observer perspective tends to show less difficulty regarding the decision (Mactor=4.21, SD=1.57, Mobserver=2.83, SD=1.50; t=5.61, p<.02, d=-0.91)
Table 2. Results of Independent Samples T-test between IP and DD (Study 1)
N M SD df t p d
Decision Difficulty
Actor
Perspective 92 4.21 1.57
159 5.61 .02 -0.91 Observer
Perspective 69 2.84 1.50
The statistics results suggest the following hypothesis:
H1: Imagining from the actor perspective causes more decision difficulty, while imagining from observer perspective leads to less decision difficulty.
18
Mediating effect
To make verify whether there’s a mediating effect of construal level on imagery perspective and decision difficulty, this study employed the Sobel test for its analysis.
The statistics results reveal that the mediating effect is significant (z=-2.71, p=.01). The standardized effect size of the mediating effect is -0.12, which indicates that adopting the observer perspective affects the construal level and then decreases the standard deviation of decision difficulty by 0.12.
In other words, the construal level can explain the relationship between imagery perspective and decision difficulty since the imagery perspective alters one’s construal level. People adopting the actor perspective tend to construe the options at a lower level and have a relatively concrete mindset, thus seeing the options more distinctly and having more decision difficulty. Those who adopt the observer perspective tend to represent at a higher level and have a relatively abstract mindset, perceiving more similarity, thus having less decision difficulty.
Table 3. Results of Sobel Test (Study 1)
d Sobel’s z p
Construal
Level -.012 -2.71 .01
The statistics results support positing the following:
H2: Construal level mediates the relationship between imagery perspectives and decision difficulty. In other words, adopting the actor perspective lowers one’s construal level and leads to more decision difficulty.
19
Moderating effect
The result of second order linear regression is demonstrated in Table 3 below.
According to the results, imagery perspective and need for cognition (referred to as “IP”
and “NFC”) can explain 34% of variance of construal level (Fstep1=41.20, p<.001).
Considering the interaction of imagery perspective and need for cognition, the variance of construal level increases 5% (Fstep2=12.11, p<.001).
Table 4. Regression of Second Order Interaction (Study 1) Construal Level
ΔR2 β
Step1 IP NFC
.34***
.01 -.58***
Step2 IP NFC IP×NFC
.05**
.01 -.317**
-.342**
Total R2 N
.62***
161
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
IP=Imagery Perspective; NFC=Need for Cognition
In terms of main effect, the ability of the imagery perspective to explain construal level is not significant (p>.05). Yet, the need for cognition significantly explains construal level (β=-.58, p<.001) with negative influence. In other words, higher NFC leads to lower construal level. The interaction between imagery perspective and need for cognition significantly explains construal level (β=-.342, p<.001).
20
As the interaction graph below shows, people with higher NFC have lower construal level no matter which perspective they adopt. Yet, if one’s NFC score is higher than c. 4.5, adopting observer perspective leads to higher construal level. Considering two lines separately, higher NFC leads to lower construal level, so the slopes of the two lines are both negative.
Figure 2. Interaction of IP and NFC (Study 1)
In summary, NFC moderates the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level. The effect of imagery perspective influencing construal level depends on one’s NFC. Those with lower NFC tend to represent at a lower level and see the difference of options when taking actor perspective rather than observer perspective.
This result suggests Hypothesis 3.
21
H3: Need for cognition moderates the relationship between imagery perspectives and construal level. People with higher NFC tend to think at lower construal levels while people with lower NFC exhibit higher construal levels.
3.3.Experiment 2
To investigate whether the above phenomenon exists in different product buying situations, different experimental conditions were designed. In experiment 1, participants chose between two kinds of apartments, one is smaller but convenient and the other is bigger but farther away from their company. Considering there are more and more online entertaining services turning up these days, especially after the commercial environment was changed by COVID-19 (Yeung, 2020), in experiment 2, participants chose between two online music streaming services. Experiment 2 was conducted to test whether the effect of imagery perspective and construal level on decision difficulty and moderation of the need for cognition can apply in the online choosing scenario.
