Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations

KYEONGHEUI KIM MENG ZHANG XIUPING LI*

This article investigates how two dimensions of psychological distance (i.e., temporal distance and social distance) jointly affect consumers evaluations of products. Drawing on the properties of psychological distance and diminishing sensitivity to the increase in distance, we show an interaction effect of the two distance dimensions on product evaluations in two experiments. Specically, when both dimensions are proximal, consumer evaluations are more inuenced by the value associated with low-level construals than when either or both dimensions are distal, where consumer evaluations are more inuenced by the value associated with high-level construals.

burgeoning number of studies on construal level theory (CLT) have recently examined how consumers make evaluations or choices about events with different temporal perspectives (e.g., Chandran and Menon 2004). According to CLT, different temporal perspectives (i.e., whether events take place in the near or distant future) inuence consumers evaluations of events by systematically altering representations of the events (Liberman and Trope 1998; Trope and Liberman 2003). More recently, the application of CLT has been extended to a broader, multifaceted construct called psychological distance, which includes different dimensions such as temporal distance (when; near future vs. distant future), social distance (who; self vs. other; in-group vs. out-group), spatial distance (where; here vs. there; local vs. 3,000 miles away), and the degree of outcome

*Kyeongheui Kim is assistant professor of marketing at the School of Business, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea 110-745 (kkim@ skku.edu). Meng Zhang is assistant professor of marketing at the Department of Marketing, Leung Kau-Kui Building, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong (zhangmeng@baf.msmail.cuhk.edu.hk). Xiuping Li is assistant professor of marketing at the Department of Marketing, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117592 (bizlx@nus.edu.sg). The three authors contributed equally to the manuscript. The authors appreciate the helpful input of the editor, associate editor, and reviewers. They also thank Robert S. Wyer Jr., A. V. Muthukrishnan, and Jongwon Park for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. In addition, they acknowledge the support through the Standard Research Grant of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a grant from the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project no. CUHK 453807). John Deighton served as editor and Geeta Menon served as associate editor for this article. Electronically published August 26, 2008

certainty (whether; certain vs. uncertain). There is accumulating evidence that the same principle of CLT applies to all these dimensions of psychological distance (e.g., Fujita et al. 2006; Kivetz and Kivetz 2006). The majority of CLT research, however, has focused only on a single dimension of psychological distance. Little research has examined the inuence of multiple dimensions, with only a few exceptions. For example, in a recent study, Chandran and Menon (2004; study 1) show that temporal framing (every day vs. every year) moderates the effects of social distance on risk perceptions of the self versus of other people. Nevertheless, what still remains unanswered is how multiple distance dimensions interact with each other to form representations (i.e., construal levels) of events and products, and consequently evaluations of them. The inuence of multiple distance dimensions on consumer evaluations is of particular concern to marketing. Consumers and marketers often make decisions that involve more than one dimension, such as a decision that involves both temporal distance (e.g., planning a trip for the coming weekend vs. for 1 year later) and social distance (e.g., planning a trip for self vs. for others; investing for self vs. providing investment advice for others). Thus, the current research intends to extend the CLT literature and examines how consumers construals and evaluations of products may change when multiple distance dimensions are involved. Specically, our research contributes to the CLT literature by illuminating an interaction effect of the two important psychological distance dimensions, temporal and social, on consumer evaluations of products. We also provide a possible explanation of the interaction effect such that different distance dimensions may jointly determine the psychological distance of the products, which in turn inuences con706
2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 35 December 2008 All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2008/3504-0012$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/592131

TWO DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE

707

struals and evaluations of the products. In addition, our research adopts multiple manipulations of levels of construal (i.e., why vs. how features, primary vs. secondary features) and social distance (i.e., self vs. other, an in-group vs. outgroup member) and employs different product categories, which increases the generalizability of our research. We begin with the theoretical framework for the effects of multiple distance dimensions on product evaluations. Next, we report the results of a pilot study and two experiments, which provide converging evidence to our theory. Finally, we discuss contributions and implications of the ndings.

nipulating psychological distance (e.g., near vs. distant future, self-relevant vs. self-irrelevant, real vs. hypothetical outcomes) and provide evidence that the same general principle may underlie the effects of different dimensions of psychological distance.

