This research suggests that consumers’ approach/avoidance tendencies depend on their implicit theories about the world around them. Entity theorists believe in the immutability of the world, and thus they are not influenced by whether a persuasive message is framed in terms of approach or avoidance. In contrast, incremental theorists believe that the world is mutable, and thus they are influenced by the message frame. This proposition is supported in two studies that feature advertising messages. The mechanism underlying these effects differs as a function of implicit theory orientation. Entity theorists’ focus on the outcome and incremental theorists’ reliance on the process form the basis for the observed findings. A third study reveals that when a consumer's implicit theory is violated, these findings are reversed. The authors discuss theoretical and managerial implications.
AgrawalNidhi, and MaheswaranDurairaj (2005), “The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitment on Persuasion,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841–49.
2.
ChiuChi-yue, HongYing-Ye, and DweckCarol S. (1997), “Lay Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19–30.
3.
CohenJacob, CohenPatricia, WestStephen, and AikenLeona (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 65–100.
4.
CohenJoel, and AndradeEduardo (2004), “Affective Intuition and Task-Contingent Affect Regulation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 358–67.
5.
DharRavi, and SimonsonItamar (1992), “The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(November), 430–40.
6.
DweckCarol, ChiuChi-Yue, and HongYing-Ye (1995), “Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A World from Two Perspectives,”Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–85.
7.
HeiderFritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
8.
HerrPaul, KardesFrank R., and KimJohn (1991), “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–62.
9.
HongYing-Ye, ChiuChi-Yue, and DweckCarol S. (1997), “Implicit Theories and Evaluative Processes in Person Cognition,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 296–323.
10.
JainShailendra P., AgrawalNidhi, and MaheswaranDurairaj (2006), “When More May Be Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Responses to Different Comparative Frames,”Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 91–98.
11.
JainShailendra P., LindseyCharles D., AgrawalNidhi, and MaheswaranDurairaj (2007), “For Better or for Worse? Valenced Comparative Framing and Regulatory Focus,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 57–65.
12.
JainShailendra P., LindseyCharles D., AgrawalNidhi, and MaheswaranDurairaj (2000), “Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of-Processing Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 358–71.
13.
JainShailendra P., LindseyCharles D., AgrawalNidhi, and PosavacSteven S. (2004), “Valenced Comparisons,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41(February), 46–58.
14.
KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”Econometrica, 47(2), 263–91.
15.
KardesFrank R., PosavacSteven S., and CronleyMaria L. (2004), “Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 230–56.
16.
KellarisJames J., KardesFrank R., and DinovoTheresa (1995), “Exploring the Boundaries of the Framing Effect: The Moderating Roles of Disparate Expected Values and Perceived Costs of Judgmental Errors,”Marketing Letters, 6(3), 175–82.
17.
KuhbergerAnton (1998), “The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-Analysis,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55.
18.
LeeAngela Y., and AakerJennifer (2004), “Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.
19.
LevinIrwin, SchneiderSandra L., and GaethGary J. (1998), “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–88.
20.
LevySheri R., StroessnerSteven J., and DweckCarol S. (1998), “Stereotype Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit Theories,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421–36.
21.
MaheswaranDurairaj, and Meyers-LevyJoan (1990), “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(August), 361–67.
22.
Meyers-LevyJoan, and MaheswaranDurairaj (2004), “Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic, Heuristic, or Both Types of Processing Occur,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 159–67.
23.
PlaksJason, GrantHeidi, and DweckCarol S. (2005), “Violations of Implicit Theories and the Sense of Prediction and Control: Implications for Motivated Person Perception,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 245–62.
24.
PlaksJason, StroessnerSteven J., DweckCarol S., and ShermanJeffrey W. (2001), “Person Theories and Attention Allocation: Preferences for Stereotypic Versus Counterstereotypic Information,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 876–93.
25.
PomerantzEva M., ChaikenShelly, and TordesillasRosalind S. (1995), “Attitude Strength and Resistance Processes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 408–419.
26.
PoonConnie S.K., and KoehlerDerek J. (2006), “Lay Personality Knowledge and Dispositionist Thinking: A Knowledge-Activation Framework,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 177–91.
27.
RothmanAlexander, BartelsRoger D., WlaschinJhon, and SaloveyPeter (2006), “The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice,”Journal of Communication, 56(Supplement 1), 202–220.
28.
RothmanAlexander, and SaloveyPeter (1997), “Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing,”Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.
29.
SchwarzNorbert (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–48.
30.
ShivBaba, EdellJulie A., and PayneJohn W. (1997), “Factors Affecting the Impact of Negatively and Positively Framed Ad Messages,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 285–94.
31.
SkowronskiJohn J., and CarlstonDonal E. (1987), “Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in Negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689–99.
32.
ThalerRichard H. (1980), “Towards a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(March), 39–60.
33.
ZhangShi, KardesFrank R., and CronleyMaria (2002), “Comparative Advertising: Effects of Structural Alignability on Target Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 303–311.
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.
