J Brand Manag (2019) 26:255–267

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0134-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance

toward the brand? The effect of brand experience on consumers’
construal level
Dong Hoo Kim1 • Doori Song2

Revised: 30 January 2018 / Published online: 17 July 2018

 Springer Nature Limited 2018

Abstract Drawing upon construal level theory, this Introduction

research investigated the impact of brand experience on
consumers’ psychological distance toward a brand and Due to the increasing importance of the brand–consumer
their construal levels. In addition, the effects of consumers’ relationship, concepts such as brand attachment (Malär
brand experience on advertising appeals (cognitive and et al. 2011), brand familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003),
emotional appeals) in influencing the effects of advertising and brand personality (Aaker 1997) have attracted
were explored. Study 1 demonstrates that strong brand researchers’ attention. In particular, understanding the
experience leads consumers to reduce their psychological brand–consumer relationship has become more critical
distance toward the brand and to lower their construal because today’s consumers make purchase decisions based
level. In contrast, weak brand experience is associated with not only on a product’s functional features, but also on
consumers’ distant psychological distance and high-level their relationship with the brand itself (Grau and Folse
construals. Study 2 extended the results of Study 1 by 2007). In addition, the dramatically changing marketing
applying the findings to the context of advertising. communications environment provides marketers with
Specifically, the results of Study 2 showed that the emo- numerous options to build and manage their brands (Keller
tional appeal advertisements were more persuasive for 2009). Through a variety of both traditional and new digital
individuals with strong brand experience compared to that media, brands today can better understand consumers’
of individuals with weak brand experience. needs and respond to them more fluently, thereby gener-
ating a positive consumer–brand relationship (e.g., brand
Keywords Brand experience  Construal level theory  loyalty) and increasing the profitability of the brands
Psychological distance  Advertising appeals (Hudson et al. 2016).
Brand meaning can be formulated by the direct and/or
indirect experience that consumers have with a brand
(Keller 2001). As a result, academics and practitioners pay
close attention to the concept of brand experience (Schmitt
1999; Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). Numerous studies
& Dong Hoo Kim have explored how to measure brand experience and
[email protected] evaluate the degree and quality of influence that brand
Doori Song experience has on consumer perceptions and behaviors
[email protected] (e.g., Brakus et al. 2009; Chang and Chieng 2006; Ha and
1
Perks 2005). For example, Chang and Chieng (2006) sug-
The School of Media and Journalism, University of North
gested that brand experience has a positive impact on a
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 226 Carroll Hall,
Campus Box 3365, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA brand’s associative network and brand attitude. However,
2 few attempts have been made to investigate how brand
Department of Marketing, Williamson College of Business
Administration, One University Plaza, Youngstown, experience can influence consumers to conceptualize
OH 44555, USA brands and predict brand activities. Depending on how
256 D. H. Kim, D. Song

consumers conceptualize brands, their expectations appeal to high-level construals) can increase the effec-
regarding brands can be differentiated. Thus, exploring the tiveness of brand communications.
impact of brand experience on consumers’ brand construals
can offer an opportunity to better understand consumer Theoretical background
behavior.
Construal level theory (CLT) suggests that psychologi- Construal level theory (CLT)
cal distance, defined as ‘‘the extent of deviation from direct
experience in time, space, social distance, or a hypothetical CLT is one of the leading social psychology theories that
state’’ (Förster 2009, p. 444), is a major determinant as to addresses how individuals make decisions based on the
whether individuals conceptualize an event or object in an psychological distance he/she has toward an object or event
abstract, general, and superordinate way or in a concrete, (Trope and Liberman 2003, 2010). According to CLT, as
specific, and subordinate way (Liberman and Förster 2009; the psychological distance from an event increases, indi-
Trope and Liberman 2010). According to CLT, events with viduals tend to use higher levels of construals to represent
greater psychological distance tend to be represented by the event (Trope and Liberman 2003). High-level con-
high-level construal terms that emphasize the primary and struals are composed of several superordinate central fea-
global features of the event rather than by low-level con- tures of an event that tend to be more stable and
strual terms that focus on secondary and local features unchangeable compared with low-level construals (Trope
(Förster 2009). Given that psychological distance is closely and Liberman 2010; Trope et al. 2007). Therefore, the
associated with an individual’s experience of an event or stability associated with high-level construals would be
object, it can be postulated that brand experience plays a more appropriate for conceptualizing a psychologically
role similar to that of psychological distance when con- distant event than a psychologically close event. According
sumers construe a brand or information related to a brand. to Liberman et al. (2002), in construing a more psycho-
For example, consumers with less brand experience may logically distant event, individuals are more likely to use
perceive a brand in high-level construal terms, whereas general descriptions and traits than situation-specific
consumers with more brand experience may conceptualize details. Consequently, a psychologically distant event is
the same brand in low-level construal terms. Furthermore, represented in terms of abstract, primary, and general
when individuals are exposed to advertising messages, features that center on desirability concerns, which involve
matching brand experience and their construal levels may the values of the object’s end state (i.e., high-level con-
increase the processing fluency of the advertising struals), whereas a psychologically proximal object is
messages. conceptualized as concrete, secondary, and incidental fea-
This research seeks to extend brand experience literature tures that center on feasibility concerns, which are the
to include CLT by exploring how brand experience influ- means to achieve the value of the end state (i.e., low-level
ences individuals’ construal processes and the psycholog- construals) (Kim, Zhang, and Li 2008). For example, the
ical distance between consumers and brands. Specifically, higher-level goal (desirability concern) to purchase a radio
the study’s overarching hypothesis is that strong brand set can be concerned with superior sound quality for lis-
experience is associated with low-level construal terms and tening to radio programs. By contrast, the lower-level goal
reduces consumers’ psychological distance and, con- (feasibility concern) can be concerned with goal-irrelevant
versely, weak brand experience is associated with high- features, such as the design of the device or quality of its
level construal terms and increases consumers’ psycho- built-in clock. Trope and Liberman (2000) demonstrated
logical distance. Given that consumers’ brand perceptions that when an individual is asked to purchase a radio set a
play a critical role in predicting their behaviors (He and year from now (i.e., a psychologically distant event), he or
Mukherjee 2007; Heath and Scott 1998), exploring the she pays more attention to the high-level construal aspects
associations among brand experience, consumers’ brand of the decision (e.g., the quality of the radio’s sound) than
construal levels, and psychological distance can provide to its low-level aspects (e.g., the quality of its built-in
important theoretical and practical implications for brand clock). The reverse is true for a decision made in the
managers and scholars. In addition, previous research proximal future (e.g., purchasing a radio tomorrow).
indicates that construal level can moderate the efficacy of Psychological distance is the subjective distance
different advertising appeals (Kim et al. 2018; Septianto between a perceiver and a target object in the perceiver’s
and Pratiwi 2016). If brand experience can impact a con- psychological space, and it is composed of four distance
sumer’s construal level, then advertisement appeals that dimensions: temporal, spatial, social, and probable
align closely with a consumer’s particular construal level (Liberman et al. 2002). These different distance dimen-
(e.g., emotional appeal to low-level construals or cognitive sions are founded on a single starting point, which is the
perceiver’s direct experience of reality (Liberman et al.
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 257