3.3.1. Participants and Design
The experiment was designed as a single factor between-subject one (imagery perspective: actor versus observer). The participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Then, the decision difficulty, construal level and need for cognition were tested. A total of 185 participants took part in this study: 98 participants were assigned to the actor perspective and 87 to the observer perspective (95 female participants and 90 males), with most participants “21-25 years old”, interval (N21-25=45).
22
3.3.2. Procedure and Materials
First, this experiment used manipulation the same as in the pilot test and experiment 1 to verify that participants were fully into the assigned imagery perspective state. Participants read the explanation about the two perspectives and then watched two demonstration videos shot from corresponding perspectives to understand the two kinds of imagery perspectives. The participants closed their eyes to imagine riding a bike for thirty min and then described the scene they pictured.
After the practice of imagining riding a bike, the participants imagined themselves choosing from two online music streaming services with desirability and feasibility trade-off. In the choosing scenario, the number of songs and the efficiency to upload new releases signified desirability, ease to use and smoothness of user interface, representing feasibility. The two brands are at the same price and other unmentioned condition are also the same.
Participants read the following description:
You are an office worker and you are used to listen to music through your cellphone.
You are looking for an online music streaming service to subscribe. After spending time looking for an appropriate brand, you excluded other alternatives and target the two brands below:
Brand A:
more songs, you can enjoy every song you want
low efficiency to upload new releases
the smoothness of user interface scored 1 (up to 5) and the APP lags or crashes sometimes
23
Brand B:
fewer songs
high efficiency to upload new releases
the smoothness of user interface scored 5 (up to 5) and the APP is easy to use and is also aesthetic
The price and sound quality of the two brands are the same. Please adopt the actor perspective (or observer perspective) and imagine your daily life after subscribing to Brand A and Brand B, separately, i.e., picture your daily routine or habits and how you would feel using the service to listen to music such as enjoying music on Sunday mornings o, killing time when you are going to work. Which brand do you prefer?
After deciding which brand to subscribe, participants rated the decision difficulty, did the behavioral identification form and evaluated the need for cognition. To ensure the accuracy when comparing the two experiments, this experiment used the same scale as experiment 1. Participants’ decision difficulty was measured by the 9 items, including perceived difficulty, readiness, confidence, satisfaction with their choice, and tendency to postpone (Fitzsimons, 2000; Thompson et al., 2009); Cronbach’s alpha=.92.
Construal level was rated by the Behavioral Identification Form (BIF) designed by Vallacher and Wegner (1989). Finally, the need for cognition was measured by an 18- item scale (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982); Cronbach’s alpha=.92.
3.3.3. Results Main effect
According to the results of the independent samples T-test, imagery perspective affects people’s decision difficulty (referred to as “IP” and “DD” in the table below).
The decision difficulty of people adopting the actor perspective significantly differed
24
from those adopting the observer perspective. People adopting the actor perspective tended to perceive more difficulty in regard to their decision. In contrast, those imagining from the observer perspective tended to experience less difficulty regarding their decision (Mactor=3.34, SD=.76, Mobserver=3.13, SD=.58; t=2.06, p=.04, d=-.299).
Table 5. Results of Independent Samples T-test between IP and DD (Study 2)
N M SD df t p d
Decision Difficulty
Actor
Perspective 98 3.34 .76
179 2.06 .04 -.299 Observer
Perspective 87 3.13 .58
The statistics results support the following hypothesis:
H1: Imagining from the actor perspective causes more decision difficulty, while imagining from the observer perspective leads to less decision difficulty.
Mediating effect
To verify whether there’s a mediating effect of the construal level toward the imagery perspective and decision difficulty, this study employed the Sobel test for its analysis. The statistics results reveal that the mediating effect is significant (z=-8.791, p<.00). The standardized effect size of mediating effect was -0.17, which indicated that adopting the observer perspective affects the construal level and then decreases the standard deviation of decision difficulty by 0.17.
In other words, the construal level can explain the relationship between the imagery perspective and decision difficulty since the imagery perspective alters one’s
25
construal level. People adopting the actor perspective tend to construe the options at a lower level and have a relatively concrete mindset; thus, they see the options more distinctly and have more decision difficulty. Those who adopt the observer perspective tend to represent at a higher level and have a relatively abstract mindset, perceiving more similarity, and thus having less decision difficulty.
