Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435 – 447

Research Article
Physical proximity increases persuasive effectiveness through
visual imagery☆
Yanli Jia a , Yunhui Huang b,⁎, Robert S. Wyer Jr. c , Hao Shen c
a
School of Management, Xiamen University, China
b
School of Business, Nanjing University, China
c
Faculty of Business Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Accepted by Amna Kirmani, Editor, Associate Editor, JoAndrea (Joey) Hoegg

Received 5 November 2015; received in revised form 6 July 2017; accepted 7 July 2017
Available online 13 July 2017

Abstract

Six experiments converged on the conclusion that consumers' physical distance from the verbal description of an event or a product can
influence their beliefs in its implications. For example, participants' proximity to information about the likelihood of surviving an airline crash can
influence their expectations that there would be survivors of a real-life airplane accident, and being close to the description of a commercial product
can influence beliefs that the product would be effective. These and other effects are mediated by the vividness of the mental image that
participants form on the basis of the information. Consequently, the effects were attenuated when participants are under high cognitive load or
when the verbal description lacks the detail necessary for forming a clear mental image. Alternative interpretations in terms of task involvement,
perceptual fluency and construal levels are evaluated.
© 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Physical proximity; Probability estimates; Persuasion; Mental imagery; Verbal information; Construal level theory

Imagine seeing a poster that advocates the use of vitamins
and food supplements. Would your physical distance from the
poster influence your belief in the poster's implications? If
you encounter a presidential campaign poster on a roadside
billboard, would your belief in the candidate's proposals depend
on the distance of the billboard from the highway? More
generally, does the physical proximity to a verbal message affect
☆ This research was partially supported by National Nature Science Foundation
of China (71472084, 71272098, 71431002), the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (20720171083) and Grants GRF (640011, 45813, 493113,
and CUHK14502114) from the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong. Portions of
this research have been presented at the 2014 Association for Consumer Research
(ACR) North American Conference.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Marketing and Electronic Business,
School of Business, Nanjing University, China.
E-mail address: yunhuihuang@nju.edu.cn (Y. Huang).
one's belief that the message's implications are true and, if so,
why?
We attempted to answer these questions. In the conditions
we constructed, participants read a verbal message that was
projected on a screen in front of them and their physical
distance from the screen was varied. In one study, the message
conveyed the survival rate of airplane crashes. In other studies,
it described the features of a commercial product. After being
exposed to the message, participants estimated the likelihood
that the implications of the message were true (e.g., the
likelihood that victims of a real-life air crash would survive or
the likelihood that the product would perform effectively). We
assumed that individuals who read a message typically elaborate
its implications and that this elaboration gives rise to a visual
image, the vividness of which is used to infer the likelihood
that the implications are true. We therefore hypothesized that
persons' physical proximity to the message would increase the
vividness of the visual image they form of its implications and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.001
1057-7408/© 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
436 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
consequently would strengthen their belief that these implications
are valid. These processes, which differ from those implied by the
effects of task involvement, perceptual fluency (Novemsky, Dhar,
Schwarz, & Simonson, 2007; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman,
2004) and construal level (Trope & Liberman, 2010), are elabo-
rated in the following sections.
Theoretical background
Visual imagery in verbal messages
People who see a stimulus object or event may spontane-
ously form a visual image of it. However, reading about a
stimulus can also elicit a visual image of it (Wyer, Hung, &
Jiang, 2008; Wyer & Radvansky, 1999). The vividness of this
image can depend in part on whether the information about it is
emotionally arousing (Alter & Balcetis, 2011) or self-relevant
(Gregory, Cialdini, & Carpenter, 1982), the perspective from
which the information is written (Jiang & Wyer, 2009), and
whether the information contains image-eliciting details (Kisielius
& Sternthal, 1984; Reyes, Thompson, & Bower, 1980).
In the aforementioned research, however, recipients typically
formed images of the stimuli and events that were explicitly
described in the message they received. In contrast, the present
research was concerned with the effect of the image that recipients
formed of the implications of a message that might not be
mentioned in the message itself. (Thus, for example, a message
that describes a health food drink might stimulate the formation of
a mental image of a potential consequence of drinking it although
the message itself does not refer to this consequence.)
Chronic individual differences can exist in the vividness of
such images (White, Sheehan, & Ashton, 1977; Pham, Meyvis,
& Zhou, 2001). The effects of these differences are reflected in
a wide variety of phenomena, including proofreading ability
(Wallace, 1991), hypnotizability (Crawford, 1982) and paired-
associate learning (Rossi & Fingeret, 1977). However, situa-
tional factors can also influence the vividness of the images that
are formed from information. Because the construction of an
image requires cognitive effort (McGill & Anand, 1989), factors
that influence the cognitive resources that are devoted to this
effort (e. g., cognitive load) can influence the intensity of the
images that are formed (Petrova & Cialdini, 2005).
The vividness of the images that people form in response to a
message is likely to depend in part on their physical proximity to
it. This effect may seem intuitively obvious. However, although
other research has considered the influence of physical distance
of a stimulus on judgments (Chae, Li, & Zhu, 2013; Coulter &
Norberg, 2009; Thomas & Tsai, 2012; Huang, Jia, & Wyer,
2017), its impact on visual imagery has not been examined. We
expected that individuals' proximity to a verbal message would
influence the images that recipients formed through its impact
on the attention they pay to it. For one thing, physical proximity
to the message is likely to increase the attentional resources that
recipients devote to it (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Taylor & Fiske,
1978). For another thing, a physically close message captures a
greater proportion of one's visual field and consequently
decreases the distracting influences of extraneous situational
stimulation on the attention that recipients pay to the message
content. For either or both reasons, therefore, proximity to a
verbal message is likely to increase the cognitive resources that
recipients devote to an elaboration of the message's implications.
This elaboration can be of two types, however. MacInnis
and Price (1987) distinguish between two modes of processing:
semantic and visual. Because these types of processing are often
interconnected and operate concurrently, their effects can be
difficult to separate (Arieti, 1976; Batra & Ray, 1983; Holbrook &
Moore, 1981). However, they can have different effects. The
semantic elaboration of a message's implications can involve a
systematic assessment of the reasons why the implications might or
might not be valid, based on previously acquired knowledge about
the type of event and the conditions in which it occurs. Because
this elaboration could consist of counter-arguing as well as a
confirmatory processes (Wright & Rip, 1980), however, its effect
on beliefs in the validity of a message's implications is unclear.
The effects of the visual elaboration of a message's implications
are more easily predicted. This elaboration consists of the
construction of a visual image of these implications and the
vividness of this image, which depends in part on the amount
of cognitive resources that recipients devote to its construction
(McGill & Anand, 1989), can make the event seem more
likely (Petrova & Cialdini, 2005). To this extent, the intensity
of the image may have a positive effect on perception that the
implications are valid.
