This article presents the results of three experiments that examine the effects of the fit between message framing and construal level – induced by temporal distance – on purchase intention and willingness to pay for an innovative product (enhanced reality glasses). Generally speaking, results show that a gain-framed message associated with a long-term purchase and a loss-framed message associated with a short-term purchase are the most effective combinations for promoting an innovative product but the degree of novelty of the product and individual’s temporal orientation moderate these effects. In addition, results emphasize the mediating role of fluency to process the message.
AlexanderDLLynchJGWangQ (2008) As time goes by: Do cold feet follow warm intentions for really new versus incrementally new products?Journal of Marketing Research45(3): 307–319.
2.
ApanovitchAMMcCarthyDSaloveyP (2003) Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low income ethnic minority women. Health Psychology22(1): 60–67
3.
ArtsJWCFrambachRTBijmoltTHA (2011) Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing28(2): 134–144.
4.
BagozziRPLeeKH (1999) Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations. Advances in Consumer Research26: 218–225.
5.
BanksSMSaloveyPGreenerSRothmanAJMoyerABeauvaisJEpelE (1995) The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology14(2): 178–184.
6.
BergadaàMM (1988) Le temps dans le comportement de l’individu. Recherche et Applications en Marketing3(4): 37–72.
7.
BergadaàMM (1990) The role of time in the action of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research17(3): 289–302.
8.
BlockLGKellerPA (1995) When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research32(2): 192–203.
9.
BornemannTHomburgC (2011) Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research38(3): 490–504.
10.
BreugelmansEKöhlerCFDellaertBCDe RuyterK (2012) Promoting interactive decision aids on retail websites: A message framing perspective with new versus traditional focal actions. Journal of Retailing88(2): 226–235.
11.
CastanoRSujanMKackerMSujanH (2008) Managing consumer uncertainty in the adoption of new products: Temporal distance and mental simulation. Journal of Marketing Research45(3): 320–336.
12.
ChandyRKTellisGJ (1998) Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research35(4): 474–487.
13.
ChenCWWongV (2012) Design and delivery of new product preannouncement messages. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice20(2): 203–222.
14.
CoxDCoxA (2001) Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing65(3): 91–103.
15.
DahlDWHoefflerS (2004) Visualizing the self: Exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks for new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management21(4): 259–267.
16.
DetweilerJBBedellBTProninERothmanAJ (1999) Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology18(2): 189–196.
17.
EyalTLibermanNTropeYWaltherE (2004) The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86(6): 781–795.
18.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJA (2012) Health message framing effects on attitudes intentions and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine43: 101–116.
19.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJARothmanAJSimsL (2011) Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychology30(2): 145–152.
20.
GerendMAShepherdJE (2007) Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology26(6): 745–752.
21.
GourvilleJT (2006) Eager sellers and stony buyers. Harvard Business Review84(6): 98–106.
22.
GuiotD (2006) Un cadre d’analyse du processus de vieillissement et de son influence sur le comportement d’achat du consommateur âgé. Recherche et Applications en Marketing21(1): 57–79.
23.
HartEWJacobyJ (1973) Novelty, recency, and scarcity as predictors of perceived newness. In: Proceedings of the 81st annual conference of the American Psychological Association, 839–840. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1973-25924-001
24.
HenardDHSzymanskiDM (2001) Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research38(3): 362–375.
25.
HoefflerS (2003) Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research40(4): 406–420.
26.
HullSJ (2012) Perceived risk as a moderator of the effectiveness of framed HIV test promotion messages among women: A randomized controlled trial. Health Psychology31(1): 114–121.
27.
JeannotFJolibertJ (2013) Temporal distance, mental simulation and the adoption of complex technological innovations. Recherche et Applications en Marketing28(1): 65–84
28.
KellerPALipkusIMRimerBK (2003) Affect, framing and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research40(1): 54–64.
29.