Effects of Multidimensions of Psychological Distance

The parallels among different dimensions can be explained by the conceptual framework of psychological distance, which was rst introduced by Lewin (1951) and recently revived within CLT (Trope and Liberman 2003). Psychological distance is dened as the subjective distance between an actor and an event in the actors psychological space, and the theory posits that different distance dimensions can be unied under one psychological space. A natural question that arises next is what would be the joint inuence of more than one distance dimension on an event (e.g., Trope, Liberman, and Wakslak 2007). Will different dimensions of psychological distance inuence construal levels of an event independently (i.e., in a linear fashion or additively) or interactively (i.e., subadditively)?

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Construal Level Theory

Construal level theory (Liberman and Trope 1998; Trope and Liberman 2003) is a leading theory on how people make decisions regarding temporally near versus temporally distant outcomes. This theory proposes that temporal distance, dened as the perceived proximity of an event in time, changes peoples perceptions of the event by altering the way people mentally construe it. More specically, it posits that distant future events are construed as abstract, primary, and global aspects that center on why the event needs to be done (i.e., high-level construals), whereas near future events are construed as concrete, secondary, and local aspects, which center on how to do the event (i.e., low-level construals). Changes in construal levels may lead people to shift their evaluations of an event when temporal information changes such that peoples evaluations of an event are more inuenced by the value associated with high-level (low-level) construals when the event is to occur in the distant (near) future. For example, an interesting seminar in an inconvenient location (positive high-level construal but negative low-level construal) would be evaluated more favorably if the seminar were held in the distant future rather than if it were held in the near future. In addition to temporal distance, Trope and Liberman (2003) propose that the general principle of CLT may also hold for other distance dimensions such as social distance, spatial distance, and the degree of uncertainty. This proposition has received some support in more recent literature. For instance, it has been shown that when social distance to another person increases from an in-group member (close social distance) to an out-group member (far social distance), people will construe the target person using abstract, primary concepts such as stereotypes and traits. Consequently, they will be more inuenced by these stereotypes and traits in forming their evaluations (Idson and Mischel 2001; Linville, Fischer, and Yoon 1996). Similarly, it has been shown that spatially distant events occurring in a different country are associated more with high-level construals than events occurring in the local city (Fujita et al. 2006). On an investigation of mood effects, Kivetz and Kivetz (2006) nd converging results using multiple ways of ma-

Subadditivity When Combining Multiple Psychological Distance Dimensions. A theory bearing relevance
to this issue is the well-documented Weber-Fechner law in psychophysical research. The Weber-Fechner law (Dehaene 2003) states a diminishing sensitivity to physical distances or sensory magnitudes. It posits that the threshold for discriminating between two sensory stimuli (e.g., two sounds) increases with the stimulus intensity (e.g., loudness) and this diminishing sensitivity can be mathematically captured by a logarithmic function (Dehaene 2003). Studies from both animal research (Ainslie 1975) and human behavior research (e.g., Grewal and Marmorstein 1994; Zauberman et al. 2007) have repeatedly demonstrated a diminishing sensitivity of human perception of distance. Studies show that when target objects are moving along one psychological distance dimension (such as temporal or geographical), both animals and humans are more sensitive to a change from a proximal position to a distal position than to the same change from a distal position to a further distant position. The diminishing sensitivity of psychological distance implies that when there are multiple psychological distance dimensions involved for an event, the resultant subjective perception of the psychological distance would not increase linearly with the increase in distance induced by a second or more dimensions; rather, it would increase based on a subadditive function. In other words, the impact of distance induced by one dimension on the perceived distance of an event will diminish as the distance on the other dimensions increases. More specically, let us consider the effects of two important distance dimensions, social and temporal distance, as investigated in the current research. For a target event, when both dimensions are proximal (e.g., an event for self