This possibility is exemplified by the simulation heuristic
(Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). For
example, asking people to imagine that a political candidate has
won a forthcoming election can increase confidence that the
candidate will actually win (Gregory et al., 1982). Analogously,
imagining a past event can also increase confidence that the
event actually occurred (Garry, Manning, Loftus, & Sherman,
1996; Ross, Lepper, Strack, & Steinmetz, 1977).
In the present context, these considerations suggest that
if recipients' physical proximity to a verbal message increases
their attention to the message and their elaboration of its
implications, and if this elaboration increases the vividness of
the image they form of these implications, it should increase
beliefs that the implications are valid. Formally:
H1. (a) The impact of a verbal message on recipients' belief in
its implications will increase with their physical proximity to
the message. (b) This effect will be mediated by the vividness
of the image that is formed of these implications.
Two aspects of this hypothesis are noteworthy. First,
the visual image that is stimulated by participants' physical
proximity to the message pertains to unstated implications of the
message and not necessarily to the situation described in the
message itself. Second, the effects of this image are mediated by
the visual elaboration of these implications and not the semantic
elaboration or the overall elaboration of them.
Further implications
If the effect of physical proximity on likelihood judgments
is mediated by its impact on the visual image that is formed,
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
factors that interfere with the construction of this image should
decrease or eliminate this impact. We considered two such
factors.
Cognitive load
First, to the extent that the construction of a visual image on
the basis of verbal information requires cognitive effort (McGill
& Anand, 1989). For example, asking people to memorize a
nine-digit number can prevent them from engaging in the
cognitive elaboration that is necessary to construct an image
(Shiv & Huber, 2000). Non-experiential information that
accompanies a persuasive appeal can also increase cognitive
load and thus distract people from forming a vivid mental image
(Petrova & Cialdini, 2005). Therefore, it should decrease the effect
of their physical proximity to the message on their construction of
this image and correspondingly should reduce its effect.
H2. Inducing cognitive load will decrease the effect of physical
proximity to a verbal message on beliefs in the message's
implications.
Message details
Second, the effect of physical proximity on message depends
on whether the message's implications actually elicit a visual
image (McGill & Anand, 1989; Sherman, Cialdini, Schwartzman,
& Reynolds, 1985). This can depend in part on the amount of
previously acquired knowledge that recipients can draw upon in
constructing the image. Instructions to imagine the referent of
a message have little effect on the message's persuasiveness
if recipients do not have sufficient knowledge about the referent
to form an image of it (MacInnis & Price, 1987; Wright
& Rip, 1980). However, it can also depend on whether the
message is sufficiently detailed to activate this knowledge.
A message that is not sufficiently detailed might not stimulate
the construction of a clear image on the basis of it (Lee & Qiu,
2009; Reyes et al., 1980).
As noted earlier, the images that mediate the effects we
predict are presumably based on the implications of the message
and not necessarily on its content per se. It nevertheless seems
reasonable to suppose that the more detailed the message, the
clearer the image that is likely to be formed of its implications.
Therefore:
H3. The effect of physical proximity to a message on message
impact will increase with the amount of details that the message
contains.
Alternative explanations
Our conceptualization of the effects of physical proximity to
a message on beliefs in its implications assumes that these
effects are mediated by the images that the message elicits.
However, several alternative interpretations of these effects
were considered in the research to be reported.
Task involvement
People who sit close to a message might feel that they
are expected to pay more attention to it. Therefore, they feel
437
more obligated to think extensively about the message's
implications than do people who sit a greater distance away.
Their judgments of the message's implications might be
relatively more extreme for this reason (e.g., Thomas & Tsai,
2012). This possibility assumes that the effects of physical
proximity on message impact are conscious and deliberate. In
contrast, we assume that physical proximity to a message
increases people's attention to the message and leads them to
form an image of its implications without consciously thinking
that they are close to it or distant from it.
Perceptual fluency
Schwarz (2004; see also Novemsky et al., 2007; Reber et al.,
2004) suggests that the impact of a message increases with the
ease of processing it (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001; Lee, Keller,
& Sternthal, 2010; Lee & Labroo, 2004). If consumers find that
it is more difficult to read a distant message than a proximal
one, they might be less persuaded by it for this reason. In our
studies, however, the font in which messages were conveyed
was sufficiently large that participants could easily read the
message regardless of their distance from the screen on which it
was displayed. Thus, we expected that although proximity to a
message might affect the difficulty in processing at later stages
(as implied by Hypotheses 2 and 3), it would not influence the
difficulty of reading it. We nevertheless examined this possibility
empirically in Experiment 6.
Construal level theory
According to construal level theory (Trope & Liberman,
2010, 2011; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), people
construe psychologically distant events in terms of abstract,
high-level concepts but represent close events in terms of
low-level, concrete constructs. Moreover, the values they
assign to stimuli along different dimensions of psychological
distance (temporal, social, spatial and probabilistic) are inter-
related (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007; Todorov, Goren,
& Trope, 2007; Wakslak & Trope, 2009; Wakslak, Trope,
Liberman, & Alony, 2006). These assumptions imply if an
event is construed at a low level of physical distance, it is likely
to be construed at a low level of probabilistic distance as well
(i.e., as likely to occur).
However, the effects implied by construal level theory and
those of concern in the present research are not directly
analogous. For one thing, in examining the implications of
construal level theory, Yan (2014) and others (e.g., Amit,
Algom, & Trope, 2009; Wakslak, 2012; Zhang & Wang, 2009)
explicitly asked participants to imagine their distance from
a stimulus event along one dimension, thus directing their
attention to this distance and increasing their likelihood of
using it as a basis for judging the stimulus along other
dimensions. In contrast, participants in the present experiments
incidentally experienced their physical distance from a message
under conditions in which this distance was not explicitly
mentioned. In these conditions, participants might not think
about their distance from the message and might not con-
sciously encode it as either near or distant. To this extent, the
inference processes that construal level theory assumes to
438 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
underlie the relations among different dimensions of psycho-
logical distance are unlikely to occur.
Overview of experiments
Six experiments evaluated implications of our conceptual-
ization. Experiments 1 and 2 provided initial evidence that
physical proximity to a verbal message increases participants'
perceived likelihood of the message's implications through
its impact on mental imagery. Two other experiments demon-
strated that these effects are attenuated when either the
cognitive resources available to form mental images are limited
(Experiment 3) or the message is described in little detail
(Experiment 4). Experiment 5 showed that these image-based
effects are observed when participants experience their proximity
but not when they consciously think about it. This study therefore
distinguished between the effects we identified and those im-
plied by construal level theory. Finally, Experiment 6 showed
that these effects can be observed even when perceptual fluency
is constant across conditions.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 determined whether people's physical prox-
imity to a message increases the vividness of their mental image
of the message's implications and consequently increases
their beliefs that these implications were valid. The study was
conducted on March 12–13, 2014, five days after the news
had reported that a Malaysian airline (Fight MH370) was
missing. It was therefore unclear whether any passengers had
survived at the time the experiment was run. Participants were
exposed to a message about the general rate of surviving an
airline accident. They viewed the message on a screen that was
either close to them or further away and then estimated the
likelihood that someone had survived the Malaysian airline
incident.
