The Effects of Temporal Perspective on New Product Evaluation by uoi11893

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 37

									The Effects of Temporal Perspective on New Product Evaluation




                         Susan H. Jung
                    Department of Marketing
                  Kellogg School of Management
                     Northwestern University




                    PRELIMINARY DRAFT

                       23 September 2001
               The Effects of Temporal Perspective on New Product Evaluation

        Imagine that you are recruited to participate in market research for a new product. You are

presented with a sample of the product and told either that it has recently been launched in the

marketplace or that it will be launched in the near future. Will your evaluation of the product be

affected by whether the launch is cast in the past versus the future? While intuitively it would seem that

temporal perspective should not influence product evaluation if the product itself is held constant, a

recent experience by the Clorox Company suggests otherwise.

        Clorox had conducted market research on a new product that it was considering launching

under the Glad brand name. The product was an elasticized plastic cover resembling a disposable

shower cap, which could be used to cover open food containers quickly and conveniently. When

consumers were asked about their willingness to purchase if the product were to be launched in the

future, their response was resoundingly negative. As a result, the company scrapped its plans to

launch the product.

        Shortly thereafter, S.C. Johnson, launched a nearly identical product under the name of

Saran Quick Covers. The product was an instant success, bringing Saran to number one in the

category of plastic food coverings. Puzzled by the apparent invalidity of their research results and

their failure to predict marketplace acceptance of Quick Covers, Clorox conducted follow-up

research. Consumers were presented with the same product as in the initial study, but this time they

were informed that the product had been launched in the market. Consistent with the marketplace

response, consumers in this study viewed the product quite favorably and many indicated that they

would indeed try it.

        Although any number of contextual factors may have changed between the time that Clorox

conducted its initial research and its follow-up study, one striking difference is whether the product

launch was described as a new product that had already been introduced or as a product that would



                                                                                                         1
be launched in the future. The purpose of this dissertation is to explore how such a simple shift in

temporal perspective may alter how information is processed and, hence, how a new product is

evaluated.

                                    RELEVANT LITERATURE

          The notion that temporal perspective may affect information processing, judgments, and

behavior receives support from several streams of research (for reviews, see Karniol & Ross, 1996,

and Johnson & Sherman, 1990). Though the specific conceptualization of the temporal construct

varies from one research stream to the next, a common theme is that locating an event in the past

directs processing along a fixed, knowable axis, whereas locating an event in the future highlights the

range of available options against a backdrop of uncertainty. As a result, future events are thought to

evoke broader, more expansive thinking that may involve richer, more diverse content than past

events.

          A study reported by Bavelas (1973) offers support for the view that temporal perspective

varies the breadth of outcomes considered. Research participants were asked to imagine a travel

itinerary for a fictitious professor who was described as about to take or having taken a six-week

sabbatical trip. Respondents who wrote itineraries for a trip already taken focused on relatively

common destinations, such as Paris, suggesting that they drew upon a prototype for a trip abroad.

By contrast, those asked to write the itinerary for a trip set in the future cited less frequented, more

exotic destinations, such as Malaysia, suggesting a broader search in memory of possible travel

locations.

          The findings of a study conducted by Webb and Watzke (as reported in Weick, 1979) also

lend credence to the view that a future perspective encourages consideration of a broader range of

outcomes than a past perspective. A few days before the Kansas City-Minnesota Super Bowl game

in 1970, students were asked to imagine the game’s outcome. One group was asked to adopt the



                                                                                                           2
perspective of the day after the game, while the other group was asked to imagine it was the day

before. Similar to the findings in the Bavelas study, the day-after group described prototypical game

details, whereas the day before group predicted more unusual plays. Again it appears that the future

perspective prompted consideration of an expanded set of possibilities.

        Research on the hindsight bias not only offers additional evidence that an event set in the

past narrows one’s focus, but also provides insight about the type of information that becomes focal

in the past. Hindsight bias refers to the phenomenon whereby people exaggerate the a priori

probability of a past outcome and state that they “knew it all along.” This outcome appears to occur

because the focus on what actually happened inhibits thinking about other outcomes that might

have occurred. A study by Fischhoff (1975) illustrates this effect. Participants who were randomly

assigned to read an excerpt about an obscure 19th century British-Gurka war in Nepal readily

accepted as inevitable whichever outcome they were given to read. Participants also ranked the

relevance of factors that led to victory, evaluating information about the victor as most relevant. For

instance, information about the British officers was judged most relevant by respondents told of a

British victory but rather irrelevant by respondents told of a Gurka victory. This finding suggests

that when explaining a past event, people may organize their thinking around the actor, or

dispositional information, which is more fixed or enduring, to justify why the actor prevailed. The

contextual factors that made the outcome less than certain a priori no longer seem worthy of

consideration.

        By contrast, the well-documented “sealed-fate effect,” which explores how people judge a

gamble based on whether it is a past or future event provides evidence that the future fosters a

broader consideration of evidence. Respondents are found to engage in more conservative betting

behavior when asked to wager on a die that has been thrown but not seen than when asked to wager

on a die that will be rolled after a bet is placed (Strickland, Lewicki, & Katz, 1966). Apparently, one’s



                                                                                                        3
fate seems predetermined, or sealed, with the thrown die, but open to luck or the vagaries of destiny

when it is yet to be thrown, even if the odds are the same. In a similar demonstration, Morris, Sim

and Girotto (1998) find that respondents who are asked to cooperate or compete in a classic

prisoner’s dilemma game will choose to cooperate (which is against the player’s own best interests)

more often when they are told their opponent will choose in the future than when they are told their

opponent has chosen in the past. Although the opponent’s strategy is not known in either the past or

the future condition, players hold out more hope that an opponent’s tendency to choose to

cooperate – the option that yields the largest joint payout – is greater in the future than in the past.

        These examples suggest that the past narrows attention to a single outcome, while the future

broadens the range of possibilities considered. A study by Slovic and Fischhoff (1977) suggests a

relationship between the narrow focus of the past and the broader processing of the future.

Respondents urged to consider a broader set of outcomes were not as likely to fall prey to the

hindsight bias. The tendency to focus on the actor when an event is set in the past can be offset by a

prompt to think as one might naturally when considering the future. These researchers found that

when participants who were told the outcome of a scientific study were instructed to suggest

alternative results, the hindsight bias was attenuated. This finding suggests that it is precisely the

failure to consider the broader range of outcomes in a past context that leads to a narrow view. We

believe that a future context fosters this broader view of alternatives because people recognize that

the future can be determined by a vast universe of contingencies.

        On the basis of these prior findings, we hypothesize that temporal perspective affects

consumers’ evaluations by altering the scope of their information processing. When an event is set

in the past, individuals narrow their processing to a subset of the information available, most likely

relating to the actor or agent, whereas when an event is set in the future, individuals process more




                                                                                                           4
comprehensively by considering more kinds of information. This difference in the breadth of

attention has implications for the content that then forms the basis of consumer judgment.

