Ads promising a desired change are ubiquitous in the marketplace. These ads typically include visuals of the starting and ending point of the promised change (“before/after” ads). “Progression” ads, which include intermediate steps in addition to starting and ending points, are much rarer in the marketplace. Across several consumer domains, the authors show an ad-type effect: progression ads foster spontaneous simulation of the process through which the change will happen, which makes these ads more credible and, in turn, more persuasive than before/after ads (Studies 1–3). The authors also show that impairing process simulation and high skepticism moderate the ad-type effect (Studies 4–5). Finally, they show effect reversals: if consumers focus on achieving the desired results quickly, and it is possible to do so, progression ads and the associated process simulation backfire in terms of credibility and persuasion (Studies 6–7). These findings contribute to existing research by identifying conditions under which progression ads have beneficial or disadvantageous effects. These findings have managerial implications because they run counter to current marketing practices, which favor before/after over progression ads.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1999), “Perceptual Symbol Systems,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (4), 577–660.
2.
BarsalouLawrence W. (2008), “Grounded Cognition,” Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–45.
3.
CianLucaKrishnaAradhnaElderRyan S. (2014), “This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 184–97.
4.
CianLucaKrishnaAradhnaElderRyan S. (2015), “A Sign of Things to Come: Behavioral Change Through Dynamic Iconography,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1426–46.
5.
CrowleyAyn E.HoyerWayne D. (1994), “An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 561–74.
6.
DillardJames PricePfauMichael (2002), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
7.
EaglyAlice H.ChaikenShelly (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
8.
EisendMartin (2006), “Two-Sided Advertising: A Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (2), 187–98.
9.
ElderRyan S.KrishnaAradhna (2010), “The Effects of Advertising Copy on Sensory Thoughts and Perceived Taste,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 748–56.
10.
ElderRyan S.KrishnaAradhna (2012), “The ‘Visual Depiction Effect’ in Advertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation Through Product Orientation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 988–1003.
11.
EscalasJennifer Edson (2004), “Imagine Yourself in the Product: Mental Simulation, Narrative Transportation, and Persuasion,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 37–48.
12.
EscalasJennifer EdsonLuceMary Frances (2003), “Process Versus Outcome Thought Focus and Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 246–54.
13.
EscalasJennifer E.LuceMary Frances (2004), “Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused Versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 274–85.
14.
FergusonYuna L.SheldonKennon M. (2010), “Should Goal-Strivers Think About ‘Why’ or ‘How’ to Strive? It Depends on Their Skill Level,” Motivation and Emotion, 34 (3), 253–65.
15.
FukawaNobuyukiNiedrichRonald W. (2015), “A Fluency Heuristic Account of Supraliminal Prime Effects on Product Preference,” Psychology & Marketing, 32 (11), 1061–78.
16.
GoldenLinda L.AlpertMark I. (1987), “Comparative Analyses of the Relative Effectiveness on One-Sided and Two-Sided Communications for Contrasting Products,” Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 18–28.
17.
HamiltonRebecca W.ThompsonDebora Viana (2007), “Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers’ Preferences After Direct and Indirect Product Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 546–55.
18.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
19.
Houser-MarkoLindaSheldonKennon M. (2008), “Eyes on the Prize or Nose to the Grindstone? The Effects of Level of Goal Evaluation on Mood and Motivation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (11), 1556–69.
20.
KavanoorSukumarGrewalDhruvBlodgettJeff (1997), “Ads Promoting OTC Medications: The Effect of Ad Format and Credibility on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 40 (3), 219–27.
21.
KirmaniAmnaWrightPeter (1989), “Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product Quality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (12), 344–53.
22.
LidwellWilliamHoldenKritinaButlerJill (2010), Universal Principles of Design: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perceptions, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach Through Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
23.
MacInnisDeborah J.PriceLinda L. (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extension,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 473–91.
24.
MacKenzieScott B.LutzRichard J. (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (2) 48–65.
NielsenJesperEscalasJennifer E.HoefflerSteve (2018), “Mental Simulation and Category Knowledge Affect Really New Product Evaluation Through Transportation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24 (2), 145–58.
27.
ParkJi KyungJohnDeborah Roedder (2014), “I Think I Can, I Think I Can: Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 233–47.
28.
PetrovaPetia K.CialdiniRobert B. (2005), “Fluency of Consumption Imagery and the Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 442–52.
29.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T. (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer, 1–24.
30.
PhamLien B.TaylorShelley E. (1999), “From Thought to Action: Effects of Process-Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (2), 250–60.
31.
PontariBeth A.SchlenkerBarry R. (2000), “The Influence of Cognitive Load on Self-Presentation: Can Cognitive Busyness Help as Well as Harm Social Performance?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (6), 1092–1108.
32.
RockIrvinPalmerStephen (1990), “The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology,” Scientific American, 263 (6), 84–91.
33.
SchlosserAnn 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), 184–98.
34.
SchlosserAnn E. (2011), “Can Including Pros And Cons Increase the Helpfulness and Persuasiveness of Online Reviews? The Interactive Effects of Ratings and Arguments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (3), 226–39.
35.
TaylorShelley E.PhamLien B.RivkinInna D.ArmorDavid A. (1998), “Harnessing the Imagination: Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation, and Coping,” American Psychologist, 53 (4), 429–39.
36.
ThompsonDebora VianaHamiltonRebecca W.PetrovaPetia K. (2009), “When Mental Simulation Hinders Behavior: The Effects of Process-Oriented Thinking on Decision Difficulty and Performance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 562–74.
37.
UlkümenGüldenThomasManoj (2013), “Personal Relevance and Mental Simulation Amplify the Duration Framing Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 194–206.
38.
Van DillenLotte F.PapiesEsther K.HofmannWilhelm (2013), “Turning a Blind Eye to Temptation: How Cognitive Load Can Facilitate Self-Regulation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (3), 427–43.
39.
WhiteKatherineWillnessChelsea (2009), “Consumer Reactions to the Decreased Usage Message: The Role of Elaborative Processing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (1), 73–87.
40.
ZhaoMinHoefflerSteveZaubermanGal (2007), “Mental Simulation and Preference Consistency over Time: The Role of Process- Versus Outcome-Focused Thoughts,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (8), 379–88.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