KeoughKAZimbardoPGBoydJN (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(6): 1271–1288.
30.
KimHRaoARLeeAY (2009) It’s time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research35(6): 877–889.
31.
KimKZhangMLiX (2008) Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research35(4): 706–713.
32.
KimYJParkJWyerRS (2009) Effects of temporal distance and memory on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research36(4): 634–645.
33.
KulviwatSBrunerGCAl-ShuridahO (2009) The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption. Journal of Business Research62(7): 706–712.
34.
LabrooAALeeAY (2006) Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 374–385.
35.
LatimerAERiversSRenchTAKatulakNHicksAHodorowskiJKHigginsTESaloveyP (2008a) A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44(3): 826–832.
36.
LatimerAEWilliams-PiehotaPKatulakNACoxAMowadLHigginsETSaloveyP (2008b) Promoting fruit and vegetable intake through messages tailored to individual differences in regulatory focus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine35(3): 363–369.
37.
LeeAYAakerJL (2004) Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86(2): 205–218.
38.
LeeAYLabrooAA (2004) The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2): 151–165.
39.
LehmannD (1994) Characteristics of really new products. In AdamsM.LacugnaJ. (Eds.), And now for something completely different: “Really” new products (pp. 1–2). Boston, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
40.
LevinIPGaethGJ (1988) How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research15(4): 374–378.
41.
LevinIPSchneiderSLGaethGJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76(2): 149–188.
42.
LiX (2008) The effects of appetitive stimuli on out-of-domain consumption impatience. Journal of Consumer Research34(5): 649–656.
43.
LibermanNTropeY (1998) The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology75(1): 5–18.
44.
LibermanNSagristanoMDTropeY (2002) The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38(6): 523–534.
45.
LiviatanITropeYLibermanN (2008) Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44: 1256–1269.
46.
MaheswaranDMeyers-LevyJ (1990) The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research27(3): 361–367.
47.
ManceauD (2000) Les délais d’annonce des nouveaux produits: une analyse empirique des déterminants. Recherche et Applications en Marketing15(4): 1–20
48.
ManceauD (2003) Lancement de nouveaux produits. In MustarPPenanH (eds) Encyclopédie de l’innovation. Paris: Economica, pp.281–295.
49.
MannTLShermanDSUpdegraffJA (2004) Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis. Health Psychology23(3): 330–334.
50.
MartinBASGnothJStrongC (2009) Temporal construal in advertising: The moderating role of temporal orientation and attribute importance in consumer evaluations. Journal of Advertising38(3): 5–19.
51.
Medvetchi DahanMManceauDGeffroyL (2009) Les stratégies de lancement de nouveaux produit dans le secteur des télécommunications: Le cas de l’iPhone d’Apple. Revue Française de Marketing222: 83–97.
52.
MeyerowitzBEChaikenS (1987) The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52(3): 500–510.
53.
Meyers-LevyJMaheswaranD (2004) Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology14(1): 159–167.
54.
MickDGFournierS (1998) Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research25(2): 123–143.
55.
MillierP (2011) Stratégie et marketing de l’innovation technologique. Créer les marchés de demain. Paris: Dunod.
56.
MohrJJShooshtariNH (2003) Introduction to the special issue: Marketing of high-technology products and innovationsJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice11(3): 1–5.
57.
MoreauCPMarkmanABLehmannDR (2001) ‘What is it?’ Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research27(4): 489–498.
58.
NanX (2007) Social distance, framing, and judgment: a construal level perspective. Human Communication Research33(4): 489–514.
59.
O’KeefeDJensenJ (2007) The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication12(7): 623–644.
60.
OppenheimerDM (2008) The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science12(6): 237–241.
61.
OstlundLE (1974) Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research1(2): 23–29.
62.
PhaletKAndriessenILensW (2004) How future goals enhance motivation and learning in multicultural classrooms. Educational Psychology Review16(1): 59–89.