        A past perspective encourages inferences organized around an assumption of schematic

fixedness due to a known outcome. The range of possibilities is efficiently narrowed to the most

compelling forces, which may be characterized as dispositional, to borrow terminology from the causal

attribution literature. In general, an outcome attributed to dispositional forces interprets an agent’s

actions as a reflection of his idiosyncratic predisposition, a stable factor that is consistent across

circumstances. Thus, Fischhoff’s respondents attributed the revealed outcome of the British-Gurka

war to characteristics of the side they were told won.

        Consistent with the view that the past focuses processing on the actor, several studies report

that dispositional attributions increase as more time passes from a focal event (Moore, Sherrod, Liu,

& Underwood, 1979; Peterson, 1980; Gilovich & Frank, 1989). Descriptions solicited immediately

after an event and again weeks later reflected a growing number of references to the actor and fewer

references to the situation as more time passed. By contrast, in the future, a broad range of

alternative outcomes are considered, perhaps because of the presence of dynamic and unknowable

factors. As a result, the processing that is undertaken is more expansive and encompasses situational,

as well as dispositional factors. Thus, Strickland et al.’s participants may have wagered more on the

die that would be thrown in the future because, though the probability was just as small, the possibility

of coming up a winner was not foreclosed.

        Our theorizing can be used to explain the disparate consumer reactions that Clorox observed in

the research conducted before versus after the launch of Quick Covers. When the product was

represented as having already been launched, consumers may have focused narrowly and on the actor,

making the inference that a company would only go through the trouble of launching a new product

having established a marketplace need and consumer acceptance. Accordingly, they focused on how



                                                                                                          5
the product might benefit them, thereby evaluating it favorably. By contrast, when the product launch

was set in the future, consumers may have considered not only the company’s action, but also the larger

context in which the product would compete. Noting that there are already many ways to cover, wrap

and store food, consumers might have wondered about the benefit of yet another option. With this

mindset, they may have perceived little added value from the new product and thus evaluated it

negatively.

        This interpretation of consumers’ response to Quick Covers rests on the assumption that the

information about the company was viewed more positively than the information about the context of

the product launch. While this may have occurred in the situation described here, there is no reason to

believe that a past perspective necessarily directs attention to more positive information than a future

perspective. Indeed, frequently it seems plausible that future events brim with wonderful possibilities

not evoked by an event that is set in the past. Our hypothesis is that temporal perspective affects the

scope of processing such that the past focuses attention more narrowly than does the future and that

this will occur independent of the valence of the information considered. We explore this hypothesis in a

series of four experiments.

                       STUDY 1: Temporal Context and Regulatory Focus

        The goal of our first study was to disentangle the effect of temporal perspective on the

scope of processing from the favorableness of the information that was the focus of attention. We

reasoned that this could be done by manipulating whether individuals focused on positive or

negative information and observing the effect of temporal perspective on their evaluations. If

individuals were primed to focus on positive information, then the broader perspective of the future

should allow more information to be viewed from this perspective and thereby enhance the

favorableness of evaluations in relation to the narrower perspective of the past. Conversely, if

individuals were primed to view information negatively, then a narrow perspective should limit the



                                                                                                           6
information viewed from this perspective and thus enhance the favorability of evaluations relative to

the broader perspective of the future.

         Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) served as the basis for varying the focus on positive

versus negative information. This theorizing suggests that the type of goal people have affects the

valence of the information to which they attend. When individuals have a promotion goal they strive to

approach a desired end state and thus attend to the presence of positive information that might

facilitate attainment of the goal. In contrast, when individuals have a prevention goal they seek to avoid an

undesired end state and attend to negative information that may threaten the goal (Higgins, 1997; Aaker

and Lee, 2001). Therefore, a promotion goal prime and a prevention goal prime were intended

manipulate how respondents would interpret the same given information about the product launch. If a

promotion goal is primed and the future is indeed broader than the past, more positive cues in the

future-promotion condition should be construed relative to the past-promotion condition, leading to

more positive evaluations. By the same principle, if a prevention goal is primed and the future is indeed

broader than the past, more negative cues in the future-prevention condition should be construed

relative to the past-prevention condition, leading to more negative evaluations.

Method

         Participants were 101 MBA students (76 men) who were recruited from four marketing

management classes. Students were told that they would be evaluating a new product and that, in

exchange for their time, they would receive a candy bar at the end of the study. They were also

informed that all participants were eligible to win cash prizes in a lottery held following the study.

         The new product, a fictitious brand extension, Coca-Cola Ketchup, was used as the stimulus

because it was thought that this product would be open to either positive or negative interpretation.

If consumers were predisposed to view the product positively, they might focus on the strength of

the parent brand. If consumers were inclined to think negatively of the product, they might be



                                                                                                           7
attending to its apparent incongruity or the presence of well-known alternatives. Though the

stimulus may appear to be contrived, the product launch parallels the situation that faced the Saran

brand. Quick Covers was also a product extension that drew upon the reputation of the Saran brand

but may have also struck the public as incongruous, like Coca-Cola Ketchup, while compelling

alternatives were concurrently available.

          The product was described in a one-page news release (see Appendix A), which manipulated

both temporal perspective and regulatory goal focus. Temporal perspective was varied by describing

the new product launch as either having occurred six weeks ago (past condition) or as going to occur

in six weeks (future condition) and by using a verb tense appropriate to the timing of the launch

throughout the press release. The goal focus was varied by describing the company’s strategy in

launching the new product as one of promotion or prevention. In the promotion goal condition, a

company spokesperson stated in the news release that the new product launch was an offensive

company move to grow profits in order to attack competition. In the prevention goal condition, the

spokesperson described the product launch as a defensive company move to maintain profits in

order to stave off competitive pressure.

          After reading the news release, participants expressed their reactions to the product using six 7-

point scales: like/dislike, fits with brand/doesn’t fit with brand, likely to succeed/unlikely to succeed, a

savvy move/a foolish move, sensible/not sensible, and I know others who will try this/I don’t know

anyone who will try this. They also provided demographic information, such as age, gender and school

major. Finally, participants were thanked for their participation and given a chocolate bar. The cash

lottery and debriefing occurred in subsequent class meetings.

Results

          Analysis began with an examination of the evaluative items. A confirmatory factor analysis

revealed that all the items loaded on a single factor, which was found to be reliable (Cronbach a=.88).


                                                                                                           8
Therefore, an overall evaluation score was created for each respondent by averaging the items. Higher

scores indicate more favorable evaluations.

         A test of the treatment effects on the evaluation index revealed only a significant two-way

interaction of temporal perspective and regulatory goal focus (see Figure 1; F(1,96)=11.58, p<.01). As

anticipated, respondents in the promotion condition evaluated Coca-Cola Ketchup more favorably

when the launch was set in the future rather than in the past (FPromotion(1,96)=5.42, p<.02; MFuture=2.67 vs.

MPast =2.10). Conversely, respondents in the prevention condition, evaluated the product more favorably

when the launch was set in the past rather than in the future (FPrevention(1,96)= 6.14, p<.02; MPast= 2.64 vs.