Table 6. Results of Sobel Test (Study 2)
d Sobel’s z p
Construal
Level -.017 -8.791 .00
The statistics results support the mediating effect of construal level toward imagery perspective and decision difficulty:
H2: The construal level mediates the relationship between imagery perspectives and decision difficulty. In other words, adopting the actor perspective lowers one’s construal level and leads to more decision difficulty.
Moderating effect
The result of second order linear regression is demonstrated in table 3 below.
According to the result, imagery perspective and need for cognition (referred to as “IP”
and “NFC”) can explain 32% of variance of construal level (Fstep1=44.45, p<.001).
Considering the interaction of imagery perspective and need for cognition, the variance of construal level increases 2% (Fstep2=6.315, p<.05).
26
Table 7. Regression of Second Order Interaction (Study 2) Construal Level
ΔR2 β
Step1 IP NFC
.32***
.57***
-.14*
Step2 IP NFC IP×NFC
.02***
.57***
-.02 -.21*
Total R2 N
.35*
185
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
IP=Imagery Perspective; NFC=Need for Cognition
In terms of main effect, the ability of imagery perspective to explain construal level is significant (p<.001). Yet, the effect of NFC is not significant (β=-.02, p>.05).
Moreover, the interaction between imagery perspective and need for cognition significantly explains the construal level (β=-.21, p<.01).
Figure 3. Interaction of IP and NFC (Study 2)
27
As the above interaction graph shows, observer perspective leads to higher construal levels. Moreover, for people with low NFC, the effect of imagery perspective influencing their construal level is greater than for people with higher NFC. In summary, NFC is a moderator and supports Hypothesis 3.
H3: The need for cognition moderates the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level. People with higher NFC tend to think at lower construal levels while people with lower NFC have higher construal levels.
Although the moderating effect exists in both experiments 1 and 2, NFC influences the relationship between imagery and construal level in different ways. The phenomenon may result from the difference in online-offline choosing scenarios, a difference that has been studied for many years. The two channels provide different values, affecting individuals’ decision-making process and their behavior. Research on attitude formation has confirmed that NFC influences the way consumers form their attitude toward the advertisement and the brand (Sicilia et al., 2006); in their study, the effect caused by one’s NFC differs between online websites and traditional advertising media.
Furthermore, Xu et al. (2021) and Lee et al. (2021) suggest that when consumers evaluate a product in an online channel, they construe at higher levels than those buying offline. In summary, this study posits that the online-offline difference affects how NFC moderates the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level.
28
4. Discussion
4.1. Conclusion
In this study, two experiments were conducted: experiment 1 involved a physical product (apartment) and experiment 2, an online service (music streaming). In experiment 1, the participants chose between a convenient but small apartment and one farther but larger. Furthermore, considering our business environment has been forced to change due to COVID-19, compared to the physical buying situation in experiment 1, an online music streaming service choosing scenario was designed in experiment 2:
an easy to use but with fewer songs brand and another brand whose app sometimes crashes but one where you can find every song you want. The results of the two experiments show the mechanism on how the imagery perspective affects decision difficulty, though the construal level exists in both type of products in the experiments.
Both experiments proved the relationship between imagery perspective and decision difficulty. When imagining from an actor perspective, i.e., an individual imagines himself using two alternative products, like the scene looked at from his own eyes, he will perceive more decision difficulty and tend to postpone making a choice.
When an individual adopts the observer perspective, like others watching him using the products, there will be less difficulty and he will feel more satisfied.
Moreover, the construal level, which represents the abstract level of people thinking, is the mechanism behind the above phenomenon. Adopting the actor perspective makes one represent things more concretely, tending to focus on the difference between alternatives and feeling confused in making a decision. In
29
comparison, people adopting the observer perspective have a more abstract mindset;
thus, they perceive more similarity and less decision difficulty.