708

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

is to occur tomorrow), the event would be perceived as proximal and construed at a low level. On the other hand, when either of the two dimensions is distal (e.g., an event for others is to occur tomorrow, or an event for self is to occur 1 year later), the event would be perceived as distal and construed at a higher level than is the event when both dimensions are proximal. Last, when both dimensions are distal (e.g., an event for others is to occur 1 year later), due to the diminishing sensitivity to the added distance at a distant position, the resultant construal of an event would be similar to that when either psychological distance is distal. Further, the difference in the perceived distance and construal levels of an event will inuence peoples evaluations of that event to the extent that the values associated with high- and low-level construals differ. Based on the logic elaborated, we make the following prediction: H1: When two dimensions of psychological distance (i.e., temporal distance and social distance) are involved in an event (i.e., product), they would interactively inuence the evaluations of the event. Specically, when both dimensions are proximal, product evaluations would be more inuenced by the value associated with low-level construals. On the other hand, when either or both dimensions are distal, product evaluations would be more inuenced by the value associated with high-level construals. We tested our prediction in two experiments that examined participants evaluations of different products with conicting values associated with high-level and low-level construals. Before conducting these experiments, we conducted a pilot study to test our theorizing that participants would perceive the distance of an event differently depending on different conditions induced by the two distance dimensions.

PILOT STUDY
The pilot study was conducted to investigate the effects of social and temporal distance on participants perceived distance of an event. This study had a 2 (social distance: close vs. far) by 2 (temporal distance: near vs. distant) between-subjects factorial design. One hundred and thirtyseven students participated, and they were assigned randomly to one of the four conditions. We manipulated social distance (an event for self vs. other) and temporal distance (an event for tomorrow vs. 1 year later; Kivetz and Kivetz 2006; Trope and Liberman 2003) when giving instructions to participants. Specically, participants were asked to imagine themselves (socially close) or person X, a student they did not know (socially distant), as doing a series of activities tomorrow (temporally near) or 1 year later (temporally far). The target activities were 18 actions (e.g., reading, washing clothes), which were adopted from Liberman and Trope (1998). Next, participants were asked to report how close/far they felt each action was

to them on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (very close) and 7 (very far). Participants were then thanked and debriefed. Participants perceived distance of these 18 actions were averaged to form a perceived distance index (Cronbachs a p 67). As predicted, a two-way ANOVA on this index revealed a signicant interaction of social and temporal distance (F(1, 133) p 4.97, p ! .05). Planned contrasts showed that this interaction was primarily driven by the close social and near temporal distance condition, which was signicantly different from the other three conditions (Fs(1, 133) 1 3.2, ps ! .10). Specically, in the close social and near temporal distance condition, participants perceived the actions as being much closer to them (M p 3.27) than in the other conditions when either social distance (M p 3.60) or temporal distance (M p 3.78), or both (M p 3.60), were distal. The differences between the latter three conditions were insignicant (Fs ! 1.36, ps 1 .20). Moreover, we would like to note here that in all of our studies (pilot study and two experiments), we used the common method employed in attitude literature to manipulate participants motivation level to be high. Immediately after the evaluation task, we checked their motivation level by asking them how involved they were when doing the task, and there were no differences between participants motivation levels across all cells ( ps 1 .10 ). Motivation is thus not discussed further. The pilot study provides the rst piece of evidence supporting our theorizing. We predicted and found that when the two dimensions were proximal, participants perceived the event as closer, whereas when either or both dimensions were distal, they perceived the event as more distal. This supports our theory that when two or more distance dimensions are involved, people might unify the different dimensions within one psychological distance space and combine the distance induced by each dimension interactively, not linearly. Thus, the position of an event on one dimension is found to moderate the impact of the other distance dimensions on the perceived distance of the event. We further predict that differences in perceived distance would result in different evaluations to the extent that values associated with high-level and low-level construals are different. We tested this in experiment 1 with two versions of a product (i.e., online training program): one had positive values associated with high-level construals but negative values associated with low-level construals, while the other had negative values associated with high-level construals but positive values associated with low-level construals. We predicted opposite patterns of evaluations between the two product versions. Specically, for a product with positive (negative) high-level but negative (positive) lowlevel construals, participants would evaluate the product signicantly lower (higher) in the close social and near temporal distance condition (more consistent with the value of low-level construals) than in the other three conditions.