Method
Forty-nine participants were randomly assigned to a seat in
either the first row of a laboratory room (proximal condition) or
the fourth row (distant condition), being told that this was being
done to ensure that they would not interfere with one another
while performing the experiment (For more details of the
seating arrangement, see the methodological details Appendix).
Participants were asked to read a news article entitled “Missing
Malaysian Airline” on the front screen. After briefly describing
the accident, the article reported the data on survivors of
airplane crashes in US between 1983 and 2000, suggesting
the high survival rate of airplane crashes in general. After
reading the article, participants estimated the likelihood that
someone survived the recent Malaysian airplane accident
along a scale from 1 (very improbable) to 7 (very probable).
They also indicated whether funds should be allocated to
search for survivors or to compensate relatives along a scale
from 1 (definitely for searching survivors) to 7 (definitely for
compensation).
Then, participants indicated the extent to which they could
vividly picture passengers surviving the accident along a scale
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In addition, they listed any
thoughts that went through their mind while reading the news
article in bullet points.
Finally, to assess the effect of seating position on task
involvement, participants reported both how careful they were
and how involved they were in processing the information
on the wall screen along 7-point scales from 1 (not at all) to
7 (very much).
Results
Likelihood estimates
Consistent with H1, participants reported a higher probabil-
ity that some people would survive the accident when they were
seated in the front row (M = 3.93, SD = 1.82) than when they
were seated in the back (M = 2.77, SD = 1.48; F(1, 47) = 5.75,
p b .05, ηp2 = .11). Correspondingly, they were relatively less
willing to allocate funds to compensate relatives (that is, more
willing to continue searching for survivors) in the former
condition (M = 2.56, SD = 1.42) than in the latter (M = 3.41,
SD = 1.79; F(1, 47) = 3.46, p = .07, ηp2 = .07).
Mental imagery
As expected, participants reported that they could imagine
someone surviving the accident more vividly when they sat in
the first row (M = 4.07, SD = 1.52) than when they sat in the
back (M = 3.14, SD = 1.70; F(1, 47) = 4.16, p b .05, ηp2 = .08).
A bootstrapping analysis (Hayes, 2012; Model 4) confirmed
that physical proximity affected likelihood estimates through
its mediating influence on the increased mental imagery that
participants formed; based on 5000 resamples, the 95% bias-
corrected confidence interval ranged from − 1.04 to − 0.01.
Thought listing
To provide evidence that physical proximity increased the
overall message elaboration but that only visual elaboration
mediates the effect of physical proximity on likelihood
estimates, participants' thought protocols (144 pieces in total)
were coded in multiple ways. First, the number of thoughts
generated by each participant provided an indication of their
overall amount of message elaboration. This number was
greater when participants were seated in the front row
(M = 3.41, SD = 2.00) than when they were seated in the back
(M = 2.36, SD = 0.90; F(1, 47) = 5.10, p b .05, ηp2 = .10).
However, bootstrapping analyses (Hayes, 2012; Model 4, using
5000 resamples) suggested that message elaboration failed
to mediate the effect of physical proximity on probability
judgments; the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval ranged
from − 0.35 to 0.44, and the at 90% confidence level ranged
from − 0.28 to 0.36.
However, our conceptualization assumes that although the
overall elaboration was unlikely to mediate the effects of
physical distance on likelihood estimates, the amount of visual
elaboration should play a role. To examine this possibility,
two independent judges who were blind to experimental
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
conditions evaluated the extent to which each participants'
thought protocol as a whole conveyed allusions to a visual
image along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Examples of vivid thoughts included “the survivors may
be washed to certain unknown islands”, and “if the plane
crashed into the sea, along with an explosion, I don't think
there will be any survivors” whereas examples of non-vivid
thought included “there is no hope”, and “wish they can find
the survivors.” Judges' ratings were correlated .69 and were
averaged.
The vividness of imagery conveyed in participants' thought
listings was correlated with their likelihood estimates (r = .30,
p b .05). Analyses of imagery vividness as a function of
distance indicated that participants' thought protocols contained
more vivid images of the messages when they were seated in the
front row (M = 3.78, SD = 1.28) than when they were seated
in the back (M = 2.98, SD = 1.55; F(1, 47) = 3.91, p = .05,
ηp2 = .08). A bootstrapping analysis (Hayes, 2012; Model 4)
using 5000 resamples suggested that imagery vividness reflected
in thought protocols had a marginally significant indirect
influence on the impact of distance on likelihood judgments;
although the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval included 0
(ranging from − 0.78 to 0.02), the 90% bias-corrected confi-
dence interval did not (ranging from − 0.67 to − 0.02).
The vividness of the imagery reflected in participants'
thought listing was correlated .48 (p b .001) with the number
of thoughts they generated, suggesting that people who
engaged in a high level of message elaboration also made
more visual elaboration. However, the bootstrapping analyses
(Hayes, 2012; Model 4), including both variables as mediators
confirmed the marginally significant indirect effect of visual
elaboration (the 90% confidence interval ranged from − 0.83 to
− 0.04), and simultaneously rejected that of message elabora-
tion (the 90% confidence interval ranged from − 0.09 to 0.56).
Thus, visual elaboration rather than message elaboration was
the primary mediator of the effect of physical proximity on
likelihood estimates.
Task involvement
As noted earlier, participants might feel more involved in
the task if they sit in the first row than if they sit in the back.
However, participants did not report processing the in-
formation any more carefully in proximal conditions than
in distant conditions (M = 5.70, SD = 0.87 vs. M = 5.64,
SD = 1.29, respectively; F b 1), and reported no greater
involvement in the task in the former condition than in
the latter (M = 4.93, SD = 1.27 vs. M = 5.23, SD = 1.45,
respectively; F b 1).
Discussion
Experiment 1 provided initial evidence that physical proxim-
ity to a message describing an actual event could influence
people's belief about the likelihood of that event. It also showed
that this effect was mediated by the vividness of mental imagery
of the message's implications.
439
Moreover, we empirically distinguished between the effect
of physical distance on participants' overall processing of the
message and its effect on image-based processing. Although
the total number of thoughts decreased as physical distance
increased, they did not mediate the effect of proximity on
likelihood beliefs. In contrast, the indirect effect of visual
elaboration was marginally significant. This marginality might
be attributable to the fact that participants found it difficult to
describe image-based thoughts verbally (e.g., Wilson, Dunn,
Bybee, Hyman, & Rotondo, 1984). To this extent, self-reported
imagery vividness may provide a better indication of imagery-
based elaboration. This or similar measures were used in
following experiments.
