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
research investigated the impact of brand experience on
consumers’ psychological distance toward a brand and
their construal levels. In addition, the effects of consumers’
brand experience on advertising appeals (cognitive and
emotional appeals) in influencing the effects of advertising
were explored. Study 1 demonstrates that strong brand
experience leads consumers to reduce their psychological
distance toward the brand and to lower their construal
level. In contrast, weak brand experience is associated with
consumers’ distant psychological distance and high-level
construals. Study 2 extended the results of Study 1 by
applying the findings to the context of advertising.
Specifically, the results of Study 2 showed that the emo-
tional appeal advertisements were more persuasive for
individuals with strong brand experience compared to that
of individuals with weak brand experience.
Keywords Brand experience  Construal level theory 
Psychological distance  Advertising appeals
& Dong Hoo Kim
dh_kim@unc.edu
Doori Song
dsong@ysu.edu
1
The School of Media and Journalism, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 226 Carroll Hall,
Campus Box 3365, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
2 few attempts have been made to investigate how brand
Department of Marketing, Williamson College of Business
Administration, One University Plaza, Youngstown,
OH 44555, USA
Introduction
Due to the increasing importance of the brand–consumer
relationship, concepts such as brand attachment (Malär
et al. 2011), brand familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003),
and brand personality (Aaker 1997) have attracted
researchers’ attention. In particular, understanding the
brand–consumer relationship has become more critical
because today’s consumers make purchase decisions based
not only on a product’s functional features, but also on
their relationship with the brand itself (Grau and Folse
2007). In addition, the dramatically changing marketing
communications environment provides marketers with
numerous options to build and manage their brands (Keller
2009). Through a variety of both traditional and new digital
media, brands today can better understand consumers’
needs and respond to them more fluently, thereby gener-
ating a positive consumer–brand relationship (e.g., brand
loyalty) and increasing the profitability of the brands
(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
have explored how to measure brand experience and
evaluate the degree and quality of influence that brand
experience has on consumer perceptions and behaviors
(e.g., Brakus et al. 2009; Chang and Chieng 2006; Ha and
Perks 2005). For example, Chang and Chieng (2006) sug-
gested that brand experience has a positive impact on a
brand’s associative network and brand attitude. However,
experience can influence consumers to conceptualize
brands and predict brand activities. Depending on how
256
consumers conceptualize brands, their expectations
regarding brands can be differentiated. Thus, exploring the
impact of brand experience on consumers’ brand construals
can offer an opportunity to better understand consumer
behavior.
Construal level theory (CLT) suggests that psychologi-
cal distance, defined as ‘‘the extent of deviation from direct
experience in time, space, social distance, or a hypothetical
state’’ (Förster 2009, p. 444), is a major determinant as to
whether individuals conceptualize an event or object in an
abstract, general, and superordinate way or in a concrete,
specific, and subordinate way (Liberman and Förster 2009;
Trope and Liberman 2010). According to CLT, events with
greater psychological distance tend to be represented by
high-level construal terms that emphasize the primary and
global features of the event rather than by low-level con-
strual terms that focus on secondary and local features
(Förster 2009). Given that psychological distance is closely
associated with an individual’s experience of an event or
object, it can be postulated that brand experience plays a
role similar to that of psychological distance when con-
sumers construe a brand or information related to a brand.
For example, consumers with less brand experience may
perceive a brand in high-level construal terms, whereas
consumers with more brand experience may conceptualize
the same brand in low-level construal terms. Furthermore,
when individuals are exposed to advertising messages,
matching brand experience and their construal levels may
increase the processing fluency of the advertising
messages.
This research seeks to extend brand experience literature
to include CLT by exploring how brand experience influ-
ences individuals’ construal processes and the psycholog-
ical distance between consumers and brands. Specifically,
the study’s overarching hypothesis is that strong brand
experience is associated with low-level construal terms and
reduces consumers’ psychological distance and, con-
versely, weak brand experience is associated with high-
level construal terms and increases consumers’ psycho-
logical distance. Given that consumers’ brand perceptions
play a critical role in predicting their behaviors (He and
Mukherjee 2007; Heath and Scott 1998), exploring the
associations among brand experience, consumers’ brand
construal levels, and psychological distance can provide
important theoretical and practical implications for brand
managers and scholars. In addition, previous research
indicates that construal level can moderate the efficacy of
different advertising appeals (Kim et al. 2018; Septianto
and Pratiwi 2016). If brand experience can impact a con-
sumer’s construal level, then advertisement appeals that
align closely with a consumer’s particular construal level
(e.g., emotional appeal to low-level construals or cognitive
D. H. Kim, D. Song
appeal to high-level construals) can increase the effec-
tiveness of brand communications.