TWO DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE

709

EXPERIMENT 1 Method
Pretest: Product Stimuli. An online training program was selected as the target product based on its relevance to the participants. A pretest with 80 participants from the same subject pool as in the main experiment was conducted to develop the two product versions (positive high level but negative low level vs. negative high level but positive low level) and test the effectiveness of the manipulations of construal levels. Based on the distinctions of why versus how features (Trope and Liberman 2003) as high- versus low-level construal, each version had three high-level features that described the contents of the training program and three low-level features that described the usability of the program. Values associated with high- and low-level features within each version were conicting with each other. Pretest participants were randomly assigned to one of the two versions of the product and were asked to read the product description carefully. Next, they evaluated each of the high- and low-level features on three items including to what extent they thought each feature described why to use the program and how to use the program, and how important each feature was. All items were on a 9-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 9 (extremely). To analyze the data, we rst created a construal level index by subtracting the perceived degree of the how feature from that of the why feature for each participant. The greater the number was, the higher the construal level of the feature. As predicted, the three high-level construal features (Cronbachs a p .78) were more about why to use the program (M p 1.51), whereas the three low-level construal features (Cronbachs a p .65 ) were more about how to use the program (M p .67). The effectiveness of our construal level manipulations was supported. Next, we tested whether the manipulation of construal levels would confound with the importance of features. Results revealed that participants perceived the high-level construal features (M p 5.85) as being equally important to the low-level construal features (M p 6.05; F ! 1), ruling out the potential confound. Based on these results, we used the two versions of the training program as the product stimuli in the main study. Design. Experiment 1 had a 2 (social distance: close vs. far) by 2 (temporal distance: near vs. distant) by 2 (product version: positive high level but negative low level vs. negative high level but positive low level) by 2 (information order: high level rst, low level second vs. low level rst, high level second) between-subjects factorial design. The last factor was included to rule out any possible primacy and/or recency effects on product evaluations. A total of 350 students participated, and each was assigned randomly to one of the 16 conditions. Procedure. Upon arrival, participants were told that a consulting rm was going to launch a new online training program and was interested in knowing how students would

evaluate it. This instruction served to manipulate both social and temporal distance, which were adopted from previous research (Kivetz and Kivetz 2006; Trope and Liberman 2003). Specically, participants in the close social condition were instructed to report their own evaluation of the program that would be available tomorrow (near temporal condition) or 1 year from now (distant temporal condition), whereas participants in the far social condition were asked to predict how student X, a student they did not know, would evaluate the program that would be available tomorrow or 1 year from now. Next, participants read one of the two versions of the online training program. Their evaluations were measured on four items (very bad/very good; very unfavorable/ very favorable; very dissatised/very satised; very useless/ very useful) on a 9-point scale and then averaged to create their overall evaluation index (Cronbachs a p .91). Participants were then thanked and debriefed.

Results
Participants product evaluations were rst analyzed via an ANOVA using the four-way factorial design. As no reliable effects of information order were observed ( ps 1 .10) and the patterns of results were the same when we conducted analyses with and without the information order factor, it was dropped from further analysis for the purpose of simplicity. Results of a three-way ANOVA then revealed a main effect of the product version (F(1, 343) p 4.42, p ! .05), showing that the product with positive high-level but negative lowlevel construals was evaluated more positively (M p 5.01) than the one with negative high-level but positive low-level construals (M p 4.73). However, consistent with our hypothesis, this main effect was qualied by a signicant threeway interaction (F(1, 343) p 9.33, p ! .01) of social distance, temporal distance, and product version. Further examination of these effects supported our predictions, showing that the effects varied depending on the product version. Specically, two-way ANOVAs within each product version revealed a two-way interaction of social and temporal distance, and both interactions were primarily driven by the close social and near temporal distance condition being different from the other three conditions. As table 1 illustrates, when the training program had positive values associated with the high-level construals but negative values associated with the low-level construals (Fsoc#tem p (1, 343) p 3.88, p ! .05), participants in the close social and near temporal distance condition reported a signicantly lower evaluation (M p 4.62) than those in the other three conditions (M p 5.29, M p 5.11, and M p 5.01, respectively; ps ! .05), whereas when the training program had negative values associated with the high-level construals but positive values associated with the low-level construals (Fsoc#tem p (1, 343) p 5.10, p ! .05), participants in the close social and near temporal distance condition reported a signicantly higher evaluation (M p 5.21) than those in the other three conditions (M p 4.49, M p 4.51, and M p 4.71, respectively; ps ! .05). For both product versions, participants in the other three conditions (either