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 replicated and extended the results of
Experiment 1 using descriptions of a product. Specifically,
it tested whether participants' physical proximity to a product
description would strengthen their beliefs in the product's
effectiveness by increasing the vividness of the mental
images that the product was effective. In addition, we deter-
mined whether the effect of our distance manipulation was
influenced by participants' task involvement and perceptual
fluency.
Method
Sixty Hong Kong undergraduate students were randomly
assigned to a seat in either the front row or the last row of
the experimental room. They then read a message on the front
screen, which described a computer program that would
allegedly improve people's concentration while studying.
After reading the description, participants responded to
different questions regarding the likelihood the program's
effectiveness. To avoid response bias, half of the participants
estimated the likelihood that the program would be effective
(i.e., questions framed in a positive manner) along two scales
from 1 (impossible/b 10%) to 7 (very possible/N 90%). The
other half estimated the probability that the program would not
be effective along the same scales. The latter responses were
reverse coded. Responses along the two scales were highly
correlated (r = .74) and were averaged. Preliminary analyses
of each dependent variable as a function of physical proximity
and question framing conditions yielded no significant effects
involving the latter variable (ps N .10 in all cases). Therefore,
data were pooled over question framing conditions in the analyses
to follow.
Participants also estimated the vividness of the images
they formed of the program's effectiveness along two scales
from 1 (not at all vivid/clear) to 7 (very vivid/clear); r = .82.
Next, participants indicated their level of involvement along
a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Finally, they
reported the difficulty of reading the information on the front
screen from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) (Novemsky et al.,
2007).
440 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
Results
Likelihood estimates
An analysis of likelihood estimates as a function of physical
proximity indicated that participants estimated that the program
was more likely to be effective if they were close to the
screen (M = 4.05, SD = 0.94) than if they were distant from it
(M = 3.17, SD = 1.23; F(1, 58) = 9.55, p b .01, ηp2 = .14).
Mental imagery
A similar analysis was conducted on measures of vividness
of mental imagery. As expected, participants reported forming
more vivid images when they were close to the screen
(M = 4.04, SD = .93) than when they were distant from it
(M = 3.16, SD = 1.33; F(1, 58) = 8.51, p b .01, ηp2 = .13).
The mediating effect of imagery vividness on the impact of
proximity on likelihood judgments was confirmed on the basis
of bootstrapping (Hayes, 2012; Model 4); based on 5000
resamples, the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval ranged
from − 1.01 to − 0.23.
Task involvement and perceptual fluency
Consistent with the findings of Experiment 1, participants'
task involvement did not significantly differ in close and distant
conditions (M = 4.57, SD = 1.03 vs. M = 4.78, SD = 1.39,
respectively; F b 1). Their difficulty in reading the informa-
tion also did not differ (M = 3.18, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 3.78,
SD = 1.74, respectively; F(1, 58) = 2.00, p N .15). Thus, neither
task involvement nor perceptual fluency accounted for the effect
of physical proximity on likelihood estimates.
Discussion
Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 in
the product domain; that is, physical proximity to messages
describing a program could influence people's belief about the
effectiveness of that program. It also showed that this effect
was mediated by vividness of mental imagery.
Alternative explanations of these effects are called into
question. For example, participants did not feel any more
involved in the experiment when they sat in the first row than
when they sat in the fourth row. Moreover, their ease of reading
the message did differ in the two conditions. Thus, participants
felt that the message was easy to read regardless of their distance
from it.
Experiment 3
We assumed that the effects of physical proximity on
participants' likelihood estimates were mediated by the vividness
of the mental images they formed. If this is so, decreasing their
ability to devote cognitive resources to the construction of these
images should decrease the vividness of the images they form
and decrease the effect of proximity on their evaluations (H2).
Experiment 3 evaluated this possibility.
Method
One hundred one undergraduate students were randomly
assigned to cells of a 2 (physical proximity: proximal vs.
distant) × 2 (cognitive load: low vs. high) between-subjects
design. Upon arriving, they were randomly assigned to sit
in either the first or the fourth row of the laboratory as in
previous experiments. The experimental task was described as
an investigation of the ability to do two things at once. On
this pretense, participants were asked to memorize a series
of numbers while they performed a product evaluation task
(see Shiv & Huber, 2000). Participants in low cognitive load
conditions were asked to memorize a two-digit number,
whereas participants in high cognitive load conditions were
asked to remember an eight-digit number.
In the product evaluation task, participants were asked to
look at the front screen on which a product description was
projected. The product was described as an energy drink that
was rich in B-group vitamins and thus was beneficial to brain
functioning such as memory and mental acuity. After reading
the description, they reported the series of numbers they had
been asked to remember.
Then, participants estimated the probability that the product
could really boost their brainpower along two scales from 1 (very
unlikely/b 10%) to 7 (very likely/N 90%). Responses to the two
items were averaged (r = .69). Then, participants responded to
two sets of questions concerning the role of mental imagery. The
first set, like that used in prior experiments, included “How vividly
could you imagine the product being effective in boosting your
brainpower?” and “How clearly could you imagine the product
working to improve your brainpower?” Responses to these items
were reported along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
The second set of items, taken from Elder and Krishna (2010),
included: “To what extent did the images that the product boosted
your brainpower come to mind?” and “How many images that
the product improved your brainpower came to mind?”, along
scales from 1 (not at all/few or no images) to 7 (very much/lots of
images). Responses to all four items were averaged to provide a
composite index of imagery vividness (α = .89).
Finally, participants estimated the difficulty of concentrating
while they evaluated the product and how distracted they felt
while doing so. Responses to these items along similar scales
(1 = not at all, 7 = very much) were averaged (r = .79) to
provide a check on the cognitive load manipulation.
Results
Manipulation check
Participants reported greater difficulty and distraction when
evaluating the product in high cognitive load condition
(M = 3.62, SD = 1.36) than in low cognitive load condition
(M = 2.56, SD = .97; F(1, 97) = 20.47, p b .01, ηp2 = .17). No
other main or interaction effects were significant (Fs b 1).
Likelihood estimates
Analyses of likelihood estimates as a function of physical
proximity and cognitive load revealed a significant effect of
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447 441

physical proximity (F(1, 97) = 5.41, p b .05, ηp2 = .05) that be reflected in responses to other measures of construal level.
was qualified by an interaction of proximity and cognitive We examined this possibility.
load (F(1, 97) = 6.11, p b .05, ηp2 = .06). The planned contrast
shows that participants in the absence of cognitive load
Method
believed that the product was more likely to be effective
when they were physically close to the product description
Seventy-five undergraduate students were randomly assigned
(M = 3.23, SD = 1.26) than when they were not (M = 2.26,
to cells of a 2 (physical proximity: proximal vs. distant) × 2
SD = 0.75; F(1, 97) = 10.94, p b .01, ηp2 = .10). When they
(product description: detail vs. no detail) between-subjects
were under high cognitive load, however, this difference was
design.
not evident (M = 2.79, SD = 0.90 vs. M = 2.82, SD = 0.92,
As in other experiments, participants were randomly assigned
respectively; F b 1).
to sit in either the first or the fourth row of the laboratory.