2007a). Since the direct and immediate experience of an through the process of brand selection (e.g., searching
object can increase the amount of accurate and reliable information and brand usage) could be considered to have
knowledge of it, individuals who have more opportunities brand experience. Also, consumers experience brands not
to experience an object tend to form more concrete, low- only by searching, purchasing, and consuming products
level construals of the object than abstract, high-level and services, but also when they are exposed to various
construals (Bar-Anan et al. 2006). In contrast, when indi- brand-related stimuli, such as advertising, packaging, and
viduals are more remote from the direct experience of an websites (Brakus et al. 2009). More recently, Cleff et al.
object, the lack of information leads them to rely more on (2018) demonstrated that the online presence of brands can
its abstract and general features (Liberman et al. 2007a). increase consumers’ online brand experience, which is
For instance, in assessing individuals’ perceptual process- positively related to brand loyalty. Therefore, brand expe-
ing, Liberman and Förster (2009) demonstrated that when rience is the by-product of a consumer’s perception based
individuals were in the psychologically distant condition, on each contact made with a brand. Brakus et al. (2009)
they were more concerned with the global (the gestalt) than developed a scale based on five dimensions of brand
the local (the details) of a stimulus. experience: sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral, and
The relationship between construal level and psycho- social. Depending on how many of these dimensions are
logical distance is not unidirectional, but bidirectional evoked and the intensity of the stimulation, the resulting
(Trope and Liberman 2010). That is, activating high-level brand experience can be more or less intense (Zarantonello
construals leads an individual to perceive an event or object and Schmitt 2010). This study approaches the brand
in the more distant future, in a more distant location, or as experience with a holistic view rather than with an
an improbable situation. Liberman et al. (2007b) demon- understanding of the construct through a dichotomized
strated that thinking about an event in high-level rather perspective, such as direct and indirect brand experience
than low-level construal terms leads individuals to predict (Hamilton and Thompson 2007; Hoch and Ha 1986).
that the event will occur in the more distant future. Simi- Supporting this study’s approach to brand experience,
larly, individuals with a high-level construal mindset Brakus et al. (2009) noted that brand experiences vary in
believe that events are less likely to occur compared to strength and intensity, and some brand experiences, rather
those with low-level construal mindsets (Wakslak and than being direct or indirect, are more intense than others.
Trope 2009). One of the most relevant brand constructs of brand
experience is brand familiarity (Ha and Perks 2005). Brand
Brand experience familiarity is derived from the number of brand experi-
ences a consumer has had (Alba and Hutchinson 1987).
Consumers evaluate brands on the basis of the brands’ end The terms ‘‘brand experience’’ and ‘‘brand familiarity’’ are
benefits (i.e., higher construal) or their concrete and sometimes used interchangeably (Ha and Perks 2005);
specific features (i.e., lower construal). As experiential however, the two constructs are conceptually distinct.
aspects of the brands become an important factor in con- Brand experience requires more elaborative internal
sumers’ purchase decision making (Chattopadhyay and rehearsal and promotes better brand-related memory (Ha
Laborie 2005), marketers have found it beneficial to focus and Perks 2005) compared to brand familiarity, which is
on consumers’ subjective experiences. In turn, the concept directly related to the amount of time spent on brand
of brand experience has attracted attention in marketing information processing (Brakus et al. 2009). Supporting
practice as well as in academia (Brakus et al. 2009). Brand this argument, Van Dear Westhuizen (2018) demonstrated
management researchers also confirm that brand experi- a role of brand experience as a mediator between self-brand
ence operates as an antecedent of brand attitude (Zaran- connection and brand loyalty.
tonello and Schmitt 2010), purchase intention (Schmalz Once consumers acquire a strong brand experience, they
and Orth 2012), brand trust (Ha and Perks 2005), the will have more intensive knowledge and information about
consumer–brand relationship (Chang and Chieng 2006), the brand (Park and Stoel 2005). According to CLT, the
brand loyalty (Van Der Westhuizen 2018), and brand availability of information about an object is important for
equity (Cleff et al. 2014). Brand experience is not simply a person to judge and evaluate the object. Since both direct
the outcome of utilitarian product attributes; it stems also and immediate experiences of the object can increase a
from a consumer’s subjective and internal responses (Alba consumer’s degree of knowledge and render it more reli-
and Hutchinson 1987; Schmitt 1999). Specifically, Brakus able and accurate, then the more an individual directly
et al. (2009) conceptualized brand experience as sensa- experiences an object, the more he/she tends to form
tions, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses concrete, low-level construals (Bar-Anan et al. 2006).
evoked by such stimuli as brand design, packaging, and Therefore, consumers who have more experience with a
communication. For instance, a consumer who has been certain brand may construe it in more concrete and detailed
258 D. H. Kim, D. Song