ReberRSchwarzNWinkielmanP (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality & Social Psychology Review8(4): 364–382.
65.
RisseladaHVerhoefPCBijmoltTHA (2014) Dynamic effects of social influence and direct marketing on the adoption of high-technology products. Journal of Marketing78(2): 52–68.
66.
RobertsonTS (1971) Innovative behavior and communication. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
67.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
68.
RothmanAJSaloveyPAntoneCKeoughKMartinCD (1993) The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology29(5): 408–433.
69.
SchwarzN (2004) Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology14(3): 332–348.
70.
ShermanDKMannTUpdegraffJA (2006) Approach/avoidance orientation message framing and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion30: 165–169.
71.
ShivBEdell BrittonJAPayneJW (1997) Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research24(4): 285–294.
72.
ShivBEdell BrittonJAPayneJW (2004) Does elaboration increase or decrease the effectiveness of negatively vs positively framed messages?Journal of Consumer Research31(1): 199–208.
73.
SobelME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: LeinhartS (ed.) Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.290–312.
74.
SpencerSJZannaMPFongGT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89(6): 845–851.
75.
SpielbergerCD (1988) State-trait anxiety inventory (form Y). In: HersenMBellackAS (eds) Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques. New York: Pergamon Press, pp.448–450.
76.
SuMRaoVR (2011) Timing decisions of new product preannouncement and launch with competition. International Journal of Production Economics129(1): 51–64.
77.
TalkeKSneldersD (2013) Information in launch messages: Stimulating the adoption of new high-tech consumer products. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(4): 732–749.
78.
TangariAHSmithRJ (2012) How the temporal framing of energy savings influences consumer product evaluations and choice. Psychology and Marketing29(4): 198–208.
79.
ThiébautE (1998) La perspective temporelle, un concept à la recherche d’une définition opérationnelle. L’année psychologique98(1): 101–125.
80.
ThomasMChandranSTropeY (2007) The effect of information type and temporal distance on purchase intentions. Département marketing, UniversitéCornell.
81.
ThompsonDVHamiltonRWRustRT (2005) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research42(4): 431–442.
82.
TropeYLibermanN (2000) Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(6): 876–889.
83.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211(4481): 453–458.
84.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business59(4): 251–278.
85.
UpdegraffJAEmanuelASGallagherKMSteinmanCT (2011) Framing flu prevention: An experimental field test of signs promoting hand hygiene during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic. Health Psychology30(3): 295–299.
86.
UpdegraffJAShermanDLuysterFMannT (2007) The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43(2): 249–257.
87.
VallacherRRWegnerDM (1987) What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review94(1): 3–15.
88.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBDavisFD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
89.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
90.
WalshPA (1995) The impact of temporal orientation on higher order choices: A phenomenological investigation. Advances in Consumer Research22: 311–317.
91.
WhiteKMacDonnellRDahlDW (2011) It’s the mindset that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors over the long-term. Journal of Marketing Research48(3): 472–485.
92.
WoodSLMoreauCP (2006) From fear to loathing? How emotion influences the evaluation and early use of innovations. Journal of Marketing70(3): 44–57.
93.
ZhaoGPechmannC (2007) The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents’ response to antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research44(4): 671–687.
94.
ZhaoMXieJ (2011) Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research48(3): 486–496.
95.
ZhaoMHoefflerSDahlDW (2009) The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research46(1): 46–55.
96.
ZhaoMHoefflerSDahlDW (2012) Imagination difficulty and new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management29(7): 76–90.
97.
ZhaoMHoefflerSZaubermanG (2007) Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process- versus outcome-focused thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research44(3): 379–388.
98.
ZiamouPRatneshwarS (2002) Promoting consumer adoption of high-technology products: Is more information always better?Journal of Consumer Psychology12(4): 341–351.
99.
ZiamouPVeryzerRW (2005) The influence of temporal distance on consumer preferences for technology-based innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management22(4): 336–346.