Participants were then instructed that Yelling, a soft-drink
Mental imagery
producer, was planning to promote a new soft drink in the
An analysis of mental imagery as a function of exper-
local market and would like to know their reactions to it. In
imental manipulations yielded an effect of physical proximity
no detail conditions, participants only read a product slogan
(F(1, 97) = 4.77, p b .05, ηp2 = .05) and an interaction of
“A Yelling Cranberry Juice a day keeps the pounds away.”
proximity and cognitive load (F(1, 97) = 4.92, p b .05, ηp2 = .05).
In detail conditions, however, participants further read that
Data pertaining to this interaction indicated that in low
the product contained 30–50% pure cranberry juice that might
cognitive load condition, participants reported generating
improve their metabolism and provide essential vitamins to
more mental images if they sat close to the product descrip-
burn fat.
tion (M = 3.29, SD = 1.33) than if they did not (M = 2.34,
After reading the description, participants reported the
SD = 1.10; F(1, 97) =9.20, p b .01, ηp2 = .09). Under high
likelihood that the product could help them keep fit along
cognitive load conditions, however, this difference was not
two scales from 1 (very improbable/very unlikely) to 7 (very
evident (M = 2.76, SD = 0.74 vs. M = 2.77, SD = 0.96,
probable/very likely). Their responses to the two items were
respectively; F b 1).
averaged (r = .81).
Moreover, a moderated mediation analysis (Hayes, 2012;
Moreover, participants completed a shortened form of
model 8, using 5000 resamples) revealed that the mediating
Kimchi and Palmer's (1982) test of global vs. local processing
influence of image vividness on the impact of physical
(Wakslak & Trope, 2009). The task consisted of five sets of
proximity on likelihood estimates depended on cognitive load.
geometric figures. Each set consisted of three stimuli, one
Specifically, the indirect effect of imagery vividness was
(focal) stimulus at the top followed by two (comparison)
significant in low cognitive load conditions (the 95% bias-
stimuli below it on the right and left sides of the screen. Each
corrected confidence interval ranged from − 1.06 to −.14), but
stimulus consisted of a large geometric shape that was formed
not in high cognitive load conditions (the 95% bias-corrected
from smaller figures of a different shape (e.g., a large triangle
confidence interval ranged from − 0.26 to 0.28).
formed from small squares). One comparison stimulus matched
In conclusion, Experiment 3 provided further evidence of
the overall (global) shape of the focal stimulus (e.g., a triangle)
the role of mental imagery in the effects we observed. Inducing
and the other matched the smaller (local) shapes (e.g., squares).
cognitive load decreased participants' ability to form mental
Participants indicated which of the two comparison stimuli
images and consequently decreased the impact of physical
seemed more similar to the focal stimulus. The proportion
proximity on likelihood estimates.
of global-matching choices was used as an indicator of the
disposition to make high-level construals.
Experiment 4

Experiment 4 had two objectives. First, as noted earlier, Results

people are unlikely to form a vivid image of the stimulus'
implications unless the stimulus was described in sufficient detail
(Lee & Qiu, 2009; Reyes et al., 1980). Therefore, if the effect
of physical proximity on participants' likelihood estimates of a
product description is mediated by its impact on the imagery
vividness of the description, decreasing its detail should decrease
the effect (i.e., H3). Although in Experiments 1–3 the stimulus
materials were fairly detailed, Experiment 4 presented materials
both with and without details.
Second, we determined whether our proximity manipula-
tions activated a high level of construal and led to differences
in likelihood estimates for the reasons suggested by construal
level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010, 2011; Trope et al.,
2007). If this is the case, the different levels of construal should
Likelihood estimates
An analysis of likelihood estimates as a function of experi-
mental manipulations yielded a significant effect of physical
proximity (F(1, 71) = 5.19, p b .05, ηp2 = .07) that depended
on the detail of the product description (F(1, 71) = 4.05,
p b .05, ηp2 = .05). When the product description was detailed,
participants believed that the product was more likely to be
effective when they sat close to the description (M = 3.47,
SD = 0.90) than when they sat further away (M = 2.44, SD =
1.14; F(1, 71) = 8.91, p b .01, ηp2 = .11). When the product
description was not detailed, however, the effect of physical
proximity on likelihood estimates was not evident (M = 3.18,
SD = 0.98 vs. M = 3.12, SD = 1.13, respectively; F b 1).
442 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
Construal level
Analyses of participants' construal level yielded no signif-
icant effects of either physical distance, product description or
their interaction (in all cases, Fs b 1.05, ps N .10). Specifically,
participants' level of construal did not depend on their physical
distance from the product description and this was true
regardless of whether the description was detailed (M = 0.66,
SD = 0.40 vs. M = 0.62, SD = 0.40, respectively) or not
(M = 0.59, SD = 0.40 vs. M = 0.74, SD = 0.36, respectively).
Thus, participants' experience of physical proximity did not
influence their construal level.
Supplementary study
To provide further evidence that participants' experience of
physical proximity did not influence their construal level, 89
participants from the same subject population were asked to
have a seat in either the first or the fourth row of the laboratory.
In each case, they were presented 25 items from the Behavior
Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) on the
screen, one at a time. For each item, participants indicated
which of the two descriptions of a target behavior, one at a high
level of construal and the other at a low level construal, was
more appropriate. (For example, if the target was “making
a list,” the high-level alternatives were “getting organized”
and the low-level alternatives were “writing things down.”)
The proportion of high-level options that participants chose
was similar regardless of whether they sat close to the screen
(M = 0.60; SD = 0.16) or further away (M = 0.62, SD = 0.18);
F b 1. This null effect combined with that concerning Kimchi
task confirmed that the influence of physical distance on
likelihood estimates was not mediated by its impact on construal
levels.
Discussion
Experiment 4 indicated that varying the level of details
included in the product description moderated the effect of
physical proximity on likelihood estimates, again confirming
mental imagery as the underlying process via a moderation-
of-process design. However, physical proximity did not affect the
level of construal of the stimuli provided, ruling out changes in
construal levels as a viable alternative explanation.