ways than consumers with less experience. In addition, brand experiences can influence how they process infor-
given that brand experience can induce elaborative infor- mation related to the brand, such as advertising.
mation processing (Keller 1993), consumers with sub- Emotional and cognitive advertising appeals are the
stantial brand experience may represent the brand in most widely used message strategies in the field of
concrete ways. Thus, it can be assumed that increasing advertising (Johar and Sirgy 1991). Ruiz and Sicilia (2004)
brand experience would affect consumer perceptions sim- suggested that when individuals are exposed to advertise-
ilar to ways that proximal psychological distance affects ments that are compatible with their information process-
consumer perceptions. In other words, consumers with ing styles in terms of emotion and cognition, advertising
strong brand experience will rely more on concrete and efficacy can be enhanced. Also, studies have shown that
specific information than on abstract and general infor- cognitive and emotional information processing are asso-
mation, which helps formulate the following hypothesis: ciated with psychological distance (Septianto and Pratiwi
2016; Van Boven et al. 2010). As individuals’ psycho-
H1 Individuals with strong brand experience are more
logical distance to an object increases, they tend to focus
likely to construe the brand in more concrete ways (low-
more on the central and primary features of the object
level construals) than individuals with weak brand
(high-level construals; Trope and Liberman 2010). This
experience.
high-level construal (abstract) mindset leads individuals to
Considering that psychological distance and construal distinguish essential information inputs from secondary
level have a bidirectional relationship, it can be postulated inputs and lessens judgement bias when they make deci-
that a construal level that is formed by brand experience sions (e.g., which information is important and why is it
can also impact the psychological distance between con- important). Therefore, cognitive information processing
sumers and a brand. For example, when consumers hear can be activated when individuals think about a psycho-
about a brand’s future event (such as a launch), those with logically distant object.
strong experience of the brand may perceive that the event By contrast, individuals generally feel more emotional
will occur in a closer future (i.e., sooner) than those with intensity about a psychologically proximal object or events
weak brand experience. Since the four psychological dis- than distal objects or events. Van Boven et al. (2010)
tances are interrelated, the relationships between brand showed that individuals are more likely to describe events
experience and psychological distance will be found in all emotionally when they perceive them as psychologically
four dimensions, which leads to the following hypothesis: proximal. They suggested that increasing emotional
intensity diminishes perceived psychological distance (Van
H2a–d Individuals with strong brand experience are
Boven et al. 2010). In addition, Septianto and Partiwi
more likely to perceive that an activity of the brand will
(2016) demonstrated that consumers with low-level con-
take place (a) in a closer future (i.e., sooner) (b) at a closer
struals prefer emotional advertising to more cognitively-
location (i.e., nearer), (c) with higher probability, and
based advertising because emotional intensity is associated
(d) will be associated with socially closer people than
with low-level construals and proximal psychological
individuals with weak brand experience.
distance.
Based on the findings from prior research, it can be
Brand experience and advertising appeal (emotional
hypothesized that consumers with high-level construals are
versus cognitive appeal)
more likely to be persuaded by cognitive appeals, whereas
consumers with low-level construals are more like to be
According to CLT, when psychologically distant objects
influenced by emotional appeals. If brand experience can
are represented in high-level construal terms, individuals
influence how consumers feel about and perceive a certain
tend to evaluate the information more positively than when
brand, then the level of brand experience should impact the
the objects are described in low-level construal terms. The
effectiveness of the appeal type. Specifically, consumers
reverse is true for psychologically proximal objects (Trope
with strong brand experience should be more likely to have
and Liberman 2000). For example, Yang et al. (2015)
low-level construals; hence, an emotional appeal would be
revealed that abstractly framed messages (high-level con-
more effective for consumers with strong brand experience
strual messages) are more persuasive than concretely
than for consumers with weak brand experience because of
framed messages (low-level construal messages) when a
the increased emotional intensity. However, cognitive
product (e.g., an environmentally friendly product) is
appeals should be more effective for consumers with weak
related to benefiting others than to benefiting self. If brand
brand experience because such advertising tends to be
experience can change consumers’ psychological distance
weighted more heavily on objective information than
toward a certain brand, it can be postulated that consumers’
subjective information. Consequently, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 259