MFuture= 2.01). In addition, it was found that when the launch was set in the past, a prevention

orientation resulted in more favorable evaluations of the product than a promotion orientation

(FPast(1,96)= 4.86, p<.03; MPrevention=2.64 vs. MPromotion=2.10). However, in the future, the pattern was

reversed; promotion led to a more favorable evaluation than prevention (FFuture(1,96)= 6.77, p<.01;

MPrevention= 2.01 vs. MPromotion= 2.67).

Discussion

         Study 1 offers some initial evidence consistent with the hypothesis that, relative to a future

perspective, a past perspective narrows the scope of information considered. If a past perspective

focuses attention more narrowly than a future perspective, then individuals who focus on negative

information should evaluate a product more favorably in the past than in the future because they

should consider less negative information. In contrast, individuals who focus on positive

information should evaluate a product more favorably in the future than in the past because the

future allows them to broaden the positive information that serves as a basis for judgment. Our

findings fit these predictions.




                                                                                                             9
         In addition, we find that the positivity or negativity of evaluations does not covary with past

or future, providing evidence that valence is independent of temporal perspective. We found no

main effects of past or future.

         The design of Study 1 did not permit exploring the more specific prediction regarding the

type of information that is the focus of attention in the past versus the future. We have argued that

a past perspective narrows attention to dispositional or actor information whereas a future

perspective expands attention to encompass both dispositional and situational information. This

hypothesis is the focus of Study 2.

                                   STUDY 2: Cognitive Responses

         In order to delve more deeply into the nature of how respondents’ processing might differ

according to temporal perspective, we turned to thought listings as a measure of content focus. By

examining whether thoughts in the past focus on dispositional information, we may also support the

view that the past tends to elicit narrow processing. In addition, by demonstrating that thoughts in the

future focus on dispositional as well as situational information, we may offer evidence for the

contention that the future fosters broader processing.

         We also sought to examine the numerosity of thought listings. Collecting data on number of

thoughts may help to establish whether the narrow-broad distinction for past and future can be

explained by amount of processing. If the future prompts broader processing than the past, one

ramification may be that the future should elicit a greater number of thoughts than the past.

         Therefore, Study 2 looks at types of thoughts (dispositional and situational) and number of

thoughts.

Method

         The design, stimulus, and method in Study 2 were the same as in Study 1 except that in the

present study the key dependent measure was a cognitive response task. Participants, who were 55


                                                                                                       10
MBA students, were recruited to participate in a new product evaluation study. They were told that

they would receive a candy bar at the end of the study and would be eligible to win cash prizes in a

lottery held at the end of the study. Participants began by reading the one-page news release (see

Appendix A) about a new product, Coca-Cola Ketchup. This article included the manipulations of

temporal perspective and regulatory focus. After reading the press release, participants were asked

to list whatever thoughts occurred to them when they read about the new product.

Results

          Analysis began with classification of participants’ thoughts as either dispositional, situational,

or neither. Two independent judges judged whether each thought pertained to the brand company

(dispositional) or to environmental factors, market conditions and alternative outcomes (situational)

or neither. Thoughts that focused on the company’s actions, such as, “Coke has no experience in

ketchup” and “Perhaps Coke can leverage its brand name to generate recognition” were classified as

dispositional thoughts. Thoughts that were focused on contingencies in the environment, such as,

“Leaders losing market share may signal competitive market,” “Diversification better achieved

through acquisition,” and “More people internationally are eating burgers so international ketchup

sales should be robust” were classified as situational. Thoughts that were idiosyncratic,

uninterpretable or irrelevant were classified as neither, such as “bad idea.”

          Judges also classified thoughts according to valence – positive, negative or neutral. As an

illustration of how thoughts were coded, remarks such as “in the short term, the move might

increase revenue because people will try ketchup of a magnificent brand,” “positive for capacity

utilization” and “Coke tries to leverage brand” were classified as positive, while comments such as

“brand dilution,” “destroy brand name,” and “too much risk” were classified as negative. Thoughts

were labeled neutral if neither advantages nor disadvantages was identified, such as “how does




                                                                                                         11
ketchup taste?” Inter-rater agreement was above 90%. Disagreements were resolved through

discussion. An analysis of variance was performed on each category of thoughts.

        Dispositional versus Situational. Overall, 68% of the 246 thoughts were ones that related to the

brand company, the brand’s strengths and weaknesses, and the company’s abilities to launch an

extension. The remainder pertained to the environmental situation, the competitive scenario, market

opportunities, and alternative outcomes, with the exception of two thoughts that were judged to be

neither dispositional nor situational. An ANOVA revealed that participants in the past condition listed

a greater average number of dispositional thoughts than did participants in the future condition (See

Figure 2; F(1,51)=5.35, p=.03; MPast=3.56 vs. MFuture=2.60). Further, participants in the future condition

listed a greater average number of situational thoughts than did participants in the past condition

(F(1,51)=4.92, p=.03; MFuture=1.73 vs. MPast=1.00). These outcomes are consistent with the view that a

past perspective focuses attention narrowly and on dispositional information, whereas a future

perspective expands attention to encompass both dispositional and situational information.

        Number of Thoughts. The 55 respondents generated 246 thoughts. The mean number of thoughts

per respondent did not vary significantly by temporal condition (Past Thoughts=4.60 vs. Future

Thoughts=4.37, F(1,51)<1, p>.65), suggesting that temporal perspective did not influence the amount

of elaboration in this instance.

        Valence of Thoughts. Of the 246 thought listings, 173 were classified as negative, 43 as positive,

and 30 as neutral. An analysis of the proportion of positive thoughts to the number of negative

thoughts revealed a significant two-way interaction of temporal perspective and regulatory focus

(F(1,51)=4.39, p=.04). The planned comparison was significant, revealing a greater number of positive

thoughts in the future-promotion condition than in the past-promotion condition (F(1,51)=4.46,

p=.03). This result supports the assumption made in Study 1 that in the promotion condition, more

positive thoughts would be elicited when the future prompted a broader perspective than when the past



                                                                                                             12
encouraged a narrow perspective. However, a similar analysis of the negative thoughts did not yield

significant results that could provide similar corroboration for our hypothesis about the prevention

condition.

        As anticipated, the effect of temporal perspective on valence was not significant (F(1,51)=.25,

p>.62. This was interpreted as further support for our assumption that past could not be construed as

positive and future could not be construed as negative, and vice versa.

Discussion

        The results of Study 2 offer a more finely grained analysis of how temporal perspective

affects processing. The results suggest that the past directs attention to dispositional cues, which we

defined in this study as actor-related or company-centered information. The results also suggest that

the future prompts the consideration of situational factors as well as dispositional information. We

interpret these outcomes as support for our hypothesis that the past narrows the focus while the

future broadens the scope of processing.

