Imagery fluency

442

� 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 32 ● December 2005All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2005/3203-0012$10.00

Fluency of Consumption Imagery and theBackfire Effects of Imagery Appeals

PETIA K. PETROVAROBERT B. CIALDINI*

Existing research and widespread commercial usage suggest that appeals urgingconsumers to imagine the product experience have powerful effects on productpreferences. Three studies examined the mediating role of imagery accessibilityand demonstrated that the difficulty of imagery generation can reverse the generallyobserved positive effects of imagery appeals. When participants were low in im-agery abilities or when the product was not presented in a vivid way, imageryappeals were not only ineffective but even had a negative effect on product pref-erences. Providing evidence for its subjective nature, this imagery fluency effectwas more likely for individuals attuned to their internal experiences.

The use of imagery is a widespread practice for influ-encing consumers’ choices. Television and radio com-

mercials induce viewers to immerse themselves in imaginedproduct experiences. Print advertisements include phrasessuch as “imagine yourself,” “visualize yourself here,” and“picture how it would be.” The existing research indicatesthat imagery can have powerful effects on product prefer-ences (Escalas 2004; MacInnis and Price 1987). The presentinvestigation, however, reveals circumstances under whichasking consumers to imagine their future experience withthe product may be not only ineffective but may actuallydecrease the likelihood of purchasing the product.

Our research follows recent findings showing that judg-ments are impacted not only by the content of the relevantproduct information but also by the ease with which onegenerates or processes this information (Schwarz 2004). Sucheffects have been demonstrated in regard to ease of retrieval(Wanke, Bohner, and Jurkowitsch 1997) and processing flu-ency (Lee and Labroo 2004). However, previous researchhas not investigated the effects of accessibility and fluencyexperiences in regard to the use of imagery in forming prod-uct preferences. In an attempt to fill this gap, we tested thepossibility that consumers may base their purchase inten-tions on the ease with which they can imagine their future

*Petia K. Petrova is a doctoral candidate, Department of Psychology,Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 ([email protected]). Rob-ert B. Cialdini is a Regents’ Professor, Department of Psychology, ArizonaState University, Tempe, AZ 85287 ([email protected]). The authorswish to thank Steven Neuberg, David MacKinnon, Punam Keller, Alex-ander Chernev, and Naomi Mandel for their helpful suggestions regardingthis work and Michel Pham for providing stimuli, which we used in mod-ified form in study 3. This research was supported by a grant from theNational Institute of Health (1 F31 MH068117-01), which was awardedto the first author.

experience with the product. We predicted that, becauseprior imagining can create a readily accessible image of theconsumption experience, individuals would be more likelyto purchase products that they had previously imagined.However, we also predicted that difficulty to imagine evena positive product experience would lower the likelihood ofchoosing the product.

In contrast to previous research suggesting that pictures,concrete information, or instructions to imagine increasecognitive elaboration and, subsequently, increase the acces-sibility of favorable product information (Kisielius andSternthal 1984, 1986), we focused on the accessibility ofconsumption imagery as a central underlying variable. Sim-ilar to the effects of narrative stories (Green and Brock2000), imagining the consumption experience transportsconsumers into a different reality and reduces their elabo-ration of message arguments (Escalas 2004; Schlosser2003). Our research aimed to advance these findings byproviding new insight into the processes underlying the ef-fects of imagery appeals and revealing the circumstancesunder which imagery appeals would undermine productpreferences.

FLUENCY OF CONSUMPTION IMAGERYGENERATION

Investigations of the effects of imagery on likelihoodjudgments suggest that individuals tend to use the ease withwhich they generate a mental script of an event as an in-dicator of the likelihood of the event (Carroll 1978; Gregory,Cialdini, and Carpenter 1982; Sherman et al. 1985). Forexample, imagining a disease that had easy-to-imaginesymptoms made participants estimate a higher likelihoodthat they would contract the disease. When the disease had

FLUENCY OF CONSUMPTION IMAGERY 443

difficult-to-imagine symptoms, however, imagining instruc-tions lowered the perceived likelihood of contracting thedisease (Sherman et al. 1985). These findings suggest thatparticipants based their likelihood estimates on the acces-sibility of the mental image of having the disease. However,direct evidence for the mediational role of imagery acces-sibility has not been provided; nor have these effects beeninvestigated in regard to product preferences. The lack ofresearch in this direction is surprising given the evidencefor the effects of ease of retrieval and processing fluencyon consumer judgment (Schwarz 2004). Furthermore, de-spite the extensive research on accessibility and fluency ef-fects, still little is known about the conditions under whichthese metacognitive experiences play a role in guiding judg-ments (Schwarz 2004; Tybout et al. 2005).