H3a An emotional appeal brand advertisement will be construal levels, and the higher the number of groups, the
more effective for individuals with strong brand experience lower the construal levels.
than for individuals with weak brand experience. Brand experience was measured via a seven-point Likert
scale that included twelve items that measure how con-
H3b A cognitive appeal brand advertisement will be
sumers think, feel, and experience brands (Brakus et al.
more effective for individuals with weak brand experience
2009; a = 0.84). The relationship between brand experi-
than for individuals with strong brand experience.
ence and psychological distance was explored through a
series of scenarios that represented the four dimensions of
psychological distance based on Liberman et al. (2007a).
Study 1
As such, participants were asked to answer open-ended
questions about four scenarios associated with psycholog-
Two real grocery brands were adopted for an experiment to
ical distance dimensions (temporal, spatial, social distance,
investigate how brand experience can influence consumers’
and probability). Temporal distance was explored with the
construal level and their psychological distance toward the
question, ‘‘Recently, (store name) announced that the brand
brand.
will open a new store in (the name of the participant’s
town) soon. Please estimate the approximate time the store
Method
will open; it could be in a few days or even a few months.’’
The estimates of when the store would open were trans-
Procedure, participants, and materials
lated into days. For example, 1 month was coded as ‘‘30’’
and 1 week was coded as ‘‘7.’’ Similarly, for spatial dis-
Participants were recruited in two different locations, North
tance, participants were asked to indicate the estimated
Carolina (NC) and Ohio (OH), to evaluate differentiated
miles from their home to the new store. Probability was
brand experiences as either strong or weak. A total of
measured by two questions that asked about the likelihood
seventy undergraduate students (female 69%, Mage = 22.1,
that the participant would become a regular customer of the
SDage = 5.1) participated in the experiment in exchange for
new store (‘‘Shop there regularly’’ and ‘‘Become a regular
research credit. All participants reported that they go gro-
customer’’). Participants were asked to indicate the per-
cery shopping at least once a week. Two local grocery
centage of probability for the two questions (0–100;
stores were selected as the target brands: Harris Teeter (a
a = 0.98). Lastly, the social distance dimension was
local brand in North Carolina) and Giant Eagle (a local
measured using two items that asked participants the extent
brand in Ohio). For the strong brand experience condition,
to which they would recommend the brand to their close
participants were provided brief information about their
friends and family members (e.g., ‘‘I will recommend that
local grocery store brand. Participants in the weak brand
my close friends and family members shop at the new
experience condition were provided information about an
store’’ and ‘‘I will introduce the new store to my close
unknown grocery store. To investigate the relationship
friends and family members’’; seven-point Likert scale;
between brand experience and construal level, participants
a = 0.95).
were asked to imagine they were shopping for groceries at
As this experiment recruited participants from two dif-
a new Harris Teeter (or Giant Eagle) store and were pro-
ferent locations, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
vided with a shopping list of 38 items. Participants were
was conducted to ensure that the participants in the two
provided the following instructions:
locations were not significantly different in terms of brand
Take a look at the items and place them into groups experience manipulation. As expected, the analysis
by writing the items that belong together next to each revealed no significant interaction effect between the
other and then putting the items in parentheses. For locations and brand experience [F(1,66) = 2.74, ns]. Also
example, (coffee, tea), (potato, gravy, onions), as expected, however, a significant main effect of brand
(wine), (eggs, milk, sour cream), etc. Please make experience manipulation [F(1,66) = 25.17, p \ 0.001,
sure to include every item, even if you would not buy g2p ¼ :28] was found. A series of ANOVA and regression
it in reality. Additionally, please do not overlap, that analysis were conducted to examine any potential effects of
is, place each item in only one group. participants’ demographics on the dependent variables.
The numbers of groups into which the participants Again, no relationships were found between subjects’
classified the items were counted and used to measure demographics and construal level [F(1,63) = 0.76, ns],
participants’ construal levels (Liberman et al. 2002); temporal distance [F(1,64) = 0.715, ns], spatial distance
specifically, the lower the number of groups, the higher the [F(1,64) = 0.066, ns], probability [F(1,68) = 0.00, ns], or
social distance [F(1,68) = 0.001, ns]. Thus, the samples
260 D. H. Kim, D. Song

from the two locations were combined for further analysis Table 2 Regression analysis of effects of participant age on depen-
(Tables 1, 2). dent variables
Dependent variables B SE (B) b T
Results and discussion
Construal level - 0.060 1.602 - 0.109 - 0.871
To test whether the manipulation of brand experience had Temporal distance 2.744 3.245 0.105 0.846
the intended effects, separate ANOVAs were conducted. Spatial distance 0.033 0.128 0.025 0.257
As expected, the participants in the strong brand experience Probability - 0.001 0.035 - 0.003 -0.024
condition (local brand; M = 3.64, SD = .76) rated their Social distance 0.037 0.617 0.007 0.060
brand experience as higher than those in the weak brand
experience condition [non-local brand; M = 2.63, SD =
.82; F(1,68) = 28.82, p \ 0.001, g2p ¼ 30]. Thus, the
manipulation operated as intended. experience brings to mind brand-related activities or events
For H1, the results showed a significant effect of brand in the more proximal future, in higher possibility situations,
experience [F(1, 63) = 11.52, p \ 0.001, g2p ¼ :16]. Par- and in closer social relationships compared to weak brand
experience. The reverse is true for weak brand experience.
ticipants with strong brand experience (M = 10.40, SD =
Among the four psychological dimensions, a relation-
.53) created more categories for the grocery items than
ship between brand experience and spatial distance was not
participants with weak brand experience (M = 7.73, SD =
confirmed. This unexpected result may be attributable to
.58). Thus, H1 was supported. Hypotheses 2a–d posited
the data collection locations. The participants at the OH
that strong brand experience would lead to less psycho-
location (population of 600,000) were more geographically
logical distance than would weak brand experience. As
dispersed compared to those in NC (population of 60,000).
expected, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
For example, a participant in OH may be more likely to
revealed a significant main effect of brand experience
perceive that ten miles is not far from his/her home,
(Wilk’s k = 0.55, F(4, 60) = 12.25, p = 0.00; g2p ¼ :45).
whereas an NC participant might perceive the same dis-
The ANOVA results for the four psychological distance tance as outside his/her residential area.
dimensions revealed that, with the exception of spatial
distance, the main effects of brand experience on the
dimensions were significant: Ftemporal(1, 64) = 8.53, Study 2
p = 0.01, g2p ¼ :12; Fspatial(1, 66) = 0.68, ns; Fprobability(1,
64) = 29.42, p = 0.00, g2p ¼ :30; Fsocial(1, 64) = 16.04, To provide greater context with regard to evidence of the
p = 0.00, g2p ¼ :19. Thus, H2 a, c, and d were supported effect of brand experience on psychological distance, Study
(Tables 3, 4). 2 incorporated two distinct types of advertising appeal
Study 1 results show that when individuals have a strong (emotional and cognitive). Based on previous studies that
versus weak brand experience, they are more likely to use employed CLT to examine how consumers evaluate the
lower than higher levels of construals to conceptualize the advertised product and/or advertising messages (e.g.,
brand. The results also demonstrate that strong brand Chang et al. 2015; Septianto and Pratiwi 2016; Wright