        We also provide support for the assumptions made in Study 1 that promotion-oriented

respondents interpret more information positively in the future than in the past. Study 2 did not find

the same level of support for our assumptions about prevention-oriented respondents; we speculate

that this inability to find support may have to do with the overall negativity of the thoughts data in

general. Although respondents could (and did) engage in positive thoughts about the idea of Coca-

Cola Ketchup, most evaluations were rather negative, possibly resulting in swamping the effects

because a measure such as thought listings may not sufficiently discern subtle, though significant,

levels of variance.

        Overall, Study 2 was also successful in supporting the results of our initial study. The

findings from Study 2 indicate temporal perspective does not merely affect attention to negative and

positive information. Had this been the case, we would have found a significant main effect linking



                                                                                                       13
past with one valence and future with another. Secondly, Study 2 demonstrates that although the

future fosters greater breadth in the nature of cues considered, it does not necessarily result in more

thoughts. Our evidence shows that comprehensive processing entails consideration of more kinds of

information.

        Study 2 adopted a measured variable approach to testing our hypotheses regarding the effect

of temporal perspective. The goal of Study 3 was to provide a further test of our hypotheses. An

independent variable approach was adopted to determine whether these effects can be demonstrated

when the factors are manipulated as well as measured. The valence of each type of cue, dispositional

and situational, was to be varied so that the influence of the kind of information on evaluations can

be determined. An additional goal of Study 3 was to test the robustness of the findings from Study 1

and Study 2 by examining another new product context.

                        STUDY 3: Dispositional versus Situational Cues

        The context for Study 3 was the purported plan of a foreign country to launch state-run

breweries in the United States. The inspiration for this type of venture was a Wall Street Journal

article (2001) about a plan by the Thai government to open 3,000 Thai restaurants worldwide. We

reasoned that a story about breweries would be of interest to the undergraduate students

participating in the research but that they would lack any detailed knowledge about such ventures

that could potentially overwhelm the manipulation of the valence of the dispositional and situational

information. Finally, by introducing a different new product context, we hoped to establish the

robustness of temporal perspective effects.

        A news story describing the venture indicated that the state-run breweries were the

brainchild of either the Swiss or Polish government. Pre-testing revealed that undergraduates had an

impression of the Swiss as more efficient, more capable and more sophisticated in business than the

Polish. Thus, the country sponsorship served to vary the valence of the dispositional information.


                                                                                                     14
The news article also characterized the market for foreign beers as being either favorable or

unfavorable. This information was intended to manipulate the valence of the situational

information. We hypothesized that if the past were focusing respondents’ attention on dispositional

information, evaluations should be more favorable for those in the Swiss condition than for those in

the Polish condition. Further, because the past is thought to focus attention narrowly, we speculated

that respondents in the past condition would be relatively insensitive to the valence of the situational

cue. By contrast, the broader focus encouraged by the future perspective was expected to result in

the valence of both the dispositional and situational cues affecting evaluation. Specifically,

evaluations were expected to be more favorable when the Swiss government sponsored the venture

than when the Polish government sponsored the venture and when the market for foreign beers is

described as favorable rather than unfavorable. In summary, we predicted a main effect of the

dispositional cue in the past condition (“Swiss” > “Polish”); in the future condition, we predicted a

main effect of dispositional information (“Swiss” > “Polish”) and a main effect of situational

information “favorable market” > “unfavorable market”).

Method

         The 100 research participants (51 men) were told that they would be evaluating the

introduction of a foreign beer in the United States and that, in exchange for their time, they would

be paid $10. The beer introduction was described in a one-page news release (see Appendix B) that

manipulated temporal perspective, the sponsoring country and the marketplace conditions.

Depending upon the condition to which a participant was randomly assigned, the new product

launch was described as either having occurred six months ago (past condition) or as going to occur

in six months (future condition). The sponsoring government was either the Polish government

(negative dispositional cue) or the Swiss government (positive dispositional cue) and the market for

foreign beers in the United States was characterized as unfavorable (negative situational cue) or



                                                                                                       15
favorable (positive situational cue). After reading the news story research participants indicated their

evaluative reactions on six 7-point scales that were anchored with the following dimensions:

like/dislike, good idea/not a good idea, likely to succeed/unlikely to succeed, a savvy move/a

foolish move, sensible/not sensible, and a common idea/an unusual idea.

          Following the main dependent measures, respondents rated whether they thought the

government of Switzerland or Poland could capably execute such a plan to launch breweries and

whether the market conditions were perceived as favorable or unfavorable for a foreign beer.

Results

          Manipulation Checks. First, we examined the adequacy of our operationalization of dispositional

valence. This entailed a determination of whether the Swiss government was perceived as more capable

than the Polish government. Consistent with our expectations, it was found that 91 percent said they

thought the Swiss government could handle the execution of such a plan; whereas, only 4 percent said

they believed Poland could. This result supports our assumption that the operationalization of

dispositional valence was understood as anticipated. In addition, our operationalization of situational

valence also proved to be successful. Since our data consisted of binary responses, we employed a logit

analysis, which revealed that respondents in the favorable market entry condition were more likely to

say that foreign beers faced conditions conducive to success, while respondents in the unfavorable

market entry conditions were more likely to say that foreign beers faced conditions conducive to failure

(χ2=17.53, p<.01).

          Product Evaluations. Analysis began with an examination of the evaluative items. A confirmatory

factor analysis revealed that all the items loaded on a single factor. This scale was found to be reliable

(Cronbach a = .77), and therefore, an overall evaluation score was created for each respondent by

averaging the items. Higher scores indicate more favorable evaluations.




                                                                                                          16
        An analysis of variance on the evaluation scores revealed a significant three-way interaction of

temporal context, dispositional valence and situational valence (F(1,91)=4.43, p=.04). Follow-up

contrasts on the data were then conducted and revealed support for our hypotheses. In the past

condition, only a main effect of the valence of the dispositional information was significant

(F(1,48)=3.91, p<.05). Evaluations were more favorable when this cue was positive (Swiss) than when

it was negative (Polish) (MSwiss=4.66 vs. MPolish=4.27). By contrast, in the future condition, there was a

main effect of the valence of the situational cue (F(1,44)=18.31, p<.01) such that the product was

evaluated more positively when market conditions were favorable than when they were unfavorable

(MFavorable=4.83 vs. MUnfavorable=3.76). There was also a significant main effect of dispositional cue

(F(1,47)=5.21, p=.03) such that the plan was evaluated more positively when the brewery plan was

launched by the Swiss than by the Polish (MFavorable=4.65 vs. MUnfavorable=3.96). These main effects were

qualified by a marginally significant two-way interaction (F(1,47)=3.71, p<.06). Participants in the future

condition demonstrated sensitivity to dispositional information only when the situational information

was negative (F(1,47),=10.05, p<.01), in which case the Swiss plan was rated more favorably than the

Polish plan (MSwiss=4.32 vs. MPolish=3.33). When the situational information was positive, there was no

difference between the Swiss brewery launch evaluations and the Polish launch evaluations.