Theoretical background
Construal level theory (CLT)
CLT is one of the leading social psychology theories that
addresses how individuals make decisions based on the
psychological distance he/she has toward an object or event
(Trope and Liberman 2003, 2010). According to CLT, as
the psychological distance from an event increases, indi-
viduals tend to use higher levels of construals to represent
the event (Trope and Liberman 2003). High-level con-
struals are composed of several superordinate central fea-
tures of an event that tend to be more stable and
unchangeable compared with low-level construals (Trope
and Liberman 2010; Trope et al. 2007). Therefore, the
stability associated with high-level construals would be
more appropriate for conceptualizing a psychologically
distant event than a psychologically close event. According
to Liberman et al. (2002), in construing a more psycho-
logically distant event, individuals are more likely to use
general descriptions and traits than situation-specific
details. Consequently, a psychologically distant event is
represented in terms of abstract, primary, and general
features that center on desirability concerns, which involve
the values of the object’s end state (i.e., high-level con-
struals), whereas a psychologically proximal object is
conceptualized as concrete, secondary, and incidental fea-
tures that center on feasibility concerns, which are the
means to achieve the value of the end state (i.e., low-level
construals) (Kim, Zhang, and Li 2008). For example, the
higher-level goal (desirability concern) to purchase a radio
set can be concerned with superior sound quality for lis-
tening to radio programs. By contrast, the lower-level goal
(feasibility concern) can be concerned with goal-irrelevant
features, such as the design of the device or quality of its
built-in clock. Trope and Liberman (2000) demonstrated
that when an individual is asked to purchase a radio set a
year from now (i.e., a psychologically distant event), he or
she pays more attention to the high-level construal aspects
of the decision (e.g., the quality of the radio’s sound) than
to its low-level aspects (e.g., the quality of its built-in
clock). The reverse is true for a decision made in the
proximal future (e.g., purchasing a radio tomorrow).
Psychological distance is the subjective distance
between a perceiver and a target object in the perceiver’s
psychological space, and it is composed of four distance
dimensions: temporal, spatial, social, and probable
(Liberman et al. 2002). These different distance dimen-
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…
2007a). Since the direct and immediate experience of an
object can increase the amount of accurate and reliable
knowledge of it, individuals who have more opportunities
to experience an object tend to form more concrete, low-
level construals of the object than abstract, high-level
construals (Bar-Anan et al. 2006). In contrast, when indi-
viduals are more remote from the direct experience of an
object, the lack of information leads them to rely more on
its abstract and general features (Liberman et al. 2007a).
For instance, in assessing individuals’ perceptual process-
ing, Liberman and Förster (2009) demonstrated that when
individuals were in the psychologically distant condition,
they were more concerned with the global (the gestalt) than
the local (the details) of a stimulus.
The relationship between construal level and psycho-
logical distance is not unidirectional, but bidirectional
(Trope and Liberman 2010). That is, activating high-level
construals leads an individual to perceive an event or object
in the more distant future, in a more distant location, or as
an improbable situation. Liberman et al. (2007b) demon-
strated that thinking about an event in high-level rather
than low-level construal terms leads individuals to predict
that the event will occur in the more distant future. Simi-
larly, individuals with a high-level construal mindset
believe that events are less likely to occur compared to
those with low-level construal mindsets (Wakslak and
Trope 2009).