Experiment 5
Experiment 4 suggested that differences in construal level
could not account for the effect of proximity on likelihood
estimates. Experiment 5 distinguished between the conditions
in which construal level does, in fact, underlie the effect of
proximity and the conditions in which it does not. In research
on implications of construal level theory, participants are
normally asked explicitly to imagine themselves at a location
that was close to or distant from the stimulus to be judged
(e.g., Yan, 2014), thereby drawing attention to their distance
from the stimulus event. In such conditions, they might
consciously encode their distance from the stimulus as
“close” or “distant” and these construals might influence their
construal of the event along other dimensions of psychological
distance.
In the conditions we considered, however, participants'
distance from the stimulus is directly experienced and is
ostensibly unrelated to the task they performed. Consequently,
they are less likely to be sufficiently aware of this distance to
construe it as close or distant. Thus, they are more likely to focus
their attention on the stimulus itself rather than their physical
proximity to it and their judgment of it is more likely to be a
function of their imagery-based elaboration of its implications.
Experiment 5 distinguished these different effects. In one
condition, we held participants' actual distance from the
stimulus message constant. However, we showed them a
message from a perspective that created the impression of being
close to or distant from it, thereby leading them to experience
different distances from the message incidentally. In the second
situation, we provided participants with a seating chart and
asked them to imagine that they were sitting in a chair that
was either close to or distant from the message (for a similar
procedure, see Yan, 2014).
We expected that participants' subjective experience of
distance would influence their likelihood estimates only when
the stimulus message was detailed, as in Experiment 4.
However, we expected that the distance from the message that
participants were told to imagine would affect their estimates
regardless of the detail of the message, as implied by construal
level theory.
Method
Three hundred sixty-two participants were recruited from
Amazon Mechanical Turk for 0.3 dollars. Twelve of them
failed to answer the attention check question correctly (please
do not click on the scale items that are labeled from 1 to 7) and
were excluded, leaving 350 participants in the study (138 males;
Mage = 36 years). These participants were assigned to cells of
a 2 (proximity type: experienced vs. imagined) × 2 (proximity
level: close vs. distant) × 2 (product description: detail vs. no
detail) between-subjects design.
Participants imagined sitting in a room composed of
several rows of seats in front of a blackboard and reading a
description of a product that was presented on the blackboard.
In experienced distance conditions, participants saw a
photograph of the room that was taken either from behind
the first row of seats (proximal conditions) or behind the
fourth row (distant conditions), as shown in Appendix A(1).
In imagined distance conditions, however, they were given a
seating chart conveying the location of the blackboard and
several rows of seats with a highlighted seat in either the first
row (proximal conditions) or the last row (distant conditions;
see Appendix A(2)) and participants were told to imagine
viewing the blackboard when sitting in the highlighted chair.
In each condition, participants read a product description
(either with or without details) that was identical to the
descriptions used in Experiment 4. After doing so, they reported
the likelihood that the product was effective along the same two
items as in Experiment 4 (r = .88).
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
Results
Likelihood estimates
Estimates of the likelihood that the product would be
effective as a function of proximity type, proximity levels and
product description yielded a marginally significant effect
of proximity level (F(1, 342) = 3.01, p = .08, ηp2 = .01), a
significant effect of product description (F(1, 342) = 13.38,
p b .01, ηp2 = .04), a significant interaction of product descrip-
tion and proximity type (F(1, 342) = 7.00, p b .01, ηp2 = .02).
As expected, however, the three-way interaction of proximity
type, proximity levels and product description was also sig-
nificant (F(1, 342) = 4.94, p b .05, ηp2 = .01). The nature of
this three-way interaction, shown in Table 1, is consistent with
our expectations.
Specifically, when participants incidentally experienced
their distance from the product description, the interaction
of proximal levels and product description was significant
(F(1, 342) = 4.74, p b .05, ηp2 = .01). That is, when the
product description was detailed, likelihood estimates were
greater in proximal conditions (M = 3.78, SD = 1.40) than in
distant conditions (M = 3.24, SD = 1.56); F(1, 342) = 3.36,
p = .07, ηp2 = .01. When the product description was not
detailed, however, the effect of proximity was not apparent
(M = 2.37, SD = 1.18 vs. M = 2.75, SD = 1.25, respectively;
F(1, 342) = 1.57, p N .10. These results confirmed those
observed in Experiment 4.
In contrast, when participants were asked to imagine their
distance from the product description, the interaction of
proximity and product description was not significant (F b 1).
However, there was a significant main effect of distance on
likelihood estimates (F(1, 342) = 4.21, p b .05, ηp2 = .01).
That is, participants made higher likelihood estimates when
they imagined being close to the message (M = 3.44, SD =
1.52) than when they imagined being distant from it (M = 3.01,
SD = 1.39), and this was true regardless of whether the
message was detailed (M = 3.41, SD = 1.44 vs. M = 3.18,
SD = 1.48, respectively) or not (M = 3.47, SD = 1.61 vs.
M = 2.82, SD = 1.29, respectively). These results are consis-
tent with implications of construal level theory.
Discussion
Experiment 5 confirmed our assumptions concerning the
different processes that underlie the effects we have identified
and those implied by construal level theory (Trope & Liberman,
Table 1
Likelihood estimates as a function of proximity type, proximity level, and product details in Experiment 5.
Experienced distance
Details No details
Proximal Distant Proximal Distant
(N = 46) (N = 44) (N = 43) (N = 44)
3.78a (1.40) 3.24bc (1.56) 2.37d (1.18) 2.75cd (1.25)
Note: SDs are indicated in parentheses. Cells with no overlapping alphabet in the superscripts differ at p b .10.
443
2010). When participants incidentally experienced their dis-
tance from a message, their likelihood estimates were influenced
by the vividness of the mental imagery elicited by the message.
When participants were told explicitly to imagine their
distance from a message, however, the effects of imagined
physical distance on likelihood estimates were more likely to
be mediated by the processes that construal level theory
assumes.
Experiment 6
Experiment 6 provided a direct test of the effect of per-
ceptual fluency. To reiterate, physical proximity might in-
fluence the difficulty of reading the message when they
are distant from it because the size of the font appears
smaller. In Experiments 1–4, when the message was further
away, its font size became smaller and the message occupied
a lower proportion of participants' visual field. In Experiment
5, we also altered the message font size in experienced
distance conditions to simulate one's real-life experience
(see Appendix A(1)).
Although Experiment 2 provided evidence that physical
proximity did not significantly affect the ease of reading the
messages we presented, it is theoretically possible for people to
experience difficulty in reading a message if they are very
distant to it so that they cannot see it clearly. In order to provide
further evidence ruling out the effect of perceptual fluency,
we intended to demonstrate the effect of physical proximity
on likelihood estimates while keeping the ease of reading
information constant. To do so, we used a design similar to that
of Experiment 5. In this case, however, we held the message's
font size constant across different levels of experienced
distance.