Discussion

        These findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that temporal perspective affects

the scope of processing. As anticipated, when thinking about an event that has already occurred in

the past, individuals are sensitive to the favorableness of dispositional information but not the

favorableness of situational information. By contrast, when thinking about an event that will occur

in the future, individuals are sensitive to the favorableness of both dispositional and situational

information.




                                                                                                             17
        While the anticipated main effects of the situational and dispositional cues were observed, a

two-way interaction of the variables was also found. A closer look at the interaction pattern suggests

that dispositional information is included in evaluations only if the situational cue is negative. As the

follow-up contrasts indicate, evaluations of Swiss and Polish plans are similarly positive when the

situation is favorable. When the situation is unfavorable, respondents discriminate, evaluating the

weaker country’s plan more negatively. This outcome indicates that these respondents adopted a

positivity default such that evaluations are relatively favorable unless all available cues are negative.

Drawing upon regulatory goal focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we speculate that this predisposition

toward positive information implies a promotion orientation, even in the absence of explicit

instructions to adopt this goal. Because the respondents were MBA students from a Western culture,

we might assume a chronic promotion focus was their default mode (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Lee,

Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Presumably, if participants had been prompted to assume a prevention

focus, evaluations would only be positive in the absence of negative information.

        The selective interpretation of information in the service of a goal leads us to believe that the

broader scope of the information considered under a future perspective may be used strategically in

forming evaluations. When a promotion frame is operative, individuals may search for positive

information and only form an unfavorable evaluation when no such information is detected. When

a prevention frame is operative, individuals may search for negative information and only evaluate

the product favorably when such information is absent.

        A final study was conducted to offer insight into this notion of a strategic integration of

situational and dispositional cues when an event is set in the future. Study 4 investigates this issue by

manipulating regulatory goal focus and by using the valence of each type of cue (as in Study 3) so

that the influence of the kind of information on evaluation can be determined.




                                                                                                        18
                              STUDY 4: Regulatory Focus & Future

        The goal of Study 4 was to examine how regulatory focus organizes processing of events set

in the future by encouraging collective processing of the dispositional and situational information

available. Study 4 also provided an opportunity to gather more evidence for our assumption that

promotion-minded respondents might have an attentional bias for positive, goal-facilitating

information, while prevention-focused people have a bias for negative, goal-thwarting information.

We examined these assumptions in Study 2 and found corroboration for the notion that a

promotion frame made positive information more salient; however, we do not have firm evidence

that a prevention frame made negative information more salient. Study 4 tested whether promotion

and prevention orientations lead to these attentional biases of valence by manipulating focus and

valence as independent variables.

        Investigating how cues are integrated in a future context is of practical interest. This future

focus on the use of information is an important and relevant question because companies frequently

conduct marketing research prospectively in order to predict consumer acceptance before a product

is actually launched.

        In Study 4, the stimulus and format employed were similar to those used in the previous

study. In Study 3, dispositional sources were operationalized by introducing Russia as the negatively

valenced agent and Switzerland as the positively valenced one. Recent news stories in the popular

press indicated that the Russian government was associated with economic woes and problems of

mismanagement more strongly than was Poland’s. The operationalization of situational

favorableness was the same as that used in Study 3.

        The design for Study 4 encompassed three factors: regulatory focus, dispositional strength,

and situational favorability. Respondents were asked to judge a future plan by the Swiss or Russian

(instead of Polish) government to launch state-run breweries in the United States amid favorable or


                                                                                                          19
unfavorable market-entry conditions (see Appendix C). A promotion focus was predicted to result

in generally positive ratings as long as either the dispositional source or the situational cue was

positive. An unfavorable evaluation was predicted only when both the dispositional and the

situational cues were negative (Russian, unfavorable market conditions). This outcome would

replicate the findings from Study 3 in the future condition, assuming that respondents’ chronic goal

focus was promotional. A prevention focus was hypothesized to result in generally negative

evaluations as long as either the dispositional source or the situational cue was negative. A favorable

evaluation was predicted for prevention-focused respondents only when both the dispositional and

the situational cues were positive (Swiss, favorable market conditions).

Method

         The research participants, 61 undergraduate students, were asked to read a news story

announcing the launch of government-run breweries. As in Study 3, the beer introduction was

described in a one-page press release (see Appendix C), which manipulated the valence of the

sponsoring country and the marketplace conditions. Depending upon the condition to which a

participant was randomly assigned, the sponsoring government was either the Russian government

(negative dispositional cue) or the Swiss government (positive dispositional cue) and the market for

foreign beers in the United States was characterized as unfavorable (negative situational cue) or

favorable (positive situational cue). The manipulation of regulatory goal focus was operationalized as

a prime that was administered as a separate exercise before the news release. Respondents were

asked to write about their aspirations and ambitions (promotion) or their duties and obligations

(prevention) and how they have changed over the years. In Study 1, goal focus was manipulated by

embedding a promotion or prevention cue in the stimulus, a novel way of manipulating regulatory

focus because it centers attention on the company’s goal rather than manipulating the processor’s

goal prior to receiving the information. While the results of our initial study were consistent with a



                                                                                                         20
regulatory goal focus framework, we decided to employ a more conventional procedure for

manipulating goal focus (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999). This procedure allows us to

demonstrate robustness and convergence across operationalizations of regulatory focus.

        After reading the news story, research participants were asked to rate their evaluative reactions

on six 7-point scales that were anchored with the following dimensions: likely to try/unlikely to try,

likely to be successful/unlikely to be successful, a savvy move/a foolish move, plan makes sense/plan

doesn’t make sense, I know others who will try this beer/I don’t know anyone who will try this beer,

and a surprisingly good beer/a surprisingly bad beer. Therefore, the overall design was a 2

(promotion/prevention) by 2 (Swiss/Russian) by 2 (easy market/difficult market) between-subjects

factorial.

Results and Discussion

        Analysis began with an examination of the evaluative items. A confirmatory factor analysis

revealed that all the items loaded on a single factor, which was found to be reliable (Cronbach a = .81).

Therefore, an overall evaluation score was created for each respondent by averaging the items. Higher

scores indicate more favorable evaluations.