Brand experience
Consumers evaluate brands on the basis of the brands’ end
benefits (i.e., higher construal) or their concrete and
specific features (i.e., lower construal). As experiential
aspects of the brands become an important factor in con-
sumers’ purchase decision making (Chattopadhyay and
Laborie 2005), marketers have found it beneficial to focus
on consumers’ subjective experiences. In turn, the concept
of brand experience has attracted attention in marketing
practice as well as in academia (Brakus et al. 2009). Brand
management researchers also confirm that brand experi-
ence operates as an antecedent of brand attitude (Zaran-
tonello and Schmitt 2010), purchase intention (Schmalz
and Orth 2012), brand trust (Ha and Perks 2005), the
consumer–brand relationship (Chang and Chieng 2006),
brand loyalty (Van Der Westhuizen 2018), and brand
equity (Cleff et al. 2014). Brand experience is not simply
the outcome of utilitarian product attributes; it stems also
from a consumer’s subjective and internal responses (Alba
and Hutchinson 1987; Schmitt 1999). Specifically, Brakus
et al. (2009) conceptualized brand experience as sensa-
tions, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses
evoked by such stimuli as brand design, packaging, and
communication. For instance, a consumer who has been
257
through the process of brand selection (e.g., searching
information and brand usage) could be considered to have
brand experience. Also, consumers experience brands not
only by searching, purchasing, and consuming products
and services, but also when they are exposed to various
brand-related stimuli, such as advertising, packaging, and
websites (Brakus et al. 2009). More recently, Cleff et al.
(2018) demonstrated that the online presence of brands can
increase consumers’ online brand experience, which is
positively related to brand loyalty. Therefore, brand expe-
rience is the by-product of a consumer’s perception based
on each contact made with a brand. Brakus et al. (2009)
developed a scale based on five dimensions of brand
experience: sensory, affective, intellectual, behavioral, and
social. Depending on how many of these dimensions are
evoked and the intensity of the stimulation, the resulting
brand experience can be more or less intense (Zarantonello
and Schmitt 2010). This study approaches the brand
experience with a holistic view rather than with an
understanding of the construct through a dichotomized
perspective, such as direct and indirect brand experience
(Hamilton and Thompson 2007; Hoch and Ha 1986).
Supporting this study’s approach to brand experience,
Brakus et al. (2009) noted that brand experiences vary in
strength and intensity, and some brand experiences, rather
than being direct or indirect, are more intense than others.
One of the most relevant brand constructs of brand
experience is brand familiarity (Ha and Perks 2005). Brand
familiarity is derived from the number of brand experi-
ences a consumer has had (Alba and Hutchinson 1987).
The terms ‘‘brand experience’’ and ‘‘brand familiarity’’ are
sometimes used interchangeably (Ha and Perks 2005);
however, the two constructs are conceptually distinct.
Brand experience requires more elaborative internal
rehearsal and promotes better brand-related memory (Ha
and Perks 2005) compared to brand familiarity, which is
directly related to the amount of time spent on brand
information processing (Brakus et al. 2009). Supporting
this argument, Van Dear Westhuizen (2018) demonstrated
a role of brand experience as a mediator between self-brand
connection and brand loyalty.
Once consumers acquire a strong brand experience, they
will have more intensive knowledge and information about
the brand (Park and Stoel 2005). According to CLT, the
availability of information about an object is important for
a person to judge and evaluate the object. Since both direct
and immediate experiences of the object can increase a
consumer’s degree of knowledge and render it more reli-
able and accurate, then the more an individual directly
experiences an object, the more he/she tends to form
concrete, low-level construals (Bar-Anan et al. 2006).
Therefore, consumers who have more experience with a
certain brand may construe it in more concrete and detailed
258
ways than consumers with less experience. In addition,
given that brand experience can induce elaborative infor-
mation processing (Keller 1993), consumers with sub-
stantial brand experience may represent the brand in
concrete ways. Thus, it can be assumed that increasing
brand experience would affect consumer perceptions sim-
ilar to ways that proximal psychological distance affects
consumer perceptions. In other words, consumers with
strong brand experience will rely more on concrete and
specific information than on abstract and general infor-
mation, which helps formulate the following hypothesis:
H1 Individuals with strong brand experience are more
likely to construe the brand in more concrete ways (low-
level construals) than individuals with weak brand
experience.