The above results also revealed that the need for cognition moderated the influence on the construal level caused by different perspectives when imagining. According to the result of the two studies, NFC influences in different ways. In study 1, the way imagery perspective impacted the construal level depended on one’s NFC. To those with relatively low NFC (a score lower than approximately 4.5), taking the observer perspective led to higher construal levels. To those with relatively high NFC (higher than 4.5), the observer perspective brought their construal to a lower level. However, in study 2, no matter which perspective participants took, the observer perspective led to higher construal levels. The lower one’s NFC, the bigger the difference in construal levels between the two perspectives. The difference may result from the difference in experiment scenarios: offline apartment renting in study 1 and online service describing in study 2.
4.2. Theoretical Contribution
For business runners, it is essential to understand the cause and effect of decision difficulty. Yet, there’s a lack of research on decision difficulty that discusses attitude formation and behavioral intention. This study takes a viewpoint from the level of abstract individuals presenting external information to further investigate how decision difficulty is influenced by the imagery perspective.
In the field of imagery perspective, researchers made an effort to investigate how it influences people’s cognition and behavior. Most researchers focused on the way or
30
technique to manipulate imagery perspective in the early stages. Afterwards, researchers became interested in the application of imagery perspective and how it influences one’s behavior. However, few researches explored imagery perspective in the marketing field, especially in product choosing situations. This study proved that construal level is the mechanism on how imagery perspective affects decision difficulty, as attested in the apartment renting situation and online music streaming choosing scenario.
Moreover, few studies gave weight to personality. This research focuses on the need for cognition, which represents the level whereby people enjoy cognitive activities, and reveals the importance of the need for cognition toward imagery perspective and construal level. This research filled the theoretical gap and suggests important implications in the field of consumer behavior.
4.3. Practical Contribution
This research conducted two experiments to test how imagery perspective influences one’s decision difficulty when people choose an apartment and online music streaming service. For house owners, renting agents and online music service providers, this research may be useful in lowering consumers’ decision difficulty and making them more satisfied with their consumption. When facing feasibility and desirability trade- off, adopting different imagery perspectives causes different behaviors and levels of decision difficulty. Consequently, sellers can use verbal instruction to guide the way consumers imagine. Especially, to help consumers make a better choice, sellers can suppose consumers’ need for cognition through conversations or even ask questions of
31
the NFC scale by Cacioppo and Petty (1982) and decide which imagery perspective to instruct.
Beside selling by face-to-face conversation, there are more and more service transfers from offline to online these days. The results of study 2 suggest that the impact of imagery perspective also occurs in online buying. Integrating this study and other extant researches, online sellers can use different ways to manipulate one’s imagery perspective, such as video advertisement, picture advertisement and written description.
The results of this study show that the mechanism exists in online music streaming brand scenario. As consumers rely more on online entertainment during the COVID-19 (Yeung, 2020), this study depicts some implications for online music service providers to know their customers better. Applying an appropriate imagery perspective and affecting consumers’ construal level can lower decision difficulty, increase their commitment to their choice and reduce the probability of returning the merchandise.
As human beings, individuals have to make numerous choices each day. If the choosing situation seems difficult, consumers tend to hesitate and take avoidance actions. Beside lower satisfaction, decision difficulty may entail extra time and financial cost for consumers to return the products or subscriptions. Fortunately, imagery perspective brings a solution to decision difficulty. When facing a confusing choosing situation, taking the observer perspective to imagine helps consumers think abstractly and decreases difficulty when they are frustrated concerning the alternatives.
Before applying this tip in daily life, consumers can measure their need for cognition and then adopt different perspectives. The application of imagery perspective and need for cognition help consumers understand the process of forming attitude. In summary,
32
the study helps consumers make better choices, from daily purchases to important decisions, such as choosing insurance or selecting health checkup plans.
4.4. Limitation and Future Research
First, although participants were instructed to read the choosing scenario description carefully, the experiment was virtual. This study simulated the buying situation through online surveys and the results pointed out the possible influences of imagery perspective. In terms of study 1, future research could design a real experiment to clarify whether the effect exists when the transaction takes place in the consumers’
presence.