In three studies, we investigated several factors that canimpact the ease with which consumers can imagine the prod-uct experience and, consequently, reverse the effects of im-agery appeals on product preferences. We first examined therole of dispositional abilities to create vivid mental images(Marks 1972, 1973). Past research has demonstrated thatindividuals who differ in their imagery abilities are differ-entially impacted by vivid information (Pham, Meyvis, andZhou 2001) and imagery-inviting messages (Bone and Ellen1992). Extending these findings, we tested the possibilitythat differences in imagery abilities can reverse the positiveeffects of imagery appeals. In line with this possibility, whilesuch appeals would be expected to enhance product attitudesand purchase intentions among individuals high in imageryabilities, those same appeals would be expected to lowerproduct attitudes and purchase intentions among individualswith low imagery abilities.

H1: Imagery appeals will have a positive effect onbrand attitudes and purchase intentions for in-dividuals high in dispositional imagery vivid-ness but a negative effect for individuals lowin dispositional imagery vividness.

The present research further examined the vividness ofthe product depiction as an external factor that can impactimagery accessibility and reverse the effects of imageryappeals. Vivid information has been defined as (1) emo-tionally interesting, (2) concrete and image provoking, and(3) proximate in a sensory, temporal, or spatial way (Nisbettand Ross 1980). In previous studies, vividness has beenmanipulated using (1) the presence of pictures (Keller andBlock 1997; Kisielius and Sternthal 1984), (2) concrete ver-sus abstract pictures (Babin and Burns 1997), (3) concreteversus abstract words (Rook 1987), or (4) narrative versusstatistical information (Keller and Block 1997). Across ma-nipulations, research has demonstrated that because vividinformation stimulates greater generation of imagery, it hasa positive effect on product preferences. We manipulatedthe degree to which the product information was vivid eitherby varying the concreteness of the pictorial product depic-tion (study 2) or by presenting easy-to-imagine verbal prod-uct description versus nonexperiential information such as

numerical ratings (study 3). We expected that when con-sumers relied on the presented information to generate theconsumption imagery without vivid cues, they would ex-perience difficulty generating this image. Because the ex-perience of difficulty would be used as information for prod-uct judgments, we expected that it would not only renderthe imagery appeals ineffective but would lead to more neg-ative product evaluations.

H2: Imagery-inviting appeals will have opposite ef-fects on product preferences depending on thevividness of the product depiction. When theproduct depiction is high in vividness, imageryappeals will result in stronger product prefer-ences. When the product information is low invividness, asking individuals to imagine theproduct experience will lead to weaker productpreferences.

Following previous research suggesting that imagery mayincrease the accessibility of the imagined event and, con-sequently, impact its perceived likelihood (Sherman et al.1985), we expected that the predicted effects in hypothesis2 would occur because individuals would base their purchaseintentions on the accessibility of the consumption imagery.However, since previous studies have failed to provide directevidence for the role of imagery accessibility, in the presentresearch, we aimed to find the first direct mediational evi-dence for this process.

H3: The interaction effects of vividness and pres-ence of imagery appeals will be mediated bythe subjective accessibility of the consumptionimagery.

Difficulty constructing the consumption imagery mightalso arise when the product is depicted with both vividexperiential information and nonexperiential informationsuch as numerical ratings, statistical information, technicalspecifications, or attribute comparisons. Although such in-formation is often intended to provide additional motivationfor purchasing the product, it may usurp cognitive resourcesnecessary to create a mental image of the consumption ex-perience. Such detrimental effects of cognitive load havebeen demonstrated in a study by Shiv and Huber (2000) inwhich asking participants to memorize a nine-digit numberprevented them from engaging in mental imagery, dimin-ishing the otherwise observed shift in preferences betweenanticipated-satisfaction judgments and choice. Nonexper-iential (numerical) information may have similar effects. Bycreating cognitive load, such information may occupy nec-essary resources and consequently undermine the effects ofimagery appeals.

H4: Adding nonexperiential information to a vividproduct depiction will undermine the effects ofthe imagining instructions on product choice.

Hypotheses 1–4 were focused on broadening the domainsof accessibility and fluency effects by providing evidence

444 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

for the ease/difficulty of imagery generation as a type ofsubjective experience that can reverse the positive effectsof imagery appeals. Another goal of this research was toprovide insight into the circumstances under which acces-sibility and fluency effects occur. If these effects are drivenby the subjective experience of ease, they should occur onlywhen individuals are focused on these experiences. To testthis possibility, we examined the impact of the dispositionaltendency to focus on subjective experiences as measured bythe private self-consciousness scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, andBuss 1975). We expected accessibility and fluency experi-ences to impact the judgments of individuals who are highin private self-consciousness; however, we did not expectthese experiences to impact the judgments of individualswho are low in private self-consciousness because theseindividuals are not likely to focus on and take into accounttheir internal experiences.