Table 1 One-way ANOVAs

Dependent variables Demographics Sum of squares df Mean square F
for demographics of the
participants on dependent Construal level Gender 7.761 1 7.761 0.665
variables
Ethnicity 51.435 4 12.859 1.15
Temporal distance Gender 83535.711 1 83535.711 3.238
Ethnicity 3135196.136 4 8799.034 0.316
Spatial distance Gender 17.763 1 17.763 0.274
Ethnicity 104.183 4 26.046 0.392
Probability Gender 177.829 1 177.829 0.194
Ethnicity 233.715 4 58.429 0.061
Social distance Gender 5.559 1 5.559 1.993
Ethnicity 35196.136 4 8799.034 0.316
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 261

Table 3 Multivariate test

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. g2
results
Intercept
Pillai’s trace 0.906 145.231 60 0.000 0.906
Wilks’ lambda 0.094 145.231 4 60 0.000 0.906
Hotelling’s trace 9.682 145.231 4 60 0.000 0.906
Roy’s largest root 9.682 145.231 4 60 0.000 0.906
Conditions
Pillai’s trace 0.449 12.247 4 60 0.000 0.449
Wilks’ lambda 0.551 12.247 4 60 0.000 0.449
Hotelling’s trace 0.816 12.247 4 60 0.000 0.449
Roy’s largest root 0.816 12.247 4 60 0.000 0.449

Table 4 Summary of ANOVA

Dependent variables Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial g2
on dependent variables
Construal level 114.872 1 114.872 11.519 0.001 0.155
Temporal distance 204066.237 1 204066.237 8.532 0.005 0.118
Spatial distance 43.426 1 43.426 .675 0.414 0.010
Probability 20157.182 1 20157.182 29.415 0.000 0.302
Social distance 40.378 1 40.378 16.044 0.000 0.191

et al. 2012), Study 2 investigated how the construal levels Unlike for Study 1, participants in Study 2 were
associated with consumers’ brand experience might recruited from only one location (NC). Additionally, only
increase the persuasiveness of advertising messages. The one local brand was used, thus eliminating the possible bias
findings of Study 1 revealed that strong brand experience effect of the local brand. In Study 2, 101 undergraduate
lowers individuals’ construal levels and weak brand students (female 78%, Mage = 20.7, SDage = 1.65) were
experience raises their construal levels. Thus, for Study 2, recruited from a major southeastern university. After the
it was expected that the level of brand experience would participants’ brand experience was measured, they were
influence the effectiveness of the appeal type. randomly assigned to one of the two experimental (ad
appeal) conditions (ncognitive = 51 vs. nemotional = 50). Two
Method versions of stimuli for each type of advertising appeal (i.e.,
two versions for emotional appeal and two for cognitive
Procedure, participants, and materials appeal) were mocked up from real grocery store adver-
tisements. For the cognitive appeal condition, advertising
To examine the proposed hypotheses, a series of multiple copies emphasized detailed information related to grocery
regression analyses was conducted. This method was shopping, such as the quality of shopping and service
favored over ANOVA whose frequently used median splits benefits (e.g., ‘‘3 TIPs for Harris Teeter shopping—24/7
of continuous variables would have wasted information, open service, lower price guarantee service’’ and ‘‘Spend
thereby reducing the power of the statistical test (Aiken and $75 or more and get 50% off’’). The copies used in the
West 1991). Prior to running the regression analyses, a emotional appeal condition focused on the kinds of feelings
centered version of brand experience was created by sub- consumers might engender from shopping, such as enjoy-
tracting the mean score (M = 3.55, SD = .55). A cross- ment (e.g., ‘‘All you need to do in Harris Teeter is ENJOY
product variable was created to test the possible interaction your shopping’’ and ‘‘Big sale. Enjoy your savings!’’).
effect between brand experience and type of advertising The advertisements used in this study (provided in
appeal (emotional vs. cognitive). Two dependent variables Appendix 1) were created based on a pretest. For the
were regressed onto brand experience (centered), type of pretest, 29 business major students (female 58%) were
advertising appeal (0 for cognitive appeal and 1 for emo- recruited from a major Midwest university whose location
tional appeal), and brand experience 9 type of appeal differed from that of the participants in the main experi-
interaction. ment. Manipulation checks were conducted via the pretest
to prevent possible confounding effects that might be
262 D. H. Kim, D. Song