710
TABLE 1

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TREATMENT RESULTS AS A FUNCTION OF TWO DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE Psychological distance Close social, near temporal Experiment 1 (training program): Positive high, negative low level Negative high, positive high level Difference Experiment 2 (hotel + lotion): Positive high, negative low level Negative high, positive high level Difference Close social, distant temporal Far social, near temporal Far social, distant temporal

4.62a 5.21b .59* 4.38a 5.41b 1.03*

5.29b 4.51a .78* 5.89b 3.61a 2.28*

5.11b 4.49a .62* 6.04b 4.09a 1.95*

5.01b 4.71a .30 5.74b 4.09a 1.67*

NOTE.Numbers with different superscripts within each row are signicantly different from each other at p ! .05. *Indicates that the difference between the two types of products is signicant at p ! .05.

social or temporal distance, or both were distal) showed similar evaluations ( ps 1 .10). In addition, we conducted simple effects tests to investigate whether the effects of the product version depended on different conditions of social and temporal distance. As reported in table 1, when both social and temporal distance were proximal, participants product evaluations were greater when the product had negative high-level but positive low-level construals (M p 5.21 ) than when the product had positive high-level but negative low-level construals (M p 4.62; F(1, 343) p 4.46, p ! .05). On the other hand, when either or both dimensions were distal, as there were no signicant differences across these three conditions in the simple effect of the product version (F(2, 343) p .77, p 1 .40), we pooled these three conditions. As a result, participants product evaluations were greater when the product had positive high-level but negative low-level construals (M p 5.14) than when the product had negative high-level but positive low-level construals (M p 4.57; F(1, 343) p 13.10, p ! .001).

Discussion
The results of experiment 1 provide further evidence supporting our main hypothesis. Consistent with the prediction, we found that when both dimensions of psychological distance were proximal (vs. either or both dimensions being distal), participants evaluations of the program were more inuenced by the values associated with low-level construal features rather than the values associated with high-level construal features. In experiment 1, it is worth noting that to rule out any confounding effects possibly induced by the importance of product features, we manipulated the construal levels by using why versus how features, controlling the importance of the features. However, CLT suggests that the centrality of features can be another distinction of construal levels, such that high-level construals are primary and core features of events, whereas low-level construals are secondary and surface features of events (Trope and Liberman

2003). Thus, in experiment 2, we varied the manipulation of construal levels by employing this distinction of primary versus secondary product features. Moreover, in previous studies, we used standard manipulations of social distance (i.e., an event for self vs. other) in CLT literature, that is, the distance between self and the individual who is evaluating an event. In theory, social distance is dened as the perceived distinctions between an individual or a group to another individual or group (Liberman, Trope, and Stephan 2007, 357). This denition suggests that social distance may be determined by whether another individual is socially close or far (e.g., in-group vs. out-group member; Linville et al. 1996). Drawing on this proposition, in experiment 2, we used a different way to manipulate social distance. Specically, given that the target event was a product, we manipulated the social distance by using whether the information on the product was provided by an in-group member (socially close person) or an outgroup member (socially far person; Idson and Mischel 2001). Finally, to increase generalizability of our results across product domains, we employed two different product categories in experiment 2.