Second, based on this research, one’s difference in personality may be an important clue to clarify the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level. According to the results of the two experiments, NFC moderates the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level in different ways.; the cause of this phenomenon is still unclear and needs to be discussed in future research. Aside from NFC, there may be other personality traits related to cognition that impact imagery perspective and construal level. Moreover, according to Lan (2018), the way NFC influences construal differs from the temporal focus. In their research, when thinking about the future, people with higher NFC tend to focus on higher goals and thus have higher construal levels. Consequently, temporal focus may be a factor of concern when it comes to the relationships among personality, imagery perspective and construal level.
Beside cognitive personality, whether there’s different influence between demographic variables also deserves investigation in future research.
33
Last but not least, there are more types of buying situations for researchers to explore. Due to the unexpected COVID-19, the business environment is changing faster and faster. Many companies are switching from physical stores to online business in order to survive; shopping online has become a part of consumers’ daily life. In this study, the moderating effect of need for cognition is proved to impact the relationship between imagery perspective and construal level in different ways, depending on the difference in product types. The findings suggest that the many variables in product types may influence consumers’ behavior. For example, compared to choosing an apartment or online music streaming service for more than one year, people may behave differently when making short-term decisions such as choosing hotels for a 5-day travel or choosing a shorter service like movies or concert. Besides the physical-online difference, commitment period and switching cost of product or service, there are many different buying situations for researchers to explore.
34
References
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Griffin, J. G. (2014). Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment. Journal of consumer psychology, 24(4), 608-625.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(1), 116.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(5), 1032.
Cai, R., & Leung, X. Y. (2020). Mindset matters in purchasing online food deliveries during the pandemic: The application of construal level and regulatory focus theories. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102677.
Cheek, N. N., & Goebel, J. (2020). What does it mean to maximize?“Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(1), 7.
Craig, C. A., Ma, S., & Karabas, I. (2021). COVID-19, camping and construal level theory. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-5.
Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research.
In: Elsevier.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 177.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 249-266.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(3), 351.
Goodman, J. K., & Malkoc, S. A. (2012). Choosing Here and Now versus There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance on Assortment Size Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751-768.
https://doi.org/10.1086/665047
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for
cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(2), 308.
Holmes, E. A., & Mathews, A. (2010). Mental imagery in emotion and emotional disorders. Clinical psychology review, 30(3), 349-362.
Hsieh, M. H., & Yalch, R. F. (2020). How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐versus process‐
35
focused decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(1), 39- 51.
Hu, H.-f., & Krishen, A. S. (2019). When is enough, enough? Investigating product reviews and information overload from a consumer empowerment perspective.
Journal of business research, 100, 27-37.
Kaur, N., Sahdev, S. L., Chaturvedi, V., & Rajawat, D. (2020). Fighting Covid-19 with Technology and Innovation Evolving and Advancing with Technological Possibilities. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 11(7), 395-405.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management journal, 52(3), 581-598.
Kim, H., & John, D. R. (2008). Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit. Journal of consumer psychology, 18(2), 116-126.
Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 193-211.
Lan, J. (2018). Past, present or future?: the effects of temporal focus on employees' discretionary behaviors.
Lee, S. Y., Son, Y., & Oh, W. (2021). Effectiveness of Integrated Offline-and-Online Promotions in Omnichannel Targeting: A Randomized Field Experiment.
Journal of Management Information Systems, Forthcoming.
Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2002). Looking back in time: self-concept change affects visual perspective in autobiographical memory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(2), 167.
Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2011). Visual perspective in mental imagery: A
representational tool that functions in judgment, emotion, and self-insight. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 185-245). Elsevier.
Libby, L. K., Shaeffer, E. M., & Eibach, R. P. (2009). Seeing meaning in action: A bidirectional link between visual perspective and action identification level.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 503.
Libby, L. K., Shaeffer, E. M., Eibach, R. P., & Slemmer, J. A. (2007). Picture yourself at the polls: Visual perspective in mental imagery affects self-perception and behavior. Psychological Science, 18(3), 199-203.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of experimental social psychology, 38(6), 523-534.
36
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 17(2), 113-117.