caused by asking participants about advertising appeals in 15 Emotional

the main experiment. First, the results of independent t- Cognitive
tests were confirmed; i.e., two versions of each advertising
appeal were not significantly different from each other in
terms of readability (t = - 1.24, ns) and believability 10
(t = - 1.02, ns). Thus, for further manipulation checks,
two versions of advertisements for each appeal were
combined into advertisements with either cognitive or
emotional appeal. The participants were asked to rate a 5
seven-point semantic differential scale by indicating the
extent to which each advertisement appealed to ‘‘emotions
and feelings’’ or to ‘‘thoughts and facts’’ (Rosselli, Skelly,
& Mackie 1995). The results of an independent t test 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
showed that participants in the emotional appeal condition
Brand experience
(M = 4.0, SD = 1.71) perceived that the ads appealed to
their emotions and feelings, whereas those in the cognitive Fig. 1 Attitude toward the brand
appeal condition perceived that the ads appealed to their
thoughts and facts (M = 5.67, SD = 1.59, t = 2.72,
p = 0.01, Cohen’s d = .951). Additionally, the results
advertising appeal was found [b = 0.48, t (97) = 3.29,
revealed that the two groups of advertisements with cog-
p = 0.00]. As shown in Fig. 1, the stronger a consumer’s
nitive or emotional appeal were not significantly different
brand experience, the more positive his/her attitude toward
from each other in terms of believability (t = 1.48, ns) and
the brand when advertised with emotional appeal. By
readability (t = 0.186, ns). As these results validate the use
contrast, the cognitive advertising appeal became less
of the developed advertisements in Study 2, all of the
effective as a consumer’s brand experience became
stimuli were subsequently used for the main experiment.
stronger.
Four items were employed on a seven-point semantic
The attitude toward the advertisement regression model
differential scale to evaluate advertisement believability
was statistically significant [R2 = 0.12, F(3, 97) = 3.24,
(not believable/highly believable, not true/absolutely true,
p = 0.03]. Neither the main effect of brand experience
not acceptable/totally acceptable, not credible/very credi-
[b = - 0.27 t (97) = - 1.77, p = 0.08] nor the main effect
ble) based on Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000). For
of advertising appeal [b = - 0.16, t (97) = - 1.65,
readability of the advertisements, two items on a seven-
p = 0.10] was significant with regard to attitudes toward
point semantic differential scale (confused/clear, not easy
the advertisement. However, a significant interaction
to read/easy to read) were adopted from Chebat et al.
between brand experience and advertising appeal was
(2003).
found [b = 0.39, t (97) = 2.62, p = 0.01]. Consistent with
To assess the ad’s efficacy, a seven-point Likert scale
attitude toward the brand, emotional advertising appeal and
was used to measure the dependent variables (Lee and
brand experience had a positive effect on attitude toward
Aaker 2004): attitude toward the brand (1 = bad, negative,
the advertisement, whereas cognitive advertising appeal
unfavorable; 7 = good, positive, favorable; a = 0.99) and
and brand experience had a negative effect. Therefore, H3a
attitude toward the advertisement (1 = bad, negative,
and H3b were supported (Table 5, Fig. 2).
unfavorable, not helpful, not persuasive, not believable, not
credible; 7 = good, positive, favorable, helpful, persuasive,
believable, credible; a = 0.90).
General discussion
Results and discussion
The concept of brand experience has a powerful effect on
the formation of consumer–brand relationships because the
The multiple regression analysis results revealed that the
brand takes on the influential role as a provider of expe-
attitude toward the brand regression model was statistically
rience (Schmitt et al. 2014). Numerous experiential mar-
significant [R2 = 0.12, F(3, 97) = 4.37, p = 0.01]. Neither
keting studies have noted the positive impacts of brand
the main effect of brand experience [b = - 0.23,
experience on consumer brand evaluation and loyalty (e.g.,
t (97) = - 1.53, p = 0.13] nor the main effect of adver-
Chang and Chieng 2006; Brakus et al. 2009). However,
tising appeal [b = 0.21, t (97) = 0.31, p = 0.76] was sig-
little research has investigated the effect of brand experi-
nificant with regard to attitude toward the brand. However,
ence on consumers’ perceptions of brands. This research
a significant interaction between brand experience and
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 263

Table 5 Summary of multiple

Attitude toward the brand Attitude toward the ad
regression analyses
b SE T b SE T

Brand experience 0.14 0.19 1.41 0.05 0.19 0.48

R2 0.02 0.00
Model F 1.98 0.23
Brand experience 0.14 0.19 1.43 0.03 0.19 0.33
Advertising appeal (dummy) 0.03 0.22 0.34 - 0.16 0.20 - 1.57
R2 0.02 0.03
Model F 1.04 1.35
DR2 0.00 0.02
Incremental F 0.12 2.46
Brand experience - 0.23 0.29 - 1.53 - 0.27 0.28 - 1.77
Advertising appeal (dummy) 0.03 0.21 0.31 - 0.16 0.20 - 1.65
Brand experience 9 Advertising appeal 0.48 0.38 3.30** 0.39 0.36 2.62**
R2 0.12 0.09
Model F 4.37** 3.24*
DR2 0.10 0.06
Incremental F 10.83** 6.87*
*p \ 0.05; **p \ 0.01

postulates that brand experience would influence individ-

10
uals to (a) construe a brand at different levels and (b) dif- Emotional

ferentially perceive psychological distance toward the Cognitive

brand. Given that a consumer’s perception of a brand is key
to processing information related to that brand, the inves-
tigation can be beneficial for brand communication schol-
ars and practitioners. 5
Study 1 revealed that consumers with a stronger brand
experience construe the brand with a lower construal level
than consumers with a weaker brand experience. The study
also demonstrated that a strong brand experience can
reduce the perceived distance that individuals have toward
the brand. For example, Study 1 showed that individuals 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with strong brand experience expected that a new store Brand experience
would open in the near future, which is contradictory to
individuals with weak brand experience. Furthermore, Fig. 2 Attitude toward the ad
Study 2 extended the results of Study 1 by applying Study
1’s findings to the context of advertising. Specifically,
2011), few empirical studies have investigated the rela-
emotional appeal advertisements were more persuasive for
tionship between brand experience and consumers’ psy-
individuals with strong brand experience than for individ-
chological distance to brands. Given that psychological
uals with weak brand experience.
distance is critical to understanding consumer judgment,
The current research contributes to branding and con-
prediction, and evaluation of target objects (Trope and
sumer psychology literature on several fronts. First, the
Liberman 2010), the relationship between brand experience
findings show that brand experience can impact how con-
and psychological distance can shed light on how con-
sumers perceive brands in their psychological space. The
sumers conceptualize and process brand information.
findings provide a new approach to understanding the
Second, this research addresses the effects of brand expe-
relationship between consumer and brand based on con-
rience on how individuals construe brands. According to
sumers’ brand experiences. Although many studies have
Hamilton and Thompson (2007), direct and indirect pro-
employed CLT to understand the consumer and brand
duct experiences impact consumers’ mental construals and
relationship (e.g., Kardes et al. 2006; Tsai and Mcgill
264 D. H. Kim, D. Song