H5: Imagery fluency will impact product preferencesonly for individuals focused on their internalexperiences.

If confirmed, hypothesis 5 would provide insight into thecircumstances under which metacognitive experiences arelikely to impact judgments. By revealing the moderatingrole of internal focus on the imagery fluency effect, however,we also aimed to provide evidence that this effect is drivenprecisely by individuals’ subjective experiences rather thanby external factors.

STUDY 1Study 1 examined the impact of imagery appeals on in-

dividuals who differed in their dispositional ability to gen-erate mental images. Since previous research has demon-strated the effects of imagery with products having anexperiential component, we examined the effects of imageryfluency in the context of a vacation ad. Two versions of thead were created. One version contained phrases invitingconsumers to imagine their experience at the advertised des-tination, while the other version did not contain such im-agery appeals (app. A, top pair of ads).

Method

At least one week before the experiment, 63 male and 72female undergraduate students completed the Vividness ofVisual Imagery Questionnaire (Marks 1973). During the ex-periment, participants viewed one of the two versions of thead and, after a 5 min. distraction task of rating artistic com-binations of geometric figures, the participants responded tonine-point semantic differential items assessing brand atti-tudes (bad/good, unfavorable/favorable, and negative/posi-tive; Cronbach’s ) and purchase intentions (likeli-a p .91hood of considering the vacation in the future, requesting abrochure with further product information, visiting the Website shown on the ad, and visiting the advertised destinationgiven that they were to plan such a vacation and had thenecessary time and money; ). The two sets of itemsa p .94

were presented in a counterbalanced order. No significanteffects of order of the questions on attitudes (F(3, 134) p

, ) or intentions ( , ) were1.22 p 1 .31 F(3, 134) p 1.40 p 1 .25found.

Results and Discussion

Regression analyses revealed a significant interaction be-tween presence of imagining instructions and dispositionalimagery vividness in regard to brand attitudes (B p .48,

, ) and purchase intentions ( ,SE p .22 p ! .03 B p .79, ). For participants high in dispositionalSE p 2.26 p ! .03

imagery vividness, the ad containing imagery appeals re-sulted in more positive attitudes and purchase intentions thanthe ad without imagery appeals. For low imagers, however,the ad with imagery appeals resulted in more negative at-titudes and purchase intentions than the ad that lacked suchappeals (fig. 1).

Supporting our first hypothesis, these results suggest thatparticipants based their product evaluations on the ease ofimagining the consumption experience. However, furthersupport for this conclusion should be obtained by directlymanipulating the fluency of imagery generation. We in-quired into this possibility in the next two studies.

STUDY 2

Study 2 examined the effects of imagery fluency by vary-ing the vividness of the product depiction. For the highvividness conditions, we used the ads from study 1. For thelow vividness conditions, we modified the picture in the adsfrom study 1 by creating a muted version of the originalimage (app. A). A pretest indicated that the vivid ads wererated higher than the less vivid ads on a combined measureof six nine-point vividness scales (attention catching, clear,exciting, detailed, concrete, communicating a strong image;

; , ; ,a p .82 M p 4.93 M p 3.51 F(1, 75) p 18.75high low

). Consistent with the definition of vividness (Nisbettp ! .01and Ross 1980), participants reported more positive emo-tions (as measured by the extent to which the ad made themfeel good, excited, stressed, elated, bad, interested, unpleas-ant, sad, happy, bored, pleasant, uninterested, tranquil, flat,positive emotions, or negative emotions, ) in re-a p .90sponse to the ad high in vividness than the ad low in viv-idness ( , ; ,M p 5.92 M p 5.09 F(1, 75) p 8.39 p !high low

). The main effect of imagery appeals and the interaction.01between vividness and imagining were not significant inregard to affect ( ), suggesting that the predicted neg-F’s ! 1ative effect of the imagining instructions could not be at-tributed to differences in the emotional response to the mes-sage. Participants who saw the ad containing imagery-invitingappeals further reported stronger attempts to visualize them-selves in the place presented on the picture than those whosaw the ad that lacked imagery-inviting appeals (M pimag

, ; , ). No signif-5.83 M p 4.32 F(1, 75) p 7.35 p ! .01no imag

icant effects of the vividness of the picture ( ), pres-F’s ! 1.5ence of imagery appeals ( ), or the interaction be-F’s ! 1tween these two variables ( ) were observed in regardF’s ! 1