Considering that psychological distance and construal
level have a bidirectional relationship, it can be postulated
that a construal level that is formed by brand experience
can also impact the psychological distance between con-
sumers and a brand. For example, when consumers hear
about a brand’s future event (such as a launch), those with
strong experience of the brand may perceive that the event
will occur in a closer future (i.e., sooner) than those with
weak brand experience. Since the four psychological dis-
tances are interrelated, the relationships between brand
experience and psychological distance will be found in all
four dimensions, which leads to the following hypothesis:
H2a–d Individuals with strong brand experience are
more likely to perceive that an activity of the brand will
take place (a) in a closer future (i.e., sooner) (b) at a closer
location (i.e., nearer), (c) with higher probability, and
(d) will be associated with socially closer people than
individuals with weak brand experience.
Brand experience and advertising appeal (emotional
versus cognitive appeal)
According to CLT, when psychologically distant objects
are represented in high-level construal terms, individuals
tend to evaluate the information more positively than when
the objects are described in low-level construal terms. The
reverse is true for psychologically proximal objects (Trope
and Liberman 2000). For example, Yang et al. (2015)
revealed that abstractly framed messages (high-level con-
strual messages) are more persuasive than concretely
framed messages (low-level construal messages) when a
product (e.g., an environmentally friendly product) is
related to benefiting others than to benefiting self. If brand
experience can change consumers’ psychological distance
toward a certain brand, it can be postulated that consumers’
D. H. Kim, D. Song
brand experiences can influence how they process infor-
mation related to the brand, such as advertising.
Emotional and cognitive advertising appeals are the
most widely used message strategies in the field of
advertising (Johar and Sirgy 1991). Ruiz and Sicilia (2004)
suggested that when individuals are exposed to advertise-
ments that are compatible with their information process-
ing styles in terms of emotion and cognition, advertising
efficacy can be enhanced. Also, studies have shown that
cognitive and emotional information processing are asso-
ciated with psychological distance (Septianto and Pratiwi
2016; Van Boven et al. 2010). As individuals’ psycho-
logical distance to an object increases, they tend to focus
more on the central and primary features of the object
(high-level construals; Trope and Liberman 2010). This
high-level construal (abstract) mindset leads individuals to
distinguish essential information inputs from secondary
inputs and lessens judgement bias when they make deci-
sions (e.g., which information is important and why is it
important). Therefore, cognitive information processing
can be activated when individuals think about a psycho-
logically distant object.
By contrast, individuals generally feel more emotional
intensity about a psychologically proximal object or events
than distal objects or events. Van Boven et al. (2010)
showed that individuals are more likely to describe events
emotionally when they perceive them as psychologically
proximal. They suggested that increasing emotional
intensity diminishes perceived psychological distance (Van
Boven et al. 2010). In addition, Septianto and Partiwi
(2016) demonstrated that consumers with low-level con-
struals prefer emotional advertising to more cognitively-
based advertising because emotional intensity is associated
with low-level construals and proximal psychological
distance.
Based on the findings from prior research, it can be
hypothesized that consumers with high-level construals are
more likely to be persuaded by cognitive appeals, whereas
consumers with low-level construals are more like to be
influenced by emotional appeals. If brand experience can
influence how consumers feel about and perceive a certain
brand, then the level of brand experience should impact the
effectiveness of the appeal type. Specifically, consumers
with strong brand experience should be more likely to have
low-level construals; hence, an emotional appeal would be
more effective for consumers with strong brand experience
than for consumers with weak brand experience because of
the increased emotional intensity. However, cognitive
appeals should be more effective for consumers with weak
brand experience because such advertising tends to be
weighted more heavily on objective information than
subjective information. Consequently, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect…
H3a An emotional appeal brand advertisement will be
more effective for individuals with strong brand experience
than for individuals with weak brand experience.
H3b A cognitive appeal brand advertisement will be
more effective for individuals with weak brand experience
than for individuals with strong brand experience.
Study 1
Two real grocery brands were adopted for an experiment to
investigate how brand experience can influence consumers’
construal level and their psychological distance toward the
brand.