        The data were subjected to a three-way analysis of variance, which revealed the presence of a

significant main effect of disposition (F(1,53)=7.37, p<.01) such that evaluations were more favorable

when the dispositional valence was positive (Swiss) than when the dispositional valence was negative

(Russian) (MSwiss=4.44 vs. MRussian=3.96). A main effect of situation was also found (F(1,53)=11.05,

p<.01), such that evaluations were more positive when the situation was favorable than when the

situation was unfavorable (MEasy Market=4.60 vs. MDifficult Market=3.88). Further analysis revealed that these two

main effects were qualified by a significant three-way interaction of regulatory focus, valence of the

dispositional cue and valence of the situational cue (F(1,53)=9.18, p<.01). In the promotion condition,

situational and dispositional cues elicited a pattern of evaluations that replicates Study 3. Evaluations


                                                                                                               21
exhibited a positivity bias such that respondents were generally favorable as long as either the situational

cue or the dispositional cue was positive; only when both cues were unfavorable did ratings fall

significantly. The pairwise comparisons in the promotion condition show that evaluations of the Swiss

brewery plan were reliably more positive than the Russian brewery plan when the market conditions

were unfavorable (F(1,53)=6.44, p<.01; MSwiss=4.35 vs. MRussian=3.14) and that evaluations of the Russian

brewery plan were significantly more positive when the market conditions were favorable than when

the market conditions were unfavorable (F(1,53)=9.26, p<.01; MFavorable=4.59 vs. MUnfavorable=3.14). In the

prevention condition, evaluations exhibited a negativity bias such that respondents were generally

unfavorable as long either the situational cue or the dispositional cue was negative; only when both cues

were favorable did ratings rise. The pairwise comparisons in the prevention condition show that

evaluations of the Russian brewery plan were reliably more negative than the Swiss brewery plan when

the market conditions were favorable (F(1,53)=8.19, p<.01; MSwiss=5.67 vs. MRussian=4.03) and that

evaluations of the Swiss brewery plan were significantly more negative when the market conditions

were unfavorable than when the market conditions were favorable (F(1,53)=10.78, p<.01; MFavorable=5.67

vs. MUnfavorable=3.97). The results of the three-way interaction, broken down into two panels (promotion

versus prevention) to facilitate interpretation, are presented in Figure 4.

        These findings provide further support for our hypothesis that the future fosters broader

processing. A promotion and a prevention goal determines how cues are integrated in order to make

a judgment about the future. The evidence presented in Study 4 demonstrates that promotion-

oriented individuals have a positivity bias when making a judgment about an event set in the future.

As long as something positive can be interpreted from a situation, promotion-minded people have a

tendency to judge favorably. They evaluate negatively only when both dispositional and situational

cues are negative and nothing can be construed as positive. A prevention focus fosters a negativity

bias when making a judgment about an event set in the future. As long as something negative can be



                                                                                                          22
interpreted, prevention-minded people have a tendency to judge unfavorably. They evaluate

positively only when both dispositional and situational cues are positive and nothing can be

construed as negative.

        Not only do the results of Study 4 support our hypothesis about the processing breadth a

future perspective fosters, they also corroborate the validity of the assumptions made in Study 1.

The results of Study 4 indicate that promotion-minded respondents have an attentional bias for

positive, goal-facilitating information, while prevention-focused people have a bias for negative,

goal-thwarting information.

                                     GENERAL DISCUSSION

        While a number of studies implicate temporal perspective as a factor that affects individuals’

memory, judgments and behavior, surprisingly little research has systematically examined the

processes underlying these effects. Yet understanding the impact of temporal perspective is

important because temporal shifts are linguistically marked in almost every language of the world.

While a shift in tense seems subtle, it reflects the human sensitivity to the temporal status of events

(Binnick, 1991). The present research advances understanding by demonstrating that temporal

perspective determines the scope of information that individuals consider when making judgments

of a new product. Specifically, we find substantial evidence to support our central hypothesis that a

past perspective focuses attention narrowly and on dispositional information, whereas a future

perspective expands the focus of attention to include situational as well as dispositional information.

        Findings in the causal attribution literature suggest that this result is compatible with a more

general pattern that reflects individuals’ tendency to focus on dispositional information as a default.

For instance, people tend to overattribute the dispositional forces as responsible for an outcome

even in the face of compelling situational forces. Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977) show that



                                                                                                      23
basketball players randomly assigned to shoot free throws in a dimly lit gymnasium are judged to be

less capable than basketball players randomly assigned to shoot free throws in a well lit court, even

though a situational inference is the most appropriate explanation. This example of this well-

documented phenomenon, known as the fundamental attribution error, is couched in terms of the

past, as are many of the classic demonstrations (Jones & Harris, 1967; Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull,

1988). This bias is attenuated, however, when greater cognitive resources promote the consideration

of a greater breadth of circumstances (Gilbert & Malone, 1995), much as a future context has been

shown to foster in the current research.

        Our research also suggests that the future involves more systematic processing, while the

past may be characterized as more heuristic. One implication of such a characterization may be that

a future context is more resource demanding.

        More generally, this view of how temporal perspective affects the scope of processing is

consistent with the notion of an adaptive organism. We suggest that this asymmetry in past and future

processing may be construed as a functional mechanism for adaptive organisms. For the organism, the

past implies survival up to the present point in time; the future, however, demands trepidation in

progress, and survival is no foregone conclusion. While the past may be understood by examining the

enduring dispositional traits that are stable across contexts, the organism is possibly best served by

surveying the future more carefully, weighing situational as well as dispositional information. It is

adaptive to explain the past and doing so in terms of dispositional characteristics affords a sense of

predictability and control regarding future events. Attributing a past event to circumstantial forces,

however, yields little leverage over the future, in which situational factors are thought to be dynamic and

unknowable. Because taking future action is fraught with uncertainty and calls for more balanced

evaluative processing, a broad-based assessment of the situation is appropriate for survival.




                                                                                                         24
        Our findings also suggest that individuals are strategic in using the broader set of cues

considered when they adopt a future perspective. In particular, the findings of Study 4 imply that

individuals initially search broadly for information that is consistent with their regulatory goal focus and

only incorporate goal-inconsistent information in their judgments when goal-consistent information is

absent. This observation is an important extension of the literature on regulatory focus because it not

only validates the assumed link between regulatory focus and the valence of information attended, it

also specifies conditions under which goal-inconsistent information will be considered.

        In addition, the current research contributes to the regulatory goal focus literature by

demonstrating that regulatory goal focus can be induced by describing a company’s goals in terms of

approaching a positive outcome or avoiding a negative outcome. This type of manipulation, as seen in

Study 1, departs from the conventional way of varying goal focus, but the findings converge with those

in Study 4, in which a more conventional strategy of manipulating the processor’s self-regulatory

strategy is employed. This point may be of practical interest to the firm that wishes to manage its

corporate communications with the public. How company information is disseminated could have

consequences for consumers’ opinions (as well as investor’s evaluations) based on whether a company

move is presented in terms of a goal to approach a positive result or to avoid a negative outcome. Study

1 and Study 4 show that such information can determine what cues are used when message recipients

construct inferences.

        Our work on temporal perspective has implications for the classic problem of attitude-behavior

inconsistency as it applies to marketing research on new products. The inability of researchers to use

purchase intention ratings to reliably predict behavior may be a matter of temporal perspective because

attitudes are typically measured prospectively (reactions to an event that will occur in the future), while

behavior is a retrospective response after a product launch. Consequently, this research may be able to

provide some practical prescriptive guidelines relevant to a managerial setting. The future context may



                                                                                                         25
be particularly prominent when research participants are asked to evaluate products that represent new

ways of achieving consumer goals. Implicit in such a setting is a forward-looking perspective, even if

people are not literally told that the launch is a future event. This research suggests that this prospective

context expands consumers’ notions of alternative ways to achieve the same goal, perhaps encouraging

comparisons to other products that are already familiar. If invoking such comparisons is not in the

interest of the company launching a new product, or if doing so hinders a more objective measurement

of the product’s actual usefulness, a firm undertaking marketing research might try to gauge consumer

reaction by employing different temporal contexts as a way to test out the potential for bias.