Method
We recruited 152 participants (69 males; Mage = 35 years)
from Amazon Mechanical Turk for 0.4 dollars and randomly
assigned them to proximal, moderate, and distant conditions.
The procedure was similar to that employed in “experienced”
conditions of Experiment 5. Specifically, participants saw a
photograph of a room that was taken from behind the second
row of seats (proximal condition), the third row (moderate
condition) or the fourth row (distant condition), as shown in
methodological details Appendix. In each case, they read a
detailed product description that was identical to that used in
Imagined distance
Details No details
Proximal Distant Proximal Distant
(N = 44) (N = 45) (N = 43) (N = 41)
3.41ab (1.44) 3.18bc (1.48) 3.47ab (1.61) 2.82cd (1.29)
444 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
Experiment 5. However, the font size of the description was
identical across conditions.
After reading the description, participants estimated the
likelihood that the product could help them keep fit along
the same scales in Experiment 5 (r = .86), and responded to
the questions measuring the role of imagery vividness in
Experiment 3 (α = .93). Finally, participants reported how
difficult it was for them to read the product information from
1 (very easy to read) to 7 (very difficult to read).
Results
Participants felt that it was equally easy to read the message
regardless of whether they were very close to the message
(M = 2.50, SD = 1.86), moderately close to it (M = 2.12,
SD = 1.54) or distant from it (M = 2.06, SD = 1.31; F(2, 149) =
1.15, p N .30). Nevertheless, physical distance had the expected
impact on likelihood estimates.
A regression analysis of likelihood estimates as a function of
physical distance (proximal vs. moderate vs. distant) showed
that physical distance negatively influenced participants'
likelihood estimates (β = −.17, t(150) = − 2.09, p b .05). A
similar analysis of imagery vividness showed that physical
distance also had a negative effect on imagery vividness
(β = −.20, t(150) = − 2.43, p b .05). When both physical
distance and imagery vividness were used to predict likelihood
estimates, the effect of physical distance became nonsignifi-
cant (β = −.08, t(149) = − 1.08, p N .10), whereas the effect of
imagery vividness did not (β = .46, t(149) = 6.29, p b .01).
The indirect effect of physical distance through imagery
vividness was further supported by the bootstrapping method
(Hayes, 2013; Model 4); based on 5000 resamples, the 95%
confidence interval ranged from −.35 to −.04. More details
regarding the descriptive statistics were provided in Table 2
as below.
Discussion
Experiment 6 confirmed the findings of Experiment 5 that
experiencing a distance from a message influenced people's
beliefs in its implications. Moreover, the effect occurred even
when the font size of message was the same in all conditions.
Therefore, even when perceptual fluency was held constant,
mental imagery still drove the effect of physical proximity on
likelihood estimates.
Table 2
The effects of physical proximity on likelihood estimates and mental imagery in
Experiment 6.
Proximal Moderate Distant
(N = 52) (N = 51) (N = 49)
Likelihood estimates 3.71a (1.68) 3.13b (1.52) 3.09b (1.25)
Mental imagery 3.67a (1.66) 3.37ab (1.60) 2.91b (1.40)
Note. SDs are indicated in parentheses. Cells with no overlapping alphabet in
the superscripts differ at p b .05.
General discussion
Six experiments using quite different stimulus materials
converge on the conclusion that people's physical proximity
to a verbal message automatically increases their mental
imagery of the events described in the message. The mental
images they generate, in turn, increase their beliefs that
implications of the description are valid. The processes
we assumed to underlie these effects were confirmed by
evidence that (a) the effects of proximity to the message were
significantly mediated by the vividness of the image that
participants formed (Experiments 1 and 2) and (b) either
inducing high cognitive load (Experiment 3) or decreasing
the details of the product description (Experiment 4) elimi-
nated the effects. The effects held even when the message's
font size remained the same across distal and proximal
conditions and so participants' difficulty of reading did not
differ (Experiment 6). The effects were mediated by the
process implied by construal level theory only when par-
ticipants consciously encoded their distance to the message
(Experiment 5).
On a priori grounds, other factors might be expected to
stimulate people to form a mental image on the basis of
verbal information and consequently to influence likelihood
estimates. For example, the information may be inherently
image eliciting, containing pictures or imaginable descrip-
tions. Or, people might be explicitly instructed to form
images (e.g., Kisielius & Sternthal, 1984, 1986; Lutz & Lutz,
1977). However, the effects of physical distance we identified
were independent of either the information content or explicit
instructions. Evidence that consumers' physical proximity to
a verbal message can influence the persuasiveness of the
message through its mediating impact on the mental image
that is formed of it has not previously been reported to our
knowledge.
Our findings distinguish our account from other possible
interpretations of the effects of physical distance. For example,
participants' physical distance from a message affected their
likelihood estimates even when they reported being equally
involved in the task in all conditions (Experiment 1 & 2).
Moreover, although participants generated more thoughts in
response to a message when they were close to it (Experiment 1),
suggesting that they might be more involved in the message,
the effect of physical distance on their beliefs was not
mediated by these thoughts. Only the incidence of visual
image-related elaborations had a significant impact on these
beliefs.
Second, the font size of the messages we presented was
large enough in all conditions so that participants could see
them clearly and participants' subjective distance from the
message had an effect even when font size was held constant
(Experiment 6). Thus, although participants visually elabo-
rated the implications of the message to a greater extent when
they were close to it, their ease of reading the message did not
differ.
A particularly provocative aspect of our findings concerns
its implications for construal level theory (Trope & Liberman,
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
2010). According to this theory, different dimensions of psy-
chological distance are related, and judgments of distance along
one dimension can influence judgments of distance along
others. To this extent, asking participants to imagine their
physical distance from a stimulus might be expected to
influence their estimates of the likelihood of obtaining it
(Yan, 2014). In most applications of construal level theory
(e.g., Liberman et al., 2007; Todorov et al., 2007; Wakslak &
Trope, 2009; Wakslak et al., 2006), however, participants have
been made consciously aware of the value of the stimulus along
one dimension before they considered its value along others.
Individuals who consider stimuli at a given level of abstractness
in conceptualizing its distance along one dimension may
develop a general disposition to construe events at a similar
level when construing its implications along other dimensions
(e.g., a behavioral mindset; see Wyer & Xu, 2010; Wyer, Xu, &
Shen, 2012). The effect of psychological distance along one
dimension on inferences of distance along other dimensions
could reflect this mindset.
In contrast, individuals whose physical distance from a
stimulus event is not called to their attention may not
spontaneously think about it and so a mindset of the sort
implied by construal level theory is less likely to be activated.
Nevertheless, people's distance from information about a
stimulus can influence the degree to which they elaborate
the implications of this information and the vividness of the
image they form of these implications may influence their
perception that the implications are valid. They may then
use the intensity of this image as a basis for inferring the
likelihood that its implications are valid. This can occur without
conscious awareness of either their actual physical distance
from the stimulus or the psychological distance implied by their
judgment.
