630424

research-article2016
CQXXXX10.1177/1938965516630424Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyLiu and Mattila

Article
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Using Comparative Advertising to Promote

1­–10
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Technology-Based Hospitality Services sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965516630424
cqx.sagepub.com

Stephanie Qing Liu and Anna S. Mattila1

Abstract
This research draws on regulatory focus theory to explore how to effectively advertise technology-based hospitality
services. In an experiment, we compare four types of service ads: narrative-comparative, narrative-noncomparative,
list-comparative, and list-noncomparative. Results reveal that narrative-comparative ads, portraying a superior service
experience with the advertised brand against its competitors, can elicit gain perceptions, and therefore, they are more
effective among promotion-focused individuals than their more prevention-focused counterparts. Conversely, list-
comparative ads, presenting attributes of the advertised brand and its competitors side-by-side, can induce either gain
or loss perceptions, thus being effective among both promotion-focused and prevention-focused individuals. With no
mention of a reference brand, noncomparative ads fail to generate regulatory fit thereby being less persuasive. Managerial
implications for hospitality marketers are discussed.

Keywords
message framing, advertising, regulatory focus, information technology

The boom of information technology (IT) creates new
opportunities for the hospitality industry to delight its
sophisticated customers (Law, Leung, & Au, 2013). More
and more hospitality operators have recognized the critical
role of IT in value creation and service differentiation. For
example, Starwood recently introduced a keyless check-in
app that enables guests to bypass the front office. Clearly,
hospitality firms strive to incorporate the latest IT into their
services to establish a sustained competitive advantage
(Piccoli, 2008). A burning question for marketers is, how
can we effectively advertise these IT-enabled competitive
advantages?
Hospitality researchers are increasingly utilizing message-
framing strategies to maximize communication effectiveness
(S. A. Lee & Oh, 2014). In the lodging sector, previous
research has explored the persuasiveness of substantive ver-
sus associative claims (Hu, 2012), emotional versus rational
appeals (Mattila, 2001), positive versus negative message
frames (Kim & Kim, 2014), and gain versus loss frames and
high versus low proximity frames (Blose, Mack, & Pitts,
2015). While message framing has become an important
research topic, the hospitality field has not considered the
effects of comparative framing (Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern,
Costley, & Barnes, 1997; Jackson, Brown, & Harmon, 1979;
Wilkie & Farris, 1975), where the focal company is com-
pared with another company in an advertisement.
Drawing on the regulatory focus theory (Crowe &
Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998), this study examines the
effectiveness of comparative advertising in promoting new
technologies. Utilizing an experimental design, the current
study strives to answer the following questions: Are com-
parative ads more persuasive than noncomparative ads in
promoting technology-based hospitality services? What
role does regulatory focus play in influencing consumers’
responses to comparative ads and noncomparative ads? Do
consumers process narrative and list ads differently? The
study findings will help hospitality marketers gain a better
understanding of comparative advertising.
Background Literature
IT in the Hospitality Industry
Since the adoption of computer hardware and software by
hospitality operators in the 1980s, IT has become a power-
ful force driving the hospitality industry (Law et al., 2013;
Piccoli, 2008). While there is extensive literature examin-
ing IT from the operations and revenue management per-
spective (Law et al., 2013; O’Connor & Murphy, 2004;
Siguaw, Enz, & Namasivayam, 2000), research viewing
hospitality technology as a marketing tool is scant. This
neglect is surprising as attracting guests with novel
technology-based services (e.g., mobile check-in, wireless
1
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA
Corresponding Author:
Stephanie Qing Liu
Email: stephliu2016@gmail.com

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016

2 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
charging stations) is gaining popularity. Indeed, service
differentiation and value creation are critical in strengthen-
ing brand competitiveness (Barney, 1991; Porter, 2008).
Novel hospitality technologies such as robotic butlers are
likely to provide a more memorable experience, thus creat-
ing extra value for the customer. Therefore, hospitality
operators should strategically communicate their unique
technology-based service offerings to consumers. We argue
that comparative advertising might be particularly effec-
tive in the hospitality context as consumers have a natural
tendency to compare existing options and they value
unique and special experiences (Bettman, Luce, & Payne,
1998; Keinan & Kivetz, 2011; Zauberman, Ratner, & Kim,
2009).
Regulatory Focus
Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two motiva-
tional orientations in goal pursuit: a promotion focus, which
is concerned with achievement and growth, and a preven-
tion focus, which is concerned with responsibilities and
safety (Higgins, 1997, 1998). As a result, promotion-
focused individuals are motivated to maximize the occur-
rence of positive outcomes and are driven toward gains. In
contrast, prevention-focused individuals strive to minimize
the occurrence of negative outcomes; therefore, they tend to
exhibit heightened vigilance against losses (Crowe &
Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998, 2002).
Previous research on regulatory fit suggests that when
people pursue goals in a strategic manner that sustains their
regulatory orientations, they “feel right” about what they are
doing. Such fit feelings, in turn, influence their subsequent
judgments and evaluations (Aaker & Lee, 2006; Avnet &
Higgins, 2006; Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Higgins,
2000; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003).
For instance, A. Y. Lee and Aaker (2004) demonstrate that
advertising appeals presented in a gain frame are more per-
suasive for health-promoting products, whereas loss-framed
appeals are more persuasive for disease-preventing prod-
ucts. Regulatory fit also has a powerful impact on consum-
ers’ perceived value. Avnet