Method
Procedure, participants, and materials
Participants were recruited in two different locations, North
Carolina (NC) and Ohio (OH), to evaluate differentiated
brand experiences as either strong or weak. A total of
seventy undergraduate students (female 69%, Mage = 22.1,
SDage = 5.1) participated in the experiment in exchange for
research credit. All participants reported that they go gro-
cery shopping at least once a week. Two local grocery
stores were selected as the target brands: Harris Teeter (a
local brand in North Carolina) and Giant Eagle (a local
brand in Ohio). For the strong brand experience condition,
participants were provided brief information about their
local grocery store brand. Participants in the weak brand
experience condition were provided information about an
unknown grocery store. To investigate the relationship
between brand experience and construal level, participants
were asked to imagine they were shopping for groceries at
a new Harris Teeter (or Giant Eagle) store and were pro-
vided with a shopping list of 38 items. Participants were
provided the following instructions:
Take a look at the items and place them into groups
by writing the items that belong together next to each
other and then putting the items in parentheses. For
example, (coffee, tea), (potato, gravy, onions),
(wine), (eggs, milk, sour cream), etc. Please make
sure to include every item, even if you would not buy
it in reality. Additionally, please do not overlap, that
is, place each item in only one group.
The numbers of groups into which the participants
classified the items were counted and used to measure
participants’ construal levels (Liberman et al. 2002);
specifically, the lower the number of groups, the higher the
259
construal levels, and the higher the number of groups, the
lower the construal levels.
Brand experience was measured via a seven-point Likert
scale that included twelve items that measure how con-
sumers think, feel, and experience brands (Brakus et al.
2009; a = 0.84). The relationship between brand experi-
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).
As such, participants were asked to answer open-ended
questions about four scenarios associated with psycholog-
ical distance dimensions (temporal, spatial, social distance,
and probability). Temporal distance was explored with the
question, ‘‘Recently, (store name) announced that the brand
will open a new store in (the name of the participant’s
town) soon. Please estimate the approximate time the store
will open; it could be in a few days or even a few months.’’
The estimates of when the store would open were trans-
lated into days. For example, 1 month was coded as ‘‘30’’
and 1 week was coded as ‘‘7.’’ Similarly, for spatial dis-
tance, participants were asked to indicate the estimated
miles from their home to the new store. Probability was
measured by two questions that asked about the likelihood
that the participant would become a regular customer of the
new store (‘‘Shop there regularly’’ and ‘‘Become a regular
customer’’). Participants were asked to indicate the per-
centage of probability for the two questions (0–100;
a = 0.98). Lastly, the social distance dimension was
measured using two items that asked participants the extent
to which they would recommend the brand to their close
friends and family members (e.g., ‘‘I will recommend that
my close friends and family members shop at the new
store’’ and ‘‘I will introduce the new store to my close
friends and family members’’; seven-point Likert scale;
a = 0.95).
As this experiment recruited participants from two dif-
ferent locations, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted to ensure that the participants in the two
locations were not significantly different in terms of brand
experience manipulation. As expected, the analysis
revealed no significant interaction effect between the
locations and brand experience [F(1,66) = 2.74, ns]. Also
as expected, however, a significant main effect of brand
experience manipulation [F(1,66) = 25.17, p \ 0.001,
g2p ¼ :28] was found. A series of ANOVA and regression
analysis were conducted to examine any potential effects of
participants’ demographics on the dependent variables.
Again, no relationships were found between subjects’
demographics and construal level [F(1,63) = 0.76, ns],
temporal distance [F(1,64) = 0.715, ns], spatial distance
[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
associated with consumers’ brand experience might
increase the persuasiveness of advertising messages. The
findings of Study 1 revealed that strong brand experience
lowers individuals’ construal levels and weak brand
experience raises their construal levels. Thus, for Study 2,
it was expected that the level of brand experience would
influence the effectiveness of the appeal type.
Method
Procedure, participants, and materials
To examine the proposed hypotheses, a series of multiple
regression analyses was conducted. This method was
favored over ANOVA whose frequently used median splits
of continuous variables would have wasted information,
thereby reducing the power of the statistical test (Aiken and
West 1991). Prior to running the regression analyses, a
centered version of brand experience was created by sub-
tracting the mean score (M = 3.55, SD = .55). A cross-
product variable was created to test the possible interaction
effect between brand experience and type of advertising
appeal (emotional vs. cognitive). Two dependent variables
were regressed onto brand experience (centered), type of
advertising appeal (0 for cognitive appeal and 1 for emo-
tional appeal), and brand experience 9 type of appeal
interaction.