EXPERIMENT 2 Method
Pretest. A pretest with 283 students from a large university in Hong Kong was conducted to empirically identify and test construal levels of target product features. Two product categories, a hotel and a skin-care lotion, were chosen as target products based on their relevance to participants. Four features of target products were identied from a prior pretest: for the hotel, room service and tness facility, and for the lotion, its absorbability and the gift bag, as high- and lowlevel features, respectively. Participants were asked to answer ve questions concerning each feature, which examined to what extent each feature was a/an (a) primary, (b) essential, (c) critical, (d ) central, and (e) goal-relevant attribute when they were thinking of choosing a hotel or a skin-care lotion

TWO DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE

711

(Fujita et al. 2006). All answers were on a 9-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 9 (extremely) and were highly reliable (Cronbachs a p .80). The results on the average of these answers conrmed that for the hotel, room service (M p 7.17) was indeed regarded as a higher-level construal than the tness facility (M p 4.20; t(282) p 24.77, p ! .001), and for the skin-care lotion, absorbability (M p 7.41) was regarded as a higher-level construal than the gift bag (M p 3.51; t(282) p 31.32, p ! .001). These four features were thus chosen as the high-level and low-level construal features in the main study.

p ! .05) and Rafaelo Kreuzban (M p 4.89, F(1, 66) p 11.71, p ! .01), respectively, supporting the effectiveness of the social distance manipulations.

Results
As the results for the two product categories revealed an identical pattern, we averaged the evaluations of the hotel and the skin-care lotion to create an overall product evaluation index. An ANOVA on this index revealed a significant main effect of product version (F(1, 128) p 50.90, p ! .001), which was qualied by a three-way interaction of social distance, temporal distance, and product version (F(1, 128) p 28.41, p ! .001). Consistent with our prediction, further examination within each product version demonstrated a signicant two-way interaction of social and temporal distance. Specically, as table 1 reports, when the product had positive values associated with the high-level construal but negative values associated with the low-level construal (Fsoc#tem p (1, 128) p 13.42, p ! .001), participants in the close social and near temporal distance condition evaluated the product signicantly lower (M p 4.38) than those in the other three conditions (M p 5.89, M p 6.04, and M p 5.74, respectively; ps ! .05). When the product had negative values associated with the high-level construal but positive values associated with the low-level construal (Fsoc#tem p (1, 128) p 11.25, p ! .001), participants in the close social and near temporal distance condition evaluated the product signicantly higher (M p 5.41) than those in the other three conditions (M p 3.61, M p 4.09, and M p 4.09, respectively; ps ! .05). Within both product versions, differences in participants evaluations across the other three conditions (when either or both dimensions were distal) were small and insignicant ( ps 1 .10). Consistent with the outcomes from experiment 1, simple effects tests for the product version revealed that in the close social and near temporal distance condition, product evaluations were higher when the review had negative highlevel but positive low-level construal than when the product had positive high-level but negative low-level construal (F(1, 128) p 9.50, p ! .01). Again, there were no signicant differences across the other three conditions in the simple effect of the product version (F(2, 128) p .90, p 1 .40). Further, pooling these three conditions revealed that participants evaluations were greater when the product had positive high-level but negative low-level construals (M p 5.88) than when the product had negative high-level but positive low-level construals (M p 3.94; F(1, 128) p 98.27, p ! .001).

