Past research examining the effect of self-construal on persuasion has shown that advertising appeals that are consistent with consumers' chronically accessible (chronic) self-construal as well as appeals that are consistent with the temporarily accessible (latent) self-construal are both persuasive. In two studies, we identify brand commitment as a moderating variable that determines the effectiveness of appeals consistent with the consumers' chronic or latent self-construal. Under high commitment, appeals consistent with the chronic self-construal were more effective. In contrast, under low commitment, appeals consistent with the primed (independent or interdependent) self-construal were more effective. These findings were robust across independent and interdependent self-construal contexts.

In this research, we examine the conditions under which outcomes bias judgments, and we provide insights on the processes underlying such bias effects. A series of three studies identified motivated reasoning as a major determinant of when outcomes would bias judgments. The processes underlying outcome bias effects also varied depending on the motivational goal. Accuracy goals minimized outcome bias based on objective elaboration. Defense goals enhanced outcome bias by promoting selective processing of the outcome when it was preference consistent. Finally, impression goals increased the perceived diagnosticity of outcomes and biased the subsequent systematic processing resulting in outcome-biased judgments.

Six experiments examine how exerting self-control systematically influences subsequent decision making. Exerting self-control led individuals to rely on feasibility over desirability attributes, favor secondary over primary attributes, and choose products framed in a proximal rather than distal perspective. Process measures suggest that these effects occur because depletion from self-control heightens one’s focus on resources and prompts a lower construal level that is carried over to subsequent tasks. Stimulating individuals to adopt higher level construals diminishes these effects. These findings offer insight into the psychological process by which self-control influences subsequent decisions.

The depletion effect occurs when individuals who exert self-control in a previous task (i.e., depleted individuals) exhibit less self-control on a subsequent task relative to individuals who did not previously exert self-control. This article presents two experiments that implicate construal levels to understand the processes underlying depletion effects in the context of consumer health. At low-level construals, individuals rely on resource accessibility cues (e.g., feelings of tiredness) to determine self-control. Hence, they exert less self-control only when they assess themselves as depleted, manifesting the depletion effect. High-level construals reduce the resource focus and enhance a goal focus, which diminishes and even reverses the depletion effect.

Five experiments examine the nature of different coping strategies and their subsequent effects on the effectiveness of health messages. We theorize that the two strategies of problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping are systematically associated with distinct construal levels (lower vs. higher), and thus messages cast at different levels of construal are differentially effective when a particular coping strategy is being activated. Specifically, we demonstrate that consumers primed with problem-focused strategies are more persuaded by messages presented at lower levels of construal, whereas consumers primed with emotion-focused strategies are more persuaded by messages presented at higher levels of construal. In addition, we posit that matching with each different type of coping strategy (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused coping) is driven by distinct types of efficacy processes. In particular, we demonstrate that the effects of a match with problem-focused coping are driven by self-efficacy, and the effects of a match with emotion-focused coping are driven by response efficacy. These findings make a significant contribution by building bridges between three theoretical traditions: coping, construal level, and efficacy in the context of health messaging.

Four experiments show that emotions systematically influence judgments and persuasion by altering construal levels. Guilt-laden consumers, relative to those who were shame-laden, adopted lower levels of construal. In subsequent unrelated judgments, guilt increased reliance on feasibility over desirability attributes and emphasized secondary rather than primary features. Shame led to the opposite pattern. Guilt's tendency to draw behavior-specific appraisals activates local appraisal tendencies and endows lower construal levels, whereas shame's tendency to implicate the entire self activates global appraisal tendencies and endows consumers with higher construal levels. As a boundary condition to the core effect, the results showed that the differences between guilt and shame only held when the emotions arose from actions rather than from inaction situations. These findings provide insight into when and why guilt and shame have different effects on subsequent decisions.

We examine the effect of “Black-owned” labeling on cannabis and psychedelic brands, in context of the stigmatized and risky nature of the drugs category. Building on prior studies examining social justice or discrimination, we introduce an expertise stereotype framework. As study 1, we surveyed 37 Black professionals in the drugs industry about expectations regarding “Black-owned” labels, as juxtaposition to consumer responses in the following studies. In study 2, we measured expertise stereotypes about Black and women entrepreneurs across various product types. Utilizing these findings, we contrasted the effect of “Black-owned” labels on cannabis versus candy products in study 3. “Black-owned” labeling increased Black participants’ intentions to consume candy, but not cannabis; and the pattern reversed for White participants such that “Black-owned” labeling increased their intentions only for cannabis. Whereas out-group members’ response is consistent with expertise stereotypes, in-group members’ support does not extend to the stigmatized category. In study 4, field ad campaigns revealed that “Black-owned” (vs. no) label increases click-through by 21% on a psychedelics ad, while a “Woman-owned” (vs. no) label reduces by 15%, consistent with expertise stereotypes. These findings advance the discourse on ownership labeling and provide insight into nuanced consumer responses in this category.

We examined the consequences of regulatory focus on exposure to two types of comparative advertising frames—a maximal claim (“brand A is superior to brand B”) and a minimal claim (“brand A is equivalent or similar to brand B”)—in three experiments. In experiment 1, we manipulated these frames, basing the sponsor brand's claim on comparison with an existing brand. In experiment 2, we operationalized the frames using a comparison featuring a sponsor brand targeting an established standard (Food and Drug Administration guidelines). A third experiment provided convergent evidence for the process underlying these effects. Consistent with theoretical reasoning, we found that promotion-focused individuals were more persuaded by maximal comparisons while prevention-focused individuals were either equally persuaded by the two frames or more persuaded by minimal frames. For prevention-focused individuals, maximal frames represented either a “no loss” or a “deviation from the norm.” The no loss representation led to maximal and minimal frames being equally persuasive. The deviation from the norm representation led to greater negative elaboration on maximal frames, making them less persuasive than minimal frames. For promotion-focused people, a maximal frame simply represented a gain over a minimal frame, and hence it induced more favorable elaboration and greater persuasion.

Three experiments examine how prevention-focused and promotion-focused consumers evaluate the comparison brand and what information they anchor on in direct comparative ads framed positively or negatively. Negative (vs. positive) frames lead prevention-focused respondents to exhibit higher evaluations for the advertised brand and lower evaluations for the comparison brand. Under promotion focus, positive (vs. negative) frames lead to more favorable attitudes toward the advertised brand with no difference in attitudes for the comparison brand. Preference for consistency is posited as a possible process explanation. We also find an evaluation order effect: prevention-focused (promotion-focused) individuals evaluate the comparison (advertised) brand first.