product preferences. They showed that direct product cognitive appeal. Considering that brand experience is
experiences are associated more with consumers’ low-level associated with brand loyalty and an emotional bond with
construals than with their high-level construals and that consumers (Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010), the fit effect
consumers’ construal levels and social distance (one of brand experience and emotional appeal can be used in
dimension of psychological distance) influenced the effect target-segmenting communications.
of product experiences on product preference (Hamilton As with all research studies, limitations should be
and Thompson 2007). By employing the brand experience addressed. In Study 1, because two different local grocery
scale developed by Brakus et al. (2009), the current brands were used, the familiarity or locality may have
research suggests that both product experience and brand impacted the relationship between brand experience and
experience can impact consumers’ construal levels and construal levels. Even though only one brand was used in
psychological distance toward a brand. Unlike the research Study 2, the effect of consumers’ pre-existing perceptions
conducted by Hamilton and Thompson (2007), which cat- of the brand on their construal level was not investigated.
egorized consumers into either high- or low-level construal Future research that controls possible bias effects is war-
conditions (abstract vs. concrete mental construal condi- ranted to yield further insights. Given that direct and
tions), this study measured consumers’ experiences using indirect product experiences can differentially impact
real brands (local grocery stores). Therefore, the general- consumers’ product preferences (Hamilton and Thompson
izability of the relationship between consumers’ construal 2007), the effect of brand experience also can be divided
levels and their experiential contact with products and into direct and indirect brand experiences. Thus, in future
brands could be enhanced. Finally, the current research research, the effects of the two distinctive brand experi-
identifies brand experience as a moderating variable that ences should be explored to better understand the interac-
can impact the evaluation of different types of advertising tion between brand experience and construal level. Also,
appeal. Previous studies showed that brand personality since this research focused on only one specific product
(Kim and Sung 2013) and product involvement (Petty et al. category (grocery store), the generalizability of the findings
1983) moderate these effects. The current research could be restricted, as a study with only one product cat-
demonstrates that brand experience moderates these effects egory lacks cross-category validation. In particular,
as well. Therefore, the findings of the current research offer because grocery stores fall within a low-involvement ser-
an opportunity to better understand brand experience vice category, the impact of product involvement on the
effects in an advertising context. relationship between brand experience and construal level
This research offers several implications for marketers. may not be obvious. Future research that explores a variety
First, this study suggests that the stronger an individual’s of product categories would enhance the value of the
brand experience, the greater their perceived proximal findings from the current research. Lastly, the unbalanced
psychological distance toward the brand. Depending on an gender ratio (69% female in Study 1 and 78% female in
individual’s brand experience, he/she may perceive the Study 2) and the undergraduate sample should be addressed
same brand information differently. For example, when in future research to reinforce the external validity of the
consumers with strong brand experience hear about a new findings.
product launch from a brand, they may consider that the
Compliance with ethical standards
launch will occur relatively soon compared to consumers
with weak brand experience. Therefore, more frequent and Conflict of interest On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding
rapid communications with consumers with strong brand author states that there is no conflict of interest.
experience may cause these consumers to evaluate new
products more favorably. The results also suggest that
when a brand is advertised with emotional appeal, indi- Appendix 1
viduals with strong brand experience respond more posi-
tively to the advertisement than when it is advertised with
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 265

References
Chebat, J.C., C. Gelinas-Chebat, and S. Hombourger. 2003. Testing
consumers’ motivation and linguistic ability as moderators of
Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of advertising readability. Psychology and Marketing 20(7):
Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356. 599–624.
Aiken, L.S., and S.G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Cleff, T., I. Chun, and N. Walter. 2014. Can you feel it?—The effect
Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. of brand experience on brand equity. IUP Journal of Brand
Alba, J.W., and J.W. Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of consumer Management 11(2): 7–27.
expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4): 411–454. Cleff, T., N. Walter, and X. Jing. 2018. The effect of online brand
Bar-Anan, Y., N. Liberman, and Y. Trope. 2006. The association experience on brand loyalty: A web of emotions. IUP Journal of
between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence Brand Management 15(1): 7–24.
from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Förster, J. 2009. Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity:
Psychology: General 135(4): 609–622. How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of
Brakus, J.J., B.H. Schmitt, and L. Zarantonello. 2009. Brand Experimental Social Psychology 45(2): 444–447.
experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect Grau, S.L., and J.A.G. Folse. 2007. Cause-related marketing (CRM):
loyalty? Journal of Marketing 73(3): 52–68. The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues
Campbell, M.C., and K.L. Keller. 2003. Brand familiarity and on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising 36(4):
advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research 19–33.
30(2): 292–304. Gürhan-Canli, Z., and D. Maheswaran. 2000. Determinants of
Chang, H., L. Zhang, and G.-X. Xie. 2015. Message framing in green country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research
advertising: the effect of construal level and consumer environ- 27(1): 96–108.
mental concern. International Journal of Advertising 34(1): Ha, H., and H. Perks. 2005. Effects of consumer perceptions of brand
158–176. experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand
Chang, P., and M. Chieng. 2006. Building consumer–brand relation- trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(6): 438–452.
ship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology and Mar- Hamilton, R.W., and D.V. Thompson. 2007. Is there a substitute for
keting 23(11): 927–959. direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after
Chattopadhyay, A., and J. Laborie. 2005. Managing brand experience: direct and indirect product experience. Journal of Consumer
The market contact auditTM. Journal of Advertising Research Research 34(4): 546–555.
45(1): 9–16.
266 D. H. Kim, D. Song