Design. Experiment 2 had a 2 (social distance: close vs. far) by 2 (temporal distance: near vs. distant) by 2 (product version: positive high level but negative low level vs. negative high level but positive low level) between-subjects factorial design. A total of 136 university students in Hong Kong participated, and each was assigned randomly to one of the eight conditions. Upon arrival, they were told that they would read two reviews on two different products taken from a popular online consumer discussion forum and were asked to indicate their own evaluations of these products. Each review contained a product name, the reviewers name, the reviewers comments, and an objective reliability rating of this particular review. First, the reviewers name served to manipulate social distance. In the close social distance condition, the reviewers were Henry Kwok (hotel) and Candy Wong (lotion), who had common Chinese names, while in the far social distance condition, the reviewers were Mukhopad Laurent and Rafaelo Kreuzban, who had uncommon, non-Chinese names. Second, the reviewers comments served to manipulate the product version that had conicting values associated with high-level and low-level construals. We provided a high reliability rating for each review (9.0 out of 10.0) to increase the reliability of the review in general. After participants read the product reviews, they were asked to report their evaluations when thinking of choosing a hotel or a skin-care lotion either tomorrow (near temporal condition) or 1 year later (distant temporal condition). Their evaluations were recorded on the same four items as those in experiment 1 and were then averaged to create an evaluation index for each product (for hotel: Cronbachs a p .94 and for skin-care lotion: Cronbachs a p .97). Participants were then thanked and debriefed. Manipulation Checks. To test the effectiveness of social distance manipulations, we ran another study with 68 participants from the same subject pool. Participants were asked to read one of the versions of the product reviews and then reported to what extent they perceived the reviewer as socially close (similar to self, typical in-group member, and psychologically close). All questions were on a 9-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 9 (extremely). The three questions regarding social distance manipulations revealed that Henry Kwok (M p 6.11) and Candy Wong (M p 6.15) were indeed perceived as socially closer than Mukhopad Laurent (M p 5.25; F(1, 66) p 6.66,

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our research contributes to the CLT literature by investigating how two dimensions of psychological distance, namely, temporal distance and social distance, jointly affect consumer evaluations of products that have conicting values associated with high-level and low-level construals. In two experiments, we proposed and found that when two

712

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

dimensions were proximal, consumer evaluations were more inuenced by the values associated with low-level construals than when either or both dimensions were distal. In the latter conditions, consumer evaluations were more inuenced by the values associated with high-level construals. The results from the two experiments were quite robust given that we employed different manipulations of construal levels and social distance, using different types of product categories. Further, although the underlying process of these ndings has not been strictly established, our pilot study suggests that such effects might be explained via the mechanism that the two distance dimensions interactively inuence the perceived distance of an event and lead to different evaluations. The ndings of our research shed light on another important question in marketing: when will consumer evaluations be more inuenced by primary or central product features as opposed to secondary or peripheral ones, and vice versa? According to the well-documented elaboration likelihood model (e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1986), an individuals motivation is one of the key factors that determine which features are more likely to be used. However, in our experiment 2, we found that irrespective of the level of participants motivation, the perceived psychological distance of an event could still shift participants focus on primary versus secondary features, sometimes resulting in higher evaluations of a product that is negative on primary features but positive on secondary features than the one that is positive on primary features but negative on secondary features (e.g., when both psychological distance dimensions are proximal). Our research can also spur further research on some relevant issues. First, as noted before, Chandran and Menons (2004) study 1 examined how temporal framing (every day vs. every year) would moderate the difference between risk perceptions of self (socially close) versus other people (socially far). Interestingly, they found that the interaction between social and temporal distance on risk perception was driven by the close social (i.e., self) and distant temporal (i.e., every year framing) condition, such that risk perceptions of the self were signicantly lower when the temporal framing was every year. At a glance, these ndings seem to be inconsistent with our results. However, we speculate that the differences may be reconciled by the differences in the constructs examined between the two. Specically, Chandran and Menon (2004) examined risk perceptions of a health hazard, which are negative-emotion laden and involve the motivation to see oneself in a positive light (i.e., self-positivity). These two factors, negative emotions and self-positivity, could have inuenced the perceived risk beyond the construal of an event. It ensues because as the temporal distance from an event increases, the strength of negative emotion is likely to decrease (Loewenstein et al. 2001) and/or the strength of motivation to see oneself in a positive light increases (Liberman, Trope, and Wakslak 2007), which would result in lower perceived risk for self in the future. Future studies should investigate how construal

