News Finding: Meanwhile, the effect was attenuated when the new product was difficult to visualize (when they were non-runners unfamiliar with heart rate monitors, when the vacation destination was very unfamiliar, or when the less visualizable features of Google Glass were emphasized).
Paper Finding: When participants were asked to relate the product to the past, concrete visualization aids led to marginally higher product evaluations (M concrete p 5.77 vs. M abstract p 4.91; F(1, 107) p 3.14, p p .07).
News Context: However, this effect was strongest when it was easier for consumers to visualize using a new product (when they were regular runners familiar with heart rate monitors, when they knew something about a vacation destination, or when the more visualizable features of Google Glass were emphasized). Meanwhile, the effect was attenuated when the new product was difficult to visualize (when they were non-runners unfamiliar with heart rate monitors, when the vacation destination was very unfamiliar, or when the less visualizable features of Google Glass were emphasized). When a product was highly familiar to consumers (not a new product), the effect was reversed because prior images of using the product interfered with their visualization.
Paper Context: Follow-up contrasts showed that when participants were asked to relate the product to the future, abstract visualization aids led to marginally higher product evaluations than concrete visualization aids (M abstract p 5.87 vs. M concrete p 5.04; F(1, 107) p 2.98, p p .08). When participants were asked to relate the product to the past, concrete visualization aids led to marginally higher product evaluations (M concrete p 5.77 vs. M abstract p 4.91; F(1, 107) p 3.14, p p .07). When the new product was positioned as relatively hard to visualize (i.e., emphasizing the weather, map, and e-mail functions), we found no interaction between time and visualization aids (F(1, 108) zation aids, and ease of visualization on product evaluations (95% CI: .1350 to 1.5681, change of three-way interaction in significance after controlling for the mediator: b p 1.45, t(214) p 1.49, p p .14 vs. b p 2.17, t(215) p 2.14, p !