Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 1 Running head: ADVERTISING CLAIMS AND REGULATORY FIT How Advertising Claims Affect Brand Preferences and Category-Brand Associations: The Role of Regulatory Fit

Two experiments examined whether self-regulatory goals addressed in advertising claims influence product preferences and category-brand associations. Experiment 1 provided evidence for the hypothesis that the fit between an advertising claim and consumers’ regulatory focus has an impact on product preferences. Participants were more likely to prefer products presented in an advertisement with a claim compatible with the experimentally induced focus. Experiment 2 demonstrated that regulatory focus also has an impact on category-brand associations. Category-brand associations were stronger when the claim of a target brand was compatible with the regulatory focus at the time category-brand associations were measured. Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 3 How Advertising Claims Affect Brand Preferences and Category-Brand Associations: The Role of Regulatory Fit Consumers make different decisions, depending on their specific wishes and needs. For one consumer, a product has to be very reliable, while for another consumer, it has to be well designed. Recent research has demonstrated that such decision criteria are affected by basic orientations and motivations related to hedonic goals of avoiding an undesired state and approaching a desired state. A very sophisticated framework for studying the impact of these basic motivations was provided by Higgins (1997). His regulatory focus theory posits two different selfregulatory strategies: the regulation of behavior according to ideals, hopes, and aspirations, termed promotion focus, and the regulation of behavior according to responsibilities, duties, and security, termed prevention focus. Promotion focus emphasizes the pursuit of positive outcomes; prevention focus is related to the avoidance of negative outcomes. A basic prediction of regulatory focus theory is that individuals are more concerned with information that is relevant for the activated regulatory focus and that they weigh attributes compatible with this focus more carefully (cf. Higgins, 2002). Chernev (2004) examined the implications of this hypothesis for consumer choice. He assumed that people prefer products when the attributes of the products are superior on a dimension that is relevant to their regulatory focus. In three experiments, he found that prevention-focused participants gave more weight to utilitarian and reliability-related attributes, whereas promotion-focused participants were more likely to consider hedonic, performance-related, and attractive attributes. Also, participants chose options that were superior on the dimensions of higher relevance to their regulatory goals. Chernev argued that performance-related Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 4 attributes are more relevant for people in a promotion focus because these features can be seen as a means for reaching the regulatory goal of maximizing positive outcomes. Similarly, hedonic and attractive features are directly related to positive outcomes of a choice. Chernev applied a similar logic to the relationship between a prevention focus and reliability and utilitarian features, which serve the prevention goal of safety and security. The assumption that the compatibility of attributes to current regulatory goals has an impact on consumer behavior was also supported in a study by Paulssen and Bagozzi (2005). They found that self-regulatory goals determined which brands consumers considered as relevant choice options. Other research has shown that the impact of regulatory focus is not limited to attributes of choice options, but is also effective in advertising campaigns (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Evans & Petty, 2003; Florack, Scarabis, & Gosejohann, 2005; Pham & Avnet, 2004). Cesario et al. (2004) reported evidence that advertisements which stress means that are compatible with the regulatory focus of the recipients are more effective. In detail, they found that promotion-focused participants were more likely than prevention-focused participants to be persuaded by a message that stressed eager means to reach a goal. By contrast, a message that entailed the use of vigilant means was more effective when participants were in a prevention focus than when they were in a promotion focus. Since eager means are compatible with a promotion focus and vigilant means are compatible with a prevention focus, it seems reasonable that fit between the content of a message and the regulatory focus of recipients enhances the persuasive impact of a message. Furthermore, research by Evans and Petty (2003) has shown that people are more likely to elaborate message content that is compatible with the activated regulatory focus. Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 5 A key element of advertising is the claims used in print or TV ads. Even if advertising claims are irrelevant according to the regulatory focus, the content of advertising claims may be directly related to a promotion or prevention focus. Until now, studies that applied regulatory focus theory to advertising have been concerned with specific information about product attributes (e.g., Chernev, 2004) or with rather complex advertising messages that differed in regulatory focus (e.g., Evans & Petty, 2003; Lee & Aaker, 2004). The present studies examined the effects of the regulatory focus of advertising claims without presenting additional information about the products. It was assumed that the fit between consumers’ regulatory focus and the focus that is addressed in advertising claims has an impact on product preferences and on the strength of the memory connection between the product category and the advertised brand. These assumptions about the impact of regulatory fit on product preferences are in line with previous approaches (Cesario et al., 2004; Chernev, 2004; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000) and should complement these studies. There is evidence that advertising appeals congruent with goals or self-concept are more effective than those that are incongruent (Bettman & Sujan, 1987; Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Snyder & DeBono, 1985). Snyder and DeBono (1985, Study 3), for example, reported that participants were more likely to prefer a product when it possessed attributes that corresponded to the participants’ level of self-monitoring. In a survey, they asked people which of two shampoos they would prefer. One product was described as better at how it made the hair look, and the other as better at cleaning the hair. In line with the assumption that image aspects are more relevant for high self-monitoring individuals, whereas product utility is more relevant for low self-monitoring individuals, participants high in self-monitoring preferred the product that was Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 6 described as better at how it made the hair look, whereas participants low in selfmonitoring preferred the shampoo with the cleaning ability. Bettman and Sujan (1987) also showed such congruency effects by applying a priming procedure that is conceptually similar to the activation of a regulatory focus. They primed either a reliability orientation or a creativity orientation and asked participants to evaluate two products and to choose one. As expected, participants were more likely to prefer the product that was superior on the primed orientation. However, brand preference is only one important component that has an impact on brand purchase. Especially in memory-based choice contexts, where brands are not displayed (e.g., in a pharmacy where you have to ask at the counter for a specific brand of sun lotion), it is important that consumers recall a brand from memory. Prior studies have shown considerable effects on choice from the alteration of memory structures and accessibility (Nedungadi, 1990). When product alternatives are present in the context of the consumer decision, the likelihood that a brand is present in the consideration set and eventually chosen depends on the association of the brand with the product category (Posavac, Sanbonmatsu, & Fazio, 1997; Posavac, Sanbonmatsu, Cronley, & Kardes, 2001). Posavac et al. (2001), for instance, demonstrated this effect of category-brand associations. They had participants rehearse certain category-brand associations to manipulate the strength of the link between a product category and a number of brands. They found that in a memory-based choice, brands were much more likely to be considered and chosen when the category-brand associations were strengthened. It was assumed that the regulatory focus of consumers not only determines the relevance of specific product attributes, but also has an impact on the strength of brand-category associations in a specific context. It was proposed that consumers Advertising Claims and Regulatory Fit 7 are more likely to associate brands with a product category if the brand image is compatible with their regulatory focus. For example, for someone who would like to buy a sun lotion with the goal of avoiding a sunburn (prevention focus), sun lotion brands that are related to this focus should be associated more strongly with the category than sun lotion brands not related to this focus. However, it is important to note that it was also supposed that even if this influence is based on chronic differences between people, it should vary with the situation, as well. Thus, a person who has a prevention focus in one context might have a promotion focus in another context. For the sun lotion example, this means that the prevention focus of people in one context may change to a promotion focus in other contexts, and it can be assumed that the category-brand associations would also be altered: brands with a promotion-focused advertising strategy should now have an advantage. Context of the Present Studies Two experiments tested the assumptions about the impact of the regulatory focus of participants on brand choice and category-brand associations. Both experiments were concerned with products from the category o