Future Research

        In considering potential areas to extend the current work, we are guided by the research

imperative of our own findings to engage in a broad search when pondering the future. Here, we

identify at least three areas of promise and outline some preliminary hypotheses and implications.

First, future study that examines whether individuals spontaneously adopt a particular perspective,

either because of situational factors or as a matter of individual differences, may prove to be an

interesting and promising line of research. Certain activities, roles or cultural profiles might naturally

trigger a certain temporal perspective. For some cultures, for example, honoring the past and

showing respect for forebears are central underpinnings of daily life. Among other groups, however,

breaking with tradition, innovation and a pioneering spirit are considered venerable traits.

        We also suggest that certain occupational types might typically rely on evaluative processes

that contextually prime a past or future perspective. For instance, investment analysts, who are

trained to think about a company’s future potential, competition, and market environment, while

anticipating dynamic customer needs, may have a tendency to base their inferences on situational

and dispositional cues since their concern centers on whether investment will bring future returns.

On the other hand, investors may also be inclined to look at the past. Many mutual funds include



                                                                                                          26
references to their historic yields in their promotional literature to prospective clients (although they

offer the disclaimer that past performance is not indicative of future returns).

        Secondly, the current research explores the qualitative differences in processing past and future,

but it does not demarcate the near past relative to the distant past or the near future relative to the

distant future. A natural extension of this work would be to explore how past and future effects link to

the literature on temporal distance; that is how close or far away in time an event is. Liberman and

Trope (1998) report that a near-future perspective elicits representations in concrete, specific terms (e.g.

running subjects, coding data), whereas a distant-future perspective elicits representations in abstract,

schematic concepts (e.g. conducting research, furthering science). While our conceptualization of the

broad future neither contradicts nor corroborates temporal construal theory, we would predict

consideration of future goals might become broader in the distant future. This broadened sense of the

future converges with the notion of greater levels of abstraction. Because there may be many ways to

reach a goal in the distant future, representing the goal as an abstract concept is appropriate. A near-

future goal, however, seems to fit with greater specificity and less abstraction.

        Although there is little work on the near and distant past, we might extend our theorizing to

suggest that perhaps the consideration of past outcomes might narrow attention the farther in the past

an event seems. This would be consistent with literature that shows a dispositional shift in attribution

the further in time an actor gets from an event (Moore, Sherrod, Liu, & Underwood, 1979; Peterson,

1980; Frank & Gilovich, 1989). For instance, participants in getting-acquainted scenarios attributed

friendliness, talkativeness, and other behaviors more dispositionally as more time elapsed. How

representations change with the passage of time, how individuals mark time, and how goals are

specified can provide insights about purchase motivations of consumers’ deeper goals.

        Finally, in the consumer literature, temporal perspective would seem to play a role in

counterfactual thinking and buyer remorse, which entails adopting a past perspective, and the



                                                                                                            27
notions of anticipated satisfaction or anticipated regret, which invoke a future focus. Counterfactual

thinking evokes regret when a mentally simulated action could have averted a factual, usually

disappointing, outcome. Norm theory proposes that counterfactual thoughts are more likely to be

generated around the focal actor because the critical action causing the negative outcome is usually

ascribed to the key agent (Kahneman & Miller, 1986). This fits with the current research, which

suggests that the past perspective of counterfactual thinking may lead to a narrow focus when

constructing alternative scenarios, resulting in dispositional attributions of the actual outcome.

        By contrast, anticipated satisfaction or anticipated regret, which are also believed to affect

consumer choice decisions (Simonson, 1992; Cooke, Meyvis, & Schwartz, 2001), invoke a future

perspective. When anticipating, consumers consider a broad range of possibilities and focus on

situational factors that could lead to satisfaction or regret. The findings from Study 4 suggest specific

predictions regarding whether the consumer’s goal is to achieve satisfaction, a positive outcome, or

to avoid regret, a negative outcome.

        Therefore, understanding temporal context may be valuable if a company interested in

inducing consumer trial of a brand extension is successful in attributing consumer satisfaction to a

tried-and-true brand. Invoking the narrow past increases the likelihood that a consumer will attribute

prior positive experiences to the brand. If the launching brand is not particularly strong or well-

known, a past reference may be unlikely to boost the evaluation of a new product extension. The

notion of anticipated satisfaction or anticipated regret may be more powerful because it invites the

consumer to envision future usage, which draws attention broadly, and to consider all of the

alternative ways a consumer’s needs may be met – not just one. Managerially, this may be most

persuasive when a small-share brand wishes to convey a message that diminishes the importance of

its larger competitors, encouraging an inference that situational variability may ultimately determine

purchase satisfaction.



                                                                                                         28
                                            REFERENCES

Aaker, J.L. & Lee, A.Y. (2001). I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: the role of self regulatory goals
        in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June) 33-49.

Ajzen, I., & Sexton, J. (1999). Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior
        correspondence. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp.
        117-138). New York: The Guilford Press.

Bavelas, J.B. (1973). Effects of the temporal context of information. Psychological Reports, 32, 695-698.

Binnick, R.I. (1991). Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University
       Press.

Cooke, A.D.J., Meyvis, T., & Schwartz, A. (2001). Avoiding future regret in purchase-timing
       decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 447-459.

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ¹ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under
       uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.

Frank, M. & Gilovich T. (1989). Effect of memory perspective on retrospective causal attributions.
       Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 399-403.

Gilbert, D.T., & Malone, P.S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychology Bulletin, 117, 21-38.

Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, P.S. (1988). Of thoughts unspoken: Social inference and the
        self-regulation of behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 685-694.


Gilovich, T. & Medvec. V.H. (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret. Journal of
       Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 357-365.

Hawkins, S.A. & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes
      are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.

Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Johnson, M.K. & Sherman, S.J. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing the past and the future in
       the present. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
       Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 482-526). New York: Guilford Press.

Jones, E.E. & Harris, V.A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
        3, 1-24.

Karniol, R. & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the
       future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 593-620.




                                                                                                           29
Kuhl, J. (1986). Motivation and information processing: A new look at decision making, dynamic
        change, and action control. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
        and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 404-434). New York: Guilford Press.

Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L., & Gardner, W.L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals:
       the role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6),
       1122-1134.

Liberman, N., Idson, L.C., Camacho, C.J., & Higgins, E.T. (1999). Promotion and prevention
      choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality Social Psychology. 77, 1135-1145.

Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (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, 5-18.

Moore, B.S., Sherrod, D.R., Liu, T.J., & Underwood, W. (1979). The dispositional shift in attribution
       over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 553-569.

Morris, M.W., Sim, D.L.H., & Girotto, V. (1998). Distinguishing sources of cooperation in the one-
        round prisoner's dilemma: Evidence for cooperative decisions based on the illusion of
        control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 494-512.