Unlike for Study 1, participants in Study 2 were
recruited from only one location (NC). Additionally, only
one local brand was used, thus eliminating the possible bias
effect of the local brand. In Study 2, 101 undergraduate
students (female 78%, Mage = 20.7, SDage = 1.65) were
recruited from a major southeastern university. After the
participants’ brand experience was measured, they were
randomly assigned to one of the two experimental (ad
appeal) conditions (ncognitive = 51 vs. nemotional = 50). Two
versions of stimuli for each type of advertising appeal (i.e.,
two versions for emotional appeal and two for cognitive
appeal) were mocked up from real grocery store adver-
tisements. For the cognitive appeal condition, advertising
copies emphasized detailed information related to grocery
shopping, such as the quality of shopping and service
benefits (e.g., ‘‘3 TIPs for Harris Teeter shopping—24/7
open service, lower price guarantee service’’ and ‘‘Spend
$75 or more and get 50% off’’). The copies used in the
emotional appeal condition focused on the kinds of feelings
consumers might engender from shopping, such as enjoy-
ment (e.g., ‘‘All you need to do in Harris Teeter is ENJOY
your shopping’’ and ‘‘Big sale. Enjoy your savings!’’).
The advertisements used in this study (provided in
Appendix 1) were created based on a pretest. For the
pretest, 29 business major students (female 58%) were
recruited from a major Midwest university whose location
differed from that of the participants in the main experi-
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
product preferences. They showed that direct product
experiences are associated more with consumers’ low-level
construals than with their high-level construals and that
consumers’ construal levels and social distance (one
dimension of psychological distance) influenced the effect
of product experiences on product preference (Hamilton
and Thompson 2007). By employing the brand experience
scale developed by Brakus et al. (2009), the current
research suggests that both product experience and brand
experience can impact consumers’ construal levels and
psychological distance toward a brand. Unlike the research
conducted by Hamilton and Thompson (2007), which cat-
egorized consumers into either high- or low-level construal
conditions (abstract vs. concrete mental construal condi-
tions), this study measured consumers’ experiences using
real brands (local grocery stores). Therefore, the general-
izability of the relationship between consumers’ construal
levels and their experiential contact with products and
brands could be enhanced. Finally, the current research
identifies brand experience as a moderating variable that
can impact the evaluation of different types of advertising
appeal. Previous studies showed that brand personality
(Kim and Sung 2013) and product involvement (Petty et al.
1983) moderate these effects. The current research
demonstrates that brand experience moderates these effects
as well. Therefore, the findings of the current research offer
an opportunity to better understand brand experience
effects in an advertising context.
This research offers several implications for marketers.
First, this study suggests that the stronger an individual’s
brand experience, the greater their perceived proximal
psychological distance toward the brand. Depending on an
individual’s brand experience, he/she may perceive the
same brand information differently. For example, when
consumers with strong brand experience hear about a new
product launch from a brand, they may consider that the
launch will occur relatively soon compared to consumers
with weak brand experience. Therefore, more frequent and
rapid communications with consumers with strong brand
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-
viduals with strong brand experience respond more posi-
tively to the advertisement than when it is advertised with
D. H. Kim, D. Song
cognitive appeal. Considering that brand experience is
associated with brand loyalty and an emotional bond with
consumers (Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010), the fit effect
of brand experience and emotional appeal can be used in
target-segmenting communications.
As with all research studies, limitations should be
addressed. In Study 1, because two different local grocery
brands were used, the familiarity or locality may have
impacted the relationship between brand experience and
construal levels. Even though only one brand was used in
Study 2, the effect of consumers’ pre-existing perceptions
of the brand on their construal level was not investigated.