level can interact with task-related emotions and motivations to inuence consumer evaluations. Another relevant issue emerges from the recent research by Malkoc and Zauberman (2006), which employed the temporal dimension only but examined the trade-off between two temporally separated outcomes as a function of the time framing of a decision (i.e., deferring vs. expediting). This research suggests that an initial construal of an event, either in high-level or in low-level construals, may facilitate (inhibit) the formation of subsequent construals that are consistent (inconsistent) with the initial construal, supporting for an anchoring effect of the rst dimension. Even though our results did not show such an anchoring effect of the rst dimension, given that our study did not test the order effect rigorously, it may be worthwhile to explore whether the order effect (or anchoring effect) would exist when two different types of distance dimensions are induced sequentially with some time intervals. Some limitations of our work merit future inquiry as well. First, our work only provides empirical evidence that supports our hypothesis about how multiple psychological distance dimensions inuence product evaluations. It would be worthwhile to strictly investigate and establish the underlying mechanism of such effects. Second, in our experiment 2, we used a new method of manipulation for social distance (information from in-group vs. out-group member), which was developed through pretests. Due to its novelty, more research on the validity of this manipulation of social distance awaits. Last, in our experiments we examined the interaction of temporal distance and social distance to test our theorizing. To increase the generalizability of our theory, further research should investigate the effects of multiple dimensions by incorporating other dimensions, such as spatial distance or the degree of uncertainty (Lynch and Zauberman 2007). The present research also suggests some important practical implications. To the best of our knowledge, our research is the rst to demonstrate that the perceived social distance to another consumer who writes a product review may signicantly inuence a consumers preference. Given that reading product reviews in magazines, newspapers, and online forums in particular has become ubiquitous in consumers lives, it may be advisable for marketers to consider the effects of psychological distance dimensions beyond the effects of word-of-mouth or narratives. Second, our research has implications for companies that compete with leading brands. It may be hard for them to compete with leading brands directly on primary features. Instead, they may be better off by emphasizing some superior secondary attributes of their products and reducing consumers perceived psychological distance to them. Leading companies enjoying advantages on primary features, on the other hand, may want to position their products as psychologically distal from the target consumers to encourage a focus on the primary, highlevel construal features.

TWO DIMENSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE

713 sic Principles, Vol. 2, ed. Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford, 35383. Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Cheryl Wakslak (2007), Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 11317. Linville, Patricia W., Gregory W. Fischer, and Carolyn Yoon (1996), Perceived Covariation among the Features of Ingroup and Outgroup Members: The Outgroup Covariation Effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (March), 42136. Loewenstein, George F., Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee, and Ned Welch (2001), Risk as Feelings, Psychological Bulletin, 127 (March), 26786. Lynch, John G., Jr. and Gal Zauberman (2007), Construing Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 10712. Malkoc, Selin A. and Gal Zauberman (2006), Deferring versus Expediting Consumption: The Effect of Outcome Concreteness on Sensitivity to Time Horizon, Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (November), 61827. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123205. Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), Temporal Construal, Psychological Review, 110 (July), 40321. Trope, Yaacov, Nira Liberman, and Cheryl Wakslak (2007), Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 8395. Zauberman, Gal, James Bettman, Selin A. Malkoc, and B. Kyu Kim (2007), Subjective Time Perception and Temporal Discounting, paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Memphis, TN.

REFERENCES
Ainslie, George (1975), Specious Reward: A Behavioral Theory of Impulsiveness and Impulse Control, Psychological Bulletin, 82 (July), 46396. Chandran, Sucharita and Geeta Menon (2004), When a Day Means More than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 37589. Dehaene, Stanislas (2003), The Neural Basis of the Weber-Fechner Law: A Logarithmic Mental Number Line, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (April), 14547. Fujita, Kentaro, Marlone Henderson, Juliana Eng, Yaacov Trope, and Nira Liberman (2006), Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events, Psychological Science, 17 (April), 27882. Grewal, Dhruv and Howard Marmorstein (1994), Market Price Variation, Perceived Price Variation, and Consumers Price Search Decisions for Durable Goods, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 45360. Idson, Lorraine Chen and Walter Mischel (2001), The Personality of Familiar and Signicant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (April), 58596. Kivetz, Ran and Yifat Kivetz (2006), Reconciling Mood Contingency and Mood Regulation: The Role of Psychological Distance, working paper, Columbia University, New York. Lewin, Kurt (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper. Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope (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 Psychology, 75 (July), 518. Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Elena Stephan (2007), Psychological Distance, in Social Psychology: Handbook of Ba-