Simonson, I. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions.
      Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June) 105-118.

Slovic, P. & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental
        Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 544-551.

Strickland, L.H., Lewicki, R.J., & Katz, A.M. (1966). Temporal orientation and perceived control as
        determinants of risk-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 143-51.

Tawney, R.H. The agrarian problem in the sixteenth century. New York: Franklin, 1961.

Weick, K. (1979). Selection as retrospective sense-making. The Social Psychology of Organizing.




                                                                                                         30
                                        FIGURE 1

                               PLOT OF MEANS OF STUDY 1


                             Evaluation of Coca-Cola Ketchup

                         3
        EVALUATION




                     2.5
                                                                Promotion
                                                                Prevention
                         2




                     1.5
                              Past              Future




                                        FIGURE 2

                               PLOT OF MEANS OF STUDY 2


                             Mean Number of Types of Thoughts

                     4

              3.5
MEAN NUMBER




                     3
                                                                Dispositional
              2.5
                                                                Situational
                     2

              1.5

                     1
                             Past               Future




                                                                                31
                                 FIGURE 3

                      PLOT OF MEANS OF STUDY 3


                                   Past


              5


             4.5
EVALUATION




                                                              Polish
              4
                                                              Swiss

             3.5


              3
                   Easy Market             Difficult Market




                                  Future


              5


             4.5
EVALUATION




                                                              Polish
              4
                                                              Swiss

             3.5


              3
                   Easy Market             Difficult Market




                                                                       32
                                 FIGURE 4

                      PLOT OF MEANS OF STUDY 4


                                 Promotion

              6

             5.5
              5
EVALUATION




             4.5                                           Russian
              4                                            Swiss

             3.5
              3

             2.5
                   Easy Market          Difficult Market




                                 Prevention

              6

             5.5
              5
EVALUATION




             4.5                                           Russian
              4                                            Swiss

             3.5
              3

             2.5
                   Easy Market          Difficult Market




                                                                     33
                                             Appendix A



Friday, May 5, 12:20 pm Eastern Time

Company Press Release


Coca-Colaä Announces Advertising Blitz
for Coca-Cola Classic Ketchupä

Print ads feature promotions at
Jewel-Osco, Dominick’s, retail outlets


     ATLANTA, Georgia--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 5, 2000--Coca-Cola
Classic Ketchupä, which joined the Coca-Cola family of products
last month, is the centerpiece of a new $2 million advertising
strategy.
     The product, which was launched April 18 to coincide with
the Easter holiday, has been available in Jewel-Osco and
Dominick’s stores in Chicago and throughout the northeast
Illinois region, including McHenry, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Cook,
and Kendall Counties.
     “Since national brands Heinz and Hunt’s are falling behind
in this rapidly growing product category, we believe Coca-Cola
Classic Ketchupä represents a wide-ranging opportunity for the
company” said Julien Grant, the Coca-Cola marketing director of
new products. “The company is undertaking this offensive
strategy as a way to attack competition and expand brand
presence.”

                                                 ---

Information about Coca-Cola Classic Ketchupä and other Coca-
Colaä products can be found on the Web at www.cocacola.com.


Contact:
Coca-Cola Products
Coca-Cola Inc.
Elizabeth Wildnauer, 770/577-4411
elizabeth_wildnauer@cocacola.com



(For participants in the future perspective condition, all of the verb tenses were presented in the
future tense and the dates were adjusted to reflect a day in the future.)



                                                                                                      34
                                           Appendix B


Monday, April 23, 12:20 pm Eastern Time

News Release

Government of Poland
Has Opened 1,000 Breweries

     WARSAW, Poland--(REUTERS)—April 24, 2001--Sitting down to
an icy cold Polish-style draft, Stanislaw Garbinski, explains
how a real Carpathian beer should taste.
     “See the dark, rich color?” says Poland’s deputy minister
of commerce, swirling the chestnut-hued liquid in his glass
showing off the beer’s briny head of foam. “It’s supposed to be
heavy. Very heavy. But in America, they make it mild. Maybe they
like it that way, but it’s not like a good, hearty Polish brew.”
     In an effort to “enlighten” the American beer-swilling
masses, the Polish government has embarked on one of the world’s
most unusual business ventures. It has launched 100 Polish-style
breweries in the last 6 months.
     Cash-strapped Warsaw, known for several unsuccessful forays
into capitalism, has been hoping to tap into America’s thirst
for imported beers.
     Analysts say Americans have become eclectic in how they
slake their thirst. In the last 2 years, the consumption of
foreign labels in the US market has doubled. A nearly
unquenchable demand for international brews, as well as
weakening domestic players, Miller and Anheuser-Busch, has made
US entry appealing.
     Garbinski is confident in this recent venture. “The Polish-
style beer has impressed Americans.” The first brewery opened in
October.

                                               ---


For more information, contact:

PBE Industries
Nicolas Mashek, 212/577-4411
nmashek@pbe.com



(For participants in the future-perspective condition, all of the verb tenses were presented in the
future tense and the brewery launches were described as a future event. All Polish references would
be made Swiss in the strong-disposition condition, and the market would be described in
unfavorable terms for the unfavorable-situation condition.)



                                                                                                 35
                                          Appendix C


Thursday, March 1, 12:20 pm Eastern Time

News Release

Government of Switzerland Plans
To Open 1,000 Breweries

     ZURICH, Switzerland--(REUTERS)—March 1, 2001--Sitting down
to an icy cold Swiss-style draft, Urs Schlegel explains how a
real Helvetican beer should taste.
     “See the dark, rich color?” says Switzerland’s deputy
minister of commerce, swirling the chestnut-hued liquid in his
glass showing off the beer’s briny head of foam. “It’s supposed
to be heavy. Very heavy. But in America, they make it mild.
Maybe they like it that way, but it’s not like a good, hearty
Swiss brew.”
     In an effort to “enlighten” the American beer-swilling
masses, the Swiss government is embarking on one of the world’s
most unusual business ventures. It plans to launch 1,000 Swiss-
style breweries over the next 5 years.
     Entrepreneurial Zurich, which has recently launched several
successful government-sponsored enterprises, is hoping to
inspire Americans’ thirst for imported beers.
     Analysts wonder how much beer Americans need to slake their
thirst. In the last 5 years, the swollen ranks of foreign labels
in the US market have thinned, as many imports have been forced
to retreat. Unexpectedly low demand for international brews, as
well as dominance by domestic players, Miller and Anheuser-
Busch, makes US entry a difficult proposition.
     Still, Schlegel is confident the Swiss government will be
successful. “The Swiss-style beer will impress Americans.” He
notes that American expatriates working in the Zurich office
strongly favor the taste and body of the Swiss beer over other
brands.


                                              ---


For more information, contact:

SBE Industries
Sylvia Pfau, 212/577-4411
spfau@sbe.com

(All Swiss references were made Russian in the weak-disposition condition, and the market would
be described in favorable terms for the favorable-situation condition.)




                                                                                                  36

								
To top