Future research that controls possible bias effects is war-
ranted to yield further insights. Given that direct and
indirect product experiences can differentially impact
consumers’ product preferences (Hamilton and Thompson
2007), the effect of brand experience also can be divided
into direct and indirect brand experiences. Thus, in future
research, the effects of the two distinctive brand experi-
ences should be explored to better understand the interac-
tion between brand experience and construal level. Also,
since this research focused on only one specific product
category (grocery store), the generalizability of the findings
could be restricted, as a study with only one product cat-
egory lacks cross-category validation. In particular,
because grocery stores fall within a low-involvement ser-
vice category, the impact of product involvement on the
relationship between brand experience and construal level
may not be obvious. Future research that explores a variety
of product categories would enhance the value of the
findings from the current research. Lastly, the unbalanced
gender ratio (69% female in Study 1 and 78% female in
Study 2) and the undergraduate sample should be addressed
in future research to reinforce the external validity of the
findings.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding
author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Appendix 1
Can brand experience shorten consumers’ psychological distance toward the brand? The effect…
References
Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of
Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.
Aiken, L.S., and S.G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Alba, J.W., and J.W. Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of consumer
expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4): 411–454.
Bar-Anan, Y., N. Liberman, and Y. Trope. 2006. The association
between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence
from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General 135(4): 609–622.
Brakus, J.J., B.H. Schmitt, and L. Zarantonello. 2009. Brand
experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect
loyalty? Journal of Marketing 73(3): 52–68.
Campbell, M.C., and K.L. Keller. 2003. Brand familiarity and
advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research
30(2): 292–304.
Chang, H., L. Zhang, and G.-X. Xie. 2015. Message framing in green
advertising: the effect of construal level and consumer environ-
mental concern. International Journal of Advertising 34(1):
158–176.
Chang, P., and M. Chieng. 2006. Building consumer–brand relation-
ship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology and Mar-
keting 23(11): 927–959.
Chattopadhyay, A., and J. Laborie. 2005. Managing brand experience:
The market contact auditTM. Journal of Advertising Research
45(1): 9–16.
265
Chebat, J.C., C. Gelinas-Chebat, and S. Hombourger. 2003. Testing
consumers’ motivation and linguistic ability as moderators of
advertising readability. Psychology and Marketing 20(7):
599–624.
Cleff, T., I. Chun, and N. Walter. 2014. Can you feel it?—The effect
of brand experience on brand equity. IUP Journal of Brand
Management 11(2): 7–27.
Cleff, T., N. Walter, and X. Jing. 2018. The effect of online brand
experience on brand loyalty: A web of emotions. IUP Journal of
Brand Management 15(1): 7–24.
Förster, J. 2009. Cognitive consequences of novelty and familiarity:
How mere exposure influences level of construal. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 45(2): 444–447.
Grau, S.L., and J.A.G. Folse. 2007. Cause-related marketing (CRM):
The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues
on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising 36(4):
19–33.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., and D. Maheswaran. 2000. Determinants of
country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research
27(1): 96–108.
Ha, H., and H. Perks. 2005. Effects of consumer perceptions of brand
experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand
trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4(6): 438–452.
Hamilton, R.W., and D.V. Thompson. 2007. Is there a substitute for
direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after
direct and indirect product experience. Journal of Consumer
Research 34(4): 546–555.
266
He, H., and A. Mukherjee. 2007. I am Ergo I shop: Does store image
congruity explain shopping behavior of Chinese consumers?
Journal of Marketing Management 23(5/6): 443–460.
Heath, A.P., and D. Scott. 1998. The self-concept and image
congruence hypothesis: An empirical evaluation in the motor
vehicle market? European Journal of Marketing 32(11):
1110–1123.
Hoch, S.J. and Y. Ha. 1986. Consumer learning: Advertising and the
ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research
13(2): 221–233.
Hudson, S., L. Huang, M.S. Roth, and T.J. Madden. 2016. The
influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand
relationships: A three-country study of brand perceptions and
marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in
Marketing 33(1): 27–41.
Johar, J.S., and M.J. Sirgy. 1991. Value-expressive versus utilitarian
advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal
of Advertising 20(3): 23–33.
Kardes, F.R., M.L. Cronley, and J. Kim. 2006. Construal-level effects
on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and
the suppression of competing brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 16(2): 135–144.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.
Keller, K.L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint
for creating strong brands. Marketing Management (July-
August): 15–19.
Keller, K.L. 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing
communications environment. Journal of Marketing Communi-
cations 15(2–3): 139–155.
Kim, D.H., and Y. Sung. 2013. Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of
brand personality and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion.
Psychology & Marketing 30(12): 1076–1087.