This conclusion obviously does not invalidate the implica-
tions of construal level theory. In fact, the processes implied by
our conceptualization and those implied by construal level
Appendix A. Examples of materials employed in Experiment 5
(1) Experienced Distance Conditions
Proximal condition
445
theory are not incompatible. Both processes could contribute
to the effects of distance on judgments. However, a distance
that is directly experienced should not be equated with psy-
chological distance (for a similar conclusion, see Williams &
Bargh, 2008). As our results indicate, explicit instructions to
imagine the distance can lead people to consciously encode the
distance and use it as a cue to construe events. Subsequently,
this encoding stimulates an inference process that is quite
different from the process elicited by the subjective experience
of distance.
Practical implications
The evidence that physical proximity to information about
a product can influence product evaluations independently of
characteristics of the product itself could have implications
for consumer behavior outside the laboratory. Consumers who
happen to be close to an advertising appeal might generate
more vivid mental images of its referent and consequently
might be more inclined to accept the appeal's implications than
they might otherwise be. Moreover, advertisements with verbal
descriptions of a product might be more effective if the
advertisement is shown on personal devices (e.g., phones and
tablets) than on communal devices (e.g., billboards and TVs)
where audiences are relatively more distant from the screen.
Note that the intensity of a mental image could be influenced
by information that is delivered vocally as well as in writing.
For example, a salesman's description of a product might elicit
a more vivid image if he speaks loudly than if he speaks softly,
and a more vivid image if he stands close to the customer rather
than far away. People might generally form more vivid images
on the basis of a speaker's remarks if they are close to the
speaker than if they are more distant from him/her and,
therefore, might be more willing to believe the speaker's claims.
The implications of this possibility for political advertising may
be worth considering.
Distant condition
446 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
(2) Imagined Distance Conditions
Proximal condition
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.001.
References
Alter, A. L., & Balcetis, E. (2011). Fondness makes the distance grow shorter:
Desired locations seem closer because they seem more vivid. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 16–21.
Amit, E., Algom, D., & Trope, Y. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of
pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3),
400–415.
Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1983). Advertising situations: The implications of
differential involvement and accompanying affect responses. In R. J. Harris
(Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 127–151).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chae, B., Li, X., & Zhu, R. (2013). Judging product effectiveness from perceived
spatial proximity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 317–335.
Coulter, K. S., & Norberg, P. A. (2009). The effects of physical distance
between regular and sale prices on numerical difference perceptions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 144–157.
Crawford, H. J. (1982). Hypnotizability, daydreaming styles, imagery vividness,
and absorption: A multidimensional study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42(5), 915–926.
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2010). The effects of advertising copy on sensory
thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5),
748–756.
Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination
inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 208–214.
Distant condition
Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant
scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does
imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1),
89–99.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed
variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Cue configurality in esthetic responses.
In E. C. Hirschman, & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.), Symbolic consumer behavior
(pp. 16–25). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Huang, Y., Jia, Y., & Wyer, R. S. (2017). The effects of physical distance from
a brand extension on the impact of brand‐extension fit. Psychology &
Marketing, 34(1), 59–69.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity,
repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 28(1), 18–32.
Jiang, Y., & Wyer, R. S. (2009). The role of visual perspective in information
processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 486–495.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its
alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153.
Kimchi, R., & Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically
constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 8(4), 521–535.
Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1984). Detecting and explaining vividness effects
in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 54–64.
Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1986). Examining the vividness controversy: An
availability-valence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4),
418–431.
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory
construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and
message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747.
 Y. Jia et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 435–447
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual
fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151–165.
Lee, Y. H., & Qiu, C. (2009). When uncertainty brings pleasure: The role of
prospect imageability and mental imagery. Journal of Consumer Research,
36(4), 624–633.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A.
W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
basic principles. Vol. 2. (pp. 353–383). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lutz, K. A., & Lutz, R. J. (1977). Effects of interactive imagery on learning:
Application to advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 493–498.
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information
processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4),
473–491.
McGill, A. L., & Anand, P. (1989). The effect of vivid attributes on the
evaluation of alternatives: The role of differential attention and cognitive
elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 188–196.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference
fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347–356.
Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery
and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research,
32(3), 442–452.
Pham, M. T., Meyvis, T., & Zhou, R. (2001). Beyond the obvious: Chronic
vividness of imagery and the use of information in decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 226–253.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and
aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.
Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases
resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39(1), 2–12.
Ross, L. D., Lepper, M. R., Strack, F., & Steinmetz, J. (1977). Social
explanation and social expectation: Effects of real and hypothetical
explanations on subjective likelihood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35(11), 817–829.
Rossi, J. S., & Fingeret, A. L. (1977). Individual differences in verbal and
imagery abilities: Paired-associate recall as a function of stimulus and response
concreteness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44(3 suppl), 1043–1049.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and
decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348.
Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K. D. (1985).
Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a
disease the mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 118–127.
Shiv, B., & Huber, J. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on
consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 202–216.
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the
head phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249–288.
Thomas, M., & Tsai, C. I. (2012). Psychological distance and subjective
experience: How distancing reduces the feeling of difficulty. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39(2), 324–340.
447
Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological
distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43(3), 473–482.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological
distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2011). Construal level theory. In P. A. M. V.
Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories
of social psychology. Vol. 1. (pp. 118–134). London: SAGE publication
Ltd.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and
psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation,
and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics
and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency:
Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671.
Wakslak, C. J. (2012). The where and when of likely and unlikely events.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 150–157.
Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective
probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52–58.
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest
when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 641–653.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective
approach. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
White, K., Sheehan, P. W., & Ashton, R. (1977). Imagery assessment: A survey
of self-report measures. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1(1), 145–169.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one's distance the influence of
spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19(3),
302–308.
Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Bybee, J. A., Hyman, D. B., & Rotondo, J. A.
(1984). Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude–behavior consistency.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47(1), 5–16.
Wright, P., & Rip, P. D. (1980). Product class advertising effects on first-time
buyers' decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 176–188.
Wyer, R. S., Hung, I. W., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Visual and verbal processing
strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
18, 244–257.
Wyer, R. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of
social information. Psychological Review, 106(1), 89–118.
Wyer, R. S., & Xu, A. J. (2010). The role of behavioral mind-sets in goal-
directed activity: Conceptual underpinnings and empirical evidence. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 107–125.
Wyer, R. S., Xu, A. J., & Shen, H. (2012). The effects of past behavior on future
goal-directed activity. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46,
237–284.
Yan, D. (2014). Future events are far away: Exploring the distance-on-distance
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 514–525.
Zhang, M., & Wang, J. (2009). Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial
dimension vs. other dimensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3),
497–507.