Lutz, K. A., & Lutz, R. J. (1978). Imagery-eliciting strategies: Review and implications of research. ACR North American Advances.
Naeem, M. (2020). Understanding the customer psychology of impulse buying during COVID-19 pandemic: implications for retailers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.
Niese, Z. A., Libby, L. K., Eibach, R. P., & Carlisle, C. (2019). I can see myself enjoying that: Using imagery perspective to circumvent bias in self- perceptions of interest. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2258.
Park, M., & Yoo, J. (2020). Effects of perceived interactivity of augmented reality on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101912.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192.
Saine, R., Nguyen, C. A., Besharat, A., & Trocchia, P. J. (2018). To stay or switch:
Breaking the habit of status quo through imagery perspective. European Journal of Marketing.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 184-198.
Schneider, I. K., Stapels, J., Koole, S. L., & Schwarz, N. (2020). Too close to call:
Spatial distance between options influences choice difficulty. Journal of experimental social psychology, 87, 103939.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R.
(2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(5), 1178.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(4), 558.
Shaeffer, E. M., Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2015). Changing visual perspective changes processing style: A distinct pathway by which imagery guides cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 534.
Sheth, J. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die? Journal of business research, 117, 280-283.
37
Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., & Reynolds, N. (2006). Attitude Formation Onlin-how the Consumer's need for Cognition Affects the Relationship between Attitude towards the Website and Attitude towards the Brand. International Journal of Market Research, 48(2), 139-154.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Soliman, M., Buehler, R., & Peetz, J. (2017). Envisioning a future purchase: The effects of consumption imagery perspective and identity on consumer motivation. Psychology & Marketing, 34(7), 684-692.
Song, M., Lee, W. S., & Moon, J. (2019). Exploring effective price presentation format to reduce decision difficulty and increase decision satisfaction. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100572.
Su, Y., Lee, D. K. L., Xiao, X., Li, W., & Shu, W. (2021). Who endorses conspiracy theories? A moderated mediation model of Chinese and international social media use, media skepticism, need for cognition, and COVID-19 conspiracy theory endorsement in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106760.
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Petrova, P. K. (2009). When mental simulation hinders behavior: The effects of process-oriented thinking on decision
difficulty and performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 562-574.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological review, 110(3), 403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological review, 117(2), 440.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior.
Journal of consumer psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological review, 94(1), 3.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(4), 660.
Xu, C., Park, J., & Lee, J. C. (2021). The effect of shopping channel (online vs offline) on consumer decision process and firm's marketing strategy. Internet Research.
Xu, J., Jiang, Z., & Dhar, R. (2013). Mental representation and perceived similarity:
How abstract mindset aids choice from large assortments. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 548-559.
Xu, P., & Cheng, J. (2021). Individual differences in social distancing and mask-
38
wearing in the pandemic of COVID-19: The role of need for cognition, self- control and risk attitude. Personality and individual differences, 175, 110706.
Yeung, T. Y.-C. (2020). Did the COVID-19 Pandemic trigger nostalgia? Evidence of music consumption on Spotify. Evidence of Music Consumption on Spotify (August 21, 2020).
Zwanka, R. J., & Buff, C. (2021). COVID-19 generation: A conceptual framework of the consumer behavioral shifts to be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 33(1), 58-67.
39
Appendix A
Part 1. Introduction of Imagery Perspective
In this part, there is a practice of “imagining”. When you imagine yourself doing something, the viewpoint in your brain is so called “imagery perspective”. There’re two kinds of imagery perspective we can adopt: actor perspective and observer perspective, the difference is described below:
1. Actor perspective:
The same as the natural perspective that you look out from your own eyes.
When you imagine through actor perspective, you can see the details of the movement of your hands, the stuffs you’re holding, the lower part of your body and so on.
2. Observer perspective:
You see yourself doing something as if your spirit is out of your body. If you adopt observer perspective, you can see your appearance, movement, facial expression or how you dress, etc.
40
To further clarify the definition of two imagery perspectives, please watch the following videos shot by corresponded perspective:
1. Actor perspective:
2. Observer perspective: (please imagine you are the people in the video)