Kim, D.H., Y. Sung, and M. Drumwright. 2018. ‘Where I come from’
determines, ‘how I construe my future’: The fit effect of culture,
temporal distance, and construal level. International Journal of
Advertising 37(2): 270–288.
Kim, K., M. Zhang, and X. Li. 2008. Effects of temporal and social
distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Research 35(4): 706–713.
Lee, A.Y., and J.L. Aaker. 2004. Bringing the frame into focus: The
influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(2): 205–218.
Liberman, N., and J. Förster. 2009. The effect of psychological
distance on perceptual level of construal. Cognitive Science
33(7): 1330–1341.
Liberman, N., Y. Trope, and E. Stephan. 2007a. Psychological
distance. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles,
ed. W.A. Kruglanski and E.T. Higgins, 353–383. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Liberman, N., Y. Trope, S.M. McCrea, and S.J. Sherman. 2007b. The
effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity
enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(1):
143–149.
Liberman, N., M.D. Sagistrano, and Y. Trope. 2002. The effect of
temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 38(6): 523–534.
Malär, L., H. Krohmer, W.D. Hoyer, and B. Nyffenegger. 2011.
Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative
importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing
75(4): 35–52.
D. H. Kim, D. Song
Park, J., and L. Stoel. 2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience
and information on online apparel purchase. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33(2): 148–160.
Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. 1983. Central and
peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating
role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(2):
135–146.
Rosselli, F., J.J. Skelly, and D.M. Mackie. 1995. Processing rational
and emotional messages: The cognitive and affective mediation
of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(2):
163–190.
Ruiz, S., and M. Sicilia. 2004. The impact of cognitive and/or
affective processing styles on consumer response to advertising
appeals. Journal of Business Research 57(6): 657–664.
Schmalz, S., and U.R. Orth. 2012. Brand attachement and consumer
emotional response to unethical firm behavior. Psychology and
Marketing 29(11): 869–884.
Schmitt, B.H. 1999. Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers
to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to Your Company and
Brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Schmitt, B.H., J. Brakus, and L. Zarantonello. 2014. The current state
and future of brand experience. Journal of Brand Management
21(9): 727–733.
Septianto, F., and L. Pratiwi. 2016. The moderating role of construal
level on the evaluation of emotional appeal vs. cognitive appeal
advertisements. Marketing Letters 27(1): 171–181.
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2000. Temporal construal and time-
dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 79(6): 876–889.
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychological
Review 110(3): 403–421.
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of
psychological distance. Psychological Review 117(2): 440–463.
Trope, Y., N. Liberman, and C. Wakslak. 2007. Construal levels and
psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction,
evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology
17(2): 83–95.
Tsai, C.I. and A.L. McGill. 2011. No pain, no gain? How fluency and
construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer
Research 37(5): 807–821.
Van Boven, L., J. Kane, A.P. McGraw, and J. Dale. 2010. Feeling
close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological
distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(6):
872–885.
Van Der Westhuizen, L. 2018. Brand Loyalty: Exploring self-brand
connetion and brand experience. Journal of Product and Brand
Management 27(2): 172–184.
Wakslak, C., and Y. Trope. 2009. The effect of construal level on
subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science 20(1):
52–58.
Wright, S., C. Manolis, D. Brown, X. Guo, J. Dinsmore, C.-Y.P. Chiu,
and F.R. Kardes. 2012. Construal-level mind-sets and the
perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters
23(1): 253–261.
Yang, D., Y. Lu, W. Zhu, and C. Su. 2015. Going green: How
different advertising appeals impact green consumption behav-
ior. Journal of Business Research 68(12): 2663–2675.
Zarantonello, L., and B.H. Schmitt. 2010. Using the brand experience
scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour.
Journal of Brand Management 17(7): 532–540.
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
professor of School of Media and Journalism at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on marketing and
persuasive communications in brand–consumer relationships, new
media, and consumer psychology.
Doori Song (Ph.D. University of Florida) is an assistant professor of
marketing at the Williamson College of Business Administration,
Youngstown State University. His research focuses on consumer
psychology and behavior. He has published work in Psychology and
Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research, and Journal of Commu-
nication, among others.