He, H., and A. Mukherjee. 2007. I am Ergo I shop: Does store image Park, J., and L. Stoel. 2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience
congruity explain shopping behavior of Chinese consumers? and information on online apparel purchase. International
Journal of Marketing Management 23(5/6): 443–460. Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33(2): 148–160.
Heath, A.P., and D. Scott. 1998. The self-concept and image Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. 1983. Central and
congruence hypothesis: An empirical evaluation in the motor peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating
vehicle market? European Journal of Marketing 32(11): role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(2):
1110–1123. 135–146.
Hoch, S.J. and Y. Ha. 1986. Consumer learning: Advertising and the Rosselli, F., J.J. Skelly, and D.M. Mackie. 1995. Processing rational
ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research and emotional messages: The cognitive and affective mediation
13(2): 221–233. of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(2):
Hudson, S., L. Huang, M.S. Roth, and T.J. Madden. 2016. The 163–190.
influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand Ruiz, S., and M. Sicilia. 2004. The impact of cognitive and/or
relationships: A three-country study of brand perceptions and affective processing styles on consumer response to advertising
marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in appeals. Journal of Business Research 57(6): 657–664.
Marketing 33(1): 27–41. Schmalz, S., and U.R. Orth. 2012. Brand attachement and consumer
Johar, J.S., and M.J. Sirgy. 1991. Value-expressive versus utilitarian emotional response to unethical firm behavior. Psychology and
advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal Marketing 29(11): 869–884.
of Advertising 20(3): 23–33. Schmitt, B.H. 1999. Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers
Kardes, F.R., M.L. Cronley, and J. Kim. 2006. Construal-level effects to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to Your Company and
on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and Brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.
the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Schmitt, B.H., J. Brakus, and L. Zarantonello. 2014. The current state
Psychology 16(2): 135–144. and future of brand experience. Journal of Brand Management
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing 21(9): 727–733.
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22. Septianto, F., and L. Pratiwi. 2016. The moderating role of construal
Keller, K.L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint level on the evaluation of emotional appeal vs. cognitive appeal
for creating strong brands. Marketing Management (July- advertisements. Marketing Letters 27(1): 171–181.
August): 15–19. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2000. Temporal construal and time-
Keller, K.L. 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and
communications environment. Journal of Marketing Communi- Social Psychology 79(6): 876–889.
cations 15(2–3): 139–155. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychological
Kim, D.H., and Y. Sung. 2013. Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of Review 110(3): 403–421.
brand personality and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of
Psychology & Marketing 30(12): 1076–1087. psychological distance. Psychological Review 117(2): 440–463.
Kim, D.H., Y. Sung, and M. Drumwright. 2018. ‘Where I come from’ Trope, Y., N. Liberman, and C. Wakslak. 2007. Construal levels and
determines, ‘how I construe my future’: The fit effect of culture, psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction,
temporal distance, and construal level. International Journal of evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology
Advertising 37(2): 270–288. 17(2): 83–95.
Kim, K., M. Zhang, and X. Li. 2008. Effects of temporal and social Tsai, C.I. and A.L. McGill. 2011. No pain, no gain? How fluency and
distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer
Research 35(4): 706–713. Research 37(5): 807–821.
Lee, A.Y., and J.L. Aaker. 2004. Bringing the frame into focus: The Van Boven, L., J. Kane, A.P. McGraw, and J. Dale. 2010. Feeling
influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(2): 205–218. distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(6):
Liberman, N., and J. Förster. 2009. The effect of psychological 872–885.
distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science Van Der Westhuizen, L. 2018. Brand Loyalty: Exploring self-brand
33(7): 1330–1341. connetion and brand experience. Journal of Product and Brand
Liberman, N., Y. Trope, and E. Stephan. 2007a. Psychological Management 27(2): 172–184.
distance. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Wakslak, C., and Y. Trope. 2009. The effect of construal level on
ed. W.A. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins, 353–383. New York: The subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science 20(1):
Guilford Press. 52–58.
Liberman, N., Y. Trope, S.M. McCrea, and S.J. Sherman. 2007b. The Wright, S., C. Manolis, D. Brown, X. Guo, J. Dinsmore, C.-Y.P. Chiu,
effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity and F.R. Kardes. 2012. Construal-level mind-sets and the
enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(1): perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters
143–149. 23(1): 253–261.
Liberman, N., M.D. Sagistrano, and Y. Trope. 2002. The effect of Yang, D., Y. Lu, W. Zhu, and C. Su. 2015. Going green: How
temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of different advertising appeals impact green consumption behav-
Experimental Social Psychology 38(6): 523–534. ior. Journal of Business Research 68(12): 2663–2675.
Malär, L., H. Krohmer, W.D. Hoyer, and B. Nyffenegger. 2011. Zarantonello, L., and B.H. Schmitt. 2010. Using the brand experience
Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour.
importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing Journal of Brand Management 17(7): 532–540.
75(4): 35–52.
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect… 267

Dong Hoo Kim (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant Doori Song (Ph.D. University of Florida) is an assistant professor of
professor of School of Media and Journalism at the University of marketing at the Williamson College of Business Administration,
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on marketing and Youngstown State University. His research focuses on consumer
persuasive communications in brand–consumer relationships, new psychology and behavior. He has published work in Psychology and
media, and consumer psychology. Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research, and Journal of Commu-
nication, among others.