FIGURE 1

STUDY 1: BRAND ATTITUDES AND PURCHASE INTENTIONS

to the ratings of the place in the picture as historical, locatedin the mountains, or crowded. Finally, the pretest revealedthat participants in the high vividness conditions reported agreater number of product-relevant thoughts ( ,M p 3.32high

, , ) and a greater num-M p 2.37 F(1, 75) p 5.45 p ! .02low

ber of product attributes in these thoughts ( ,M p 2.95high

, , ) than participants inM p 1.93 F(1, 75) p 5.30 p ! .02low

the low vividness conditions. These findings are consistentwith previous research indicating greater cognitive elabo-ration in response to vivid information (Kisielius and Stern-hal 1984). However, no significant differences were ob-served between the ads containing and lacking imageryappeals in the number of product-relevant thoughts and thenumber of product attributes reported in these thoughts. Thissuggests that in the context of the present study, the imageryappeals did not increase cognitive elaboration. The lack ofsignificant effects in regard to the valence of the product-relevant thoughts further suggests that the manipulations didnot impact the favorability of the cognitive responses.

Method

After viewing one of the four versions of the ad, 105male and 134 female undergraduate students indicated theirattitudes ( ) and purchase intentions ( ) ona p .92 a p .87the scales used in study 1. To assess the accessibility of theconsumption imagery, participants were then asked to vi-sualize the vacation and provide a written description of themental image. The ease of this subsequent generation of theconsumption imagery was assessed with six nine-point

scales ( ). The first three items assessed (1) whethera p .84the participants were able to imagine the vacation, (2) howeasy it was for them to imagine the vacation, and (3) howlong it took them to create the mental image. With the nextthree items, participants rated the mental image as (1) vividand clear versus vague, (2) alive and dynamic versus notdynamic, and (3) detailed versus not detailed.


Brand Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. MAN-OVA analyses confirmed the interaction between vividnessof the ad and presence of imagery appeals significant forboth brand attitudes ( , ) and pur-F(1, 235) p 5.17 p ! .02chase intentions ( , ). Imagery ap-F(1, 235) p 3.96 p ! .05peals had opposite effects depending on the vividness of thead (fig. 2), thereby supporting hypothesis 2. Importantly, inthe absence of imagery appeals, the vividness of the ad didnot have significant effects on attitudes ( ) and in-F ! 1.2tentions ( ). Thus, the differential effect of the imageryF ! 1appeals could not be attributed to differences in the infor-mation provided by the ads high and low in vividness.

Imagery Accessibility. The interaction between viv-idness and presence of imagery appeals had a significanteffect on the accessibility of the consumption imagery( , ). While inviting imagery in-F(1, 232) p 8.24 p ! .01creased the perceived ease of subsequent imagery generationin the high vividness condition, it had a negative effect inthe low vividness condition (fig. 3).


FIGURE 2

STUDY 2: BRAND ATTITUDES AND PURCHASE INTENTIONS

FIGURE 3

STUDY 2: ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CONSUMPTION IMAGERY

Following the procedure described by Baron and Kenny(1986), additional analyses showed that imagery accessi-bility had significant effects on both attitudes ( ,B p .51

, ) and intentions ( , ,SE p .06 p ! .01 B p .55 SE p .06). Furthermore, when controlling for the effect ofp ! .01

imagery accessibility, the interaction effect of vividness andimagining was no longer significant for both attitudes( , , ) and intentions ( ,B p .12 SE p .10 p 1 .23 B p .05

, ). The mediating role of the imagery ac-SE p .10 p 1 .58cessibility was further indicated by the significant estimateof the mediated effect for attitudes ( , ,B p .16 SE p .06

) as well as intentions ( , ,p ! .01 B p .17 SE p .06 p !

). These results provide support for hypothesis 3..01

STUDY 3

Study 3 replicated and extended the results from the pre-vious two studies in another context, with different manip-ulations of imagery fluency and with a direct measure ofactual product choice. Furthermore, it examined a potentialmoderator of the observed imagery fluency effect.

Method

We used a restaurant review created by Pham, Meyvis,and Zhou (2001) that was rated as very easy to visualize( of 7), and we varied the original review’s viv-M p 6.09idness in two additional versions. In the second version, theoriginal information was presented in a table with corre-sponding numerical ratings. In the third version, the originalinformation was presented by including the numerical rat-

ings in parentheses after the vivid description of each of theitems (app. B). We employed a previously validated ma-nipulation of processing instructions (Keller and McGill1994) such that in the imagery processing condition, par-ticipants were instructed to rely on their imagination, not tobe coldly analytical, to close their eyes, visualize the de-


FIGURE 4

STUDY 3: PRODUCT CHOICE (HIGH INTERNAL FOCUS)

scription, and utilize the power of their imagination to en-vision it. In the analytical processing condition, participantswere told to be careful, to be well reasoned, and not to lettheir imagination get the better of them. No specific instruc-tions were provided in the third condition.

Two hundred and fifty-eight undergraduate students (145males and 113 females) participated in the study. For theirhelp with the study, participants were told that their nameswould be entered in a drawing for a $30 cash prize. Toexamine cognitive elaboration, recall, and affect as alter-native accounts for the predicted reverse effects of imageryappeals, participants listed their thoughts in response to thereview and completed an open-ended recall question. Twoindependent raters (81% agreement) coded (1) the numberof product-relevant thoughts, (2) the valence of thesethoughts, (3) the number of product attributes mentioned inthe thought listings, and (4) the number of product attributesrecalled correctly. Participants further indicated the extentto which the review made them feel good, bad, excited,stressed, happy, pleasant, unpleasant, interested, bored, pos-itive emotions, and negative emotions ( ). To testa p .73the predicted moderating role of internal focus, participantswere asked to complete the Private Self-Consciousness Scale(Fenigstein et al. 1975, ). The Style of Processinga p .65Scale (Childers, Houston, and Heckler 1985; ) wasa p .69included in order to control for differences in preferencetoward visual versus verbal style of processing. At the endof the experiment, participants were thanked for their par-ticipation and were reminded that their names would beentered in the drawing for the $30 cash prize. Then theywere offered the option of winning a $50 gift certificatefrom the restaurant described in the study instead of the $30prize initially announced. We used their choice of a giftcertificate for the restaurant over the monetary prize as ameasure of product choice.


Product Choice. Regression analysis was performedwith the choice of a gift certificate from the restaurant overthe monetary prize as the predicted variable, style of pro-cessing as a covariate, and the independent variables (1)type of information, (2) type of processing instructions, and(3) private self-consciousness. The analysis revealed a sig-nificant three-way interaction between type of information,type of processing instructions, and private self-conscious-ness ( , , ). To further examineB p �.88 SE p .41 p p .03these effects, we compared participants with scores aboveand below the median value of 2.0 on the private self-con-sciousness scale. The analyses of the high private self-con-sciousness group revealed significant main effects of typeof information ( , , ) and type ofB p 1.48 SE p .56 p p .01processing instructions ( , , ) onB p 1.74 SE p .73 p p .02the preference of the gift certificate over the monetary op-tion. These main effects, however, were modified by a sig-nificant interaction between type of information and type ofprocessing instructions ( , , ).B p �.66 SE p .25 p p .01

For participants high in internal focus, imagining instruc-tions had opposite effects on product preferences dependingon the vividness of the product information (fig. 4). Whenthe product was depicted in a vivid way, the imagininginstructions increased product choice. However, when inaddition to the vivid information the message included nu-merical ratings, the imagining instructions did not impactproduct choice. Furthermore, when the product was pre-sented only with numerical ratings, asking participants toimagine the product experience decreased their preferencestoward the restaurant. These results supported hypothesis 4.Importantly, they were observed despite the fact that thethree types of information were equally effective in the ab-


TABLE 1

STUDY 3: COGNITIVE RESPONSES AND RECALL

Number of product-related thoughts

Number of productattributes in the

thoughtsNumber of productattributes recalled

Numerical information only:Analytical instructions 2.9 2.2 3.8No instructions 3.0 2.8 4.0Imagining instructions 2.2 1.8 2.9

Vivid and numerical information:Analytical instructions 2.1 2.4 4.1No instructions 2.4 2.3 4.0

Vivid information only:Analytical instructions 3.4 3.0 5.4No instructions 2.6 2.4 5.2Imagining instructions 2.3 2.2 4.8

sence of imagining instructions ( , ,B p .01 SE p .387 p 1

)..98For participants low in internal focus, however, neither

the main effects of type of information ( ,B p �.66 SE p, ) and type of instructions ( ,.58 p 1 .25 B p �.44 SE p, ), nor the interaction between the two variables.73 p 1 .54

( , , ) were significant. ProvidingB p .17 SE p .25 p 1 .50support for hypothesis 5, the interaction effects of type ofinformation and type of instructions were observed only forindividuals attuned to their internal experiences.

Additional Analyses. Participants’ affective responsesrevealed only a main effect of type of information( , ). Although (consistent with theF(2, 254) p 2.98 p ! .05definition of vividness) the vivid description produced morepositive affective reactions ( ) than the numericalM p 1.93ratings produced ( ), no significant effects involv-M p 1.43ing type of processing instructions were observed. Theseresults suggest that emotional response to the message is anunlikely mediator of the effects.

Examination of the cognitive responses and recall re-vealed significant interactions between type of informationand type of processing instructions for the number of prod-uct-related thoughts ( , ), the num-F(4, 254) p 4.532 p ! .01ber of product attributes mentioned in the thought listings( , ), and the number of productF(4, 254) p 3.697 p ! .01attributes recalled ( , ). The patternF(4, 254) p 3.386 p ! .01of these interactions, however, was in a direction differentfrom the earlier-discussed results for product choice. Whenthe restaurant was described with vivid and numerical in-formation simultaneously, the imagining instructions re-sulted in a greater number of product-related thoughts, andproduct attributes mentioned in the thoughts or recalled.However, when the product was described solely with eithervivid or numerical information, the imagery appeals de-creased product-related thoughts, thoughts about specificproduct attributes, as well as recall (table 1). These resultswere observed despite the fact that overall more productfeatures were recalled when the product was described withvivid information or a combination of vivid and numerical

information than when the product was described with nu-merical information only ( , ).F(2, 254) p 7.512 p ! .01These findings are consistent with previous research sug-gesting that vivid information facilitates memory (Kieras1978), however, they suggest that in the present study, theeffects of the imagining instructions could not be attributedto enhanced cognitive elaboration or recall. The absence ofsignificant effects in regard to the valence of the product-relevant thoughts further suggested that the favorability ofthe cognitive responses did not mediate the observed effects.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Overview of the Findings

The role of the subjective experiences accompanying theprocessing of marketing communications is becoming anincreasingly important area of consumer research. The threestudies reported herein demonstrated that the generally ob-served positive effect of imagery appeals can be reversedby conditions that impair the fluency with which consumersimagine experiencing the product. It is noteworthy that theevidence for this retarded fluency effect converged across:(1) different manipulations, (2) different products, (3) em-bedded imagery appeals versus imagining instructions, (4)immediate and delayed outcome measures, and (5) measuresof attitudes, behavioral intentions, and actual product choice.These converging results enhanced our confidence in thevalidity of the findings.

We focused on two variables related to the fluency ofimagery generation—the individual’s dispositional ability tocreate vivid mental images and the vividness of the productdepiction. Evidence for the role of dispositional imageryvividness can be seen in the results of study 1, which dem-onstrated that when participants were low in dispositionalimagery vividness, imagery appeals were not only ineffec-tive but reduced the persuasiveness of the ad. Evidence forthe role of the vividness of the product information emergedclearly from the results of study 2 and study 3. Both ex-periments demonstrated that without a vivid product depic-


tion, asking consumers to imagine a positive product ex-perience had a negative effect on product evaluations.Importantly, along with the findings for the negative effectof imagery appeals in the absence of vivid product descrip-tion, the results of study 3 also revealed that adding non-experiential, numerical information to the vivid descriptionnot only failed to increase the persuasiveness of the messagebut undermined the positive effect of imagery appeals. Thatis, imagery instructions were effective only when the vividinformation was the only information that participants hadavailable. It should be noted that in both study 2 and study3 the different product depictions were equally effective inthe absence of imagining or analytical processing instruc-tions. Thus, the differential effects of imagining instructionscould not be attributed simply to the differences in the in-formation provided by the depictions.

In addition to revealing factors that can impact the easeof imagery generation and reverse the effects of imageryappeals, the present research provided evidence that theseeffects were mediated by the accessibility of the image ofexperiencing the product. Thus, the fluency of imagery gen-eration impacted product preferences not only immediatelyafter seeing the ad (study 2), but also after a delay createdby a distraction task (study 1) or when completing a varietyof process measures and personality scales (study 3). Byreducing the plausibility of some alternative possibilities,the additional process measures that we assessed providedfurther confidence in the increased accessibility of the con-sumption imagery as the underlying process. Since in bothstudy 2 and study 3 participants’ affective responses werenot impacted by the imagery appeals, the observed effectsof imagery appeals on product evaluations could not beattributed to differences in the affective reactions to themessage. The lack of significant effects of the imagininginstructions on the valence of the cognitive responses instudy 2 and study 3 suggests that the effects of the imagininginstructions on product preferences could not be attributedto the favorability of the cognitive responses either. Fur-thermore, in study 3 the positive effect of imagery appealsin the vivid condition was accompanied by a decline in thenumber of product related thoughts and recall. These resultsrender cognitive elaboration and recall unlikely mediatorsof the effects of imagery appeals in the present context.They also suggest that when consumers engage in imageryprocessing, attribute recall may be a poor measure of ad-vertisement effectiveness.

Theoretical Implications

Taken together, the findings from the three studies haveimplications for several domains. In regard to imagery, thisresearch demonstrated that the generally observed positiveeffect of imagery appeals may reverse when individuals ex-perience difficulty generating consumption imagery. Extend-ing past research demonstrating that imagery appeals are moreeffective for individuals high in imagery abilities (Bone andEllen 1992) or when the product was described in a vividway (Keller and McGill 1994), the present findings showed

that these variables may not only reduce the effects of theimagery appeals but can result in a qualitative difference thatreverses the direction of these effects. Our findings also sug-gest a complementary account for the effects of imagery.Previous research has highlighted the role of the favorabilityof the information that the imagery brings to mind (Kisieliusand Sternthal 1984, 1986) and the role of transporting con-sumers away from counter-arguing the presented information(Escalas 2004). The results from this investigation suggestthat in addition to these accounts, imagining instructions maybe effective because they create a readily accessible mentalimage of the consumption experience.

The present investigation also extends the existing re-search on the effects of vivid information. The results ofboth study 2 and study 3 demonstrated that in the absenceof imagery appeals, vividness did not impact product eval-uations. This finding is consistent with previous researchsuggesting that vivid information may be more persuasiveonly under specific circumstances (Kisielius and Sternthal1984, 1986). For example, the vividness of the productattributes had an impact on product evaluations when par-ticipants relied on their imagination in making the choicebut not when they used an analytical strategy (McGill andAnand 1989). We expanded upon this research by showingthat, under analytical processing, the vivid information wasnot only ineffective but even undermined product eval-uations.

In a more general framework, our research provides in-sights into the consequences of a mismatch between the typeof product description and type of processing strategy uti-lized by the audience. When the product was not presentedin a vivid way, engaging consumers in imagery processingresulted in more negative product evaluations. Similarly,when the product was depicted in a highly vivid way, an-alytical processing had a negative effect on product eval-uations. These findings suggest that a mismatch between thetype of information and the type of processing utilized bythe consumer can impact the fluency of processing the prod-uct information and hamper the effectiveness of marketingcommunications.

Another general domain to which the present findingscontribute involves the importance of the match betweenthe amount and type of information that consumers are pro-vided and the resources available to them for processing thisinformation. Consistent with the resource-matching per-spective (Peraccio and Meyers-Levy 1997), our findings in-dicate that adding nonexperiential information to a vividproduct depiction may redirect cognitive resources, thus in-terfering with consumers’ ability to imagine the productexperience. As a result, when consumers engaged in imageryprocessing, adding favorable nonexperiential information tothe message had a detrimental effect on product preferences.

Finally, the present findings advance our knowledge re-garding accessibility and fluency effects. Previous researchhas been focused on examining the impact of subjectiveexperiences such as ease-of-retrieval and processing fluency.Extending these findings to a novel domain, our research


reveals that the effects of such subjective experiences couldbe found in the use of imagery in processing product in-formation. Our findings further provide a deeper understand-ing of accessibility and fluency effects by showing that theyare likely to impact judgments only when individuals are

attuned to their internal experiences. We examined focus oninternal experiences as a dispositional variable. A fruitfuldirection for future research would be to investigate otherfactors that can impact internal focus and consequently mod-erate the impact of metacognitive experiences.

APPENDIX A

STUDY 1 AND STUDY 2 EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS


APPENDIX B

STUDY 3 EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS

VIVID INFORMATION“This place reminds one of an elegant bistro that would be found in a small city close to Paris. The dining room, with

its old wooden floor and peach color walls, basks in a soft gentle light, giving the place a very intimate feeling. The foodis very good. The meat is so tender that you can feel it melt on your tongue. The various meat dishes come with distinctivesauces, all smooth and flavorful. The seafood is exceptional, especially the fresh and juicy oysters on the half-shell and theclassic steamed mussels in dry vermouth. The service is good, professional and discreet.”

NUMERICAL INFORMATION

RESTAURANT REVIEW WITH RATINGS

VIVID AND NUMERICAL INFORMATION COMBINED“This place reminds one of an elegant bistro that would be found in a small city close to Paris. The atmosphere is excellent

(a rating of 33). The dining room, with its old wooden floor and peach color walls, basks in a soft gentle light, giving theplace a very intimate feeling. The specific ratings on intimacy and elegancy were 36 (exceptional) and 30 (very good). Thefood received good ratings (average rating 31.5). Our experts gave the meat dishes a rating of 30 (very good), describingthe meat as ‘so tender that you can feel it melt on your tongue.’ The various meat dishes come with distinctive sauces, allsmooth and flavorful, rated as excellent (34 points). The seafood is exceptional (a rating of 35), especially the fresh andjuicy oysters on the half-shell (rating of 36) and the classic steamed mussels in dry vermouth (rating of 36). The service isgood, professional and discreet (rating of 30). This restaurant received an overall rating of 33.5 (excellent).”

[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Eugene Andersonserved as associate editor for this article.]

REFERENCESBabin, Laurie A. and Alvin C. Burns (1997), “Effects of Print Ad

Pictures and Copy Containing Instructions to Imagine onMental Imagery That Mediates Attitudes,” Journal of Adver-tising, 26 (3), 33–44.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Re-search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (Decem-ber), 1173–82.

Bone, Paula F. and Pam S. Ellen (1992), “The Generation andConsequences of Communication-Evoked Imagery,” Journalof Consumer Research, 19 (June), 93–103.

Carroll, John S. (1978), “The Effect of Imagining an Event on


Expectations for the Event: An Interpretation in Terms of theAvailability Heuristic,” Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology, 14 (1), 88–96.

Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler(1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual ver-sus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Re-search, 12 (September), 125–34.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Imagine Yourself in the Product,”Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 37–48.

Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975)“Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment and The-ory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43 (4),522–27.

Green, Melanie C. and Timothy C. Brock (2000), “The Role ofTransportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–21.

Gregory, Larry W., Robert B. Cialdini, and Kathleen M. Carpenter(1982), “Self-Relevant Scenarios as Mediators of LikelihoodEstimates and Compliance: Does Imagining Make It So?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (1), 89–99.

Keller, Punam Anand and Lauren G. Block (1997), “VividnessEffects: A Resource-Matching Perspective,” Journal of Con-sumer Psychology, 24 (December), 295–304.

Keller, Punam Anand and Ann L. McGill (1994), “Differences inthe Relative Influence of Product Attributes under AlternativeProcessing Conditions: Attribute Importance versus AttributeEase of Imagebility,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3 (1),29–49.

Kieras, David (1978), “Beyond Pictures and Words: AlternativeInformation Processing Models for Imagery Effects in VerbalMemory,” Psychological Bulletin, 85 (3), 532–44.

Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Sternthal (1984), “Detecting and Ex-plaining Vividness Effects in Attitudinal Judgments,” Journalof Marketing Research, 21 (February), 54–64.

——— (1986), “Examining the Vividness Controversy: An Avail-ability-Valence Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Re-search, 12 (March), 418–31.

Lee, Angela Y. and Aparna Labroo (2004), “The Effect of Con-ceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journalof Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151–65.

MacInnis, Deborah and Linda Price (1987), “The Role of Imageryin Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journalof Consumer Research, 13 (March), 473–91.

Marks, David F. (1972), “Individual Differences in the Vividnessof Visual Imagery and Their Effect on Function,” in The

Function and Nature of Imagery, ed. Peter W. Sheehan, NewYork: Academic Press, 83–107.

——— (1973), “Visual Imagery Differences in the Recall of Pic-tures,” British Journal of Psychology, 64 (1), 17–24.

McGill, Ann L. and Punam Anand (1989), “The Effect of VividAttributes on the Evaluation of Alternatives: The Role ofDifferential Attention and Cognitive Elaboration,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 16 (September), 188–96.

Nisbett, Richard and Lee Ross (1980), Human Inference: Strategiesand Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Peraccio, Laura A. and Joan Meyers-Levy (1997), “EvaluatingPersuasion-Enhancing Techniques from a Resource-MatchingPerspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September),178–91.

Pham, Michel Tuan, Tom Meyvis, and Rongrong Zhou (2001),“Beyond the Obvious: Chronic Vividness of Imagery and theUse of Information in Decision-Making,” Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 84 (2), 226–53.

Rook, Dennis W. (1987), “The Buying Impulse,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 14 (September), 189–99.

Schlosser, Ann E. (2003), “Experiencing Products in a VirtualWorld: The Role of Goals and Imagery in Influencing Atti-tudes versus Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(September), 184–96.

Schwarz, Norbert (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Con-sumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 14 (4), 332–48.

Sherman, Steven, Robert B. Cialdini, Donna F. Schwartzman, andKim D. Reynolds (1985), “Imagining Can Heighten or Lowerthe Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Me-diating Effect of Ease of Imagery,” Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 118–27.

Shiv, Baba and Joel Huber (2000), “The Impact of AnticipatingSatisfaction on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Re-search, 27 (2), 202–16.

Tybout, Alice M., Brian Sternthal, Prashant Malaviya, GeorgiosA. Bakamitsos, and Se-Bum Park (2005), “Information Ac-cessibility as a Moderator of Judgments: The Role of Contentversus Retrieval Ease,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32(June), 76–85.

Wanke, Michaela, Gerd Bohner, and Andreas Jurkowitsch (1997),“There Are Many Reasons to Drive a BMW: Does ImaginedEase of Argument Generation Influence Attitudes?” Journalof Consumer Research, 24 (September), 170–77.

Imagery fluency

Technology

Transcript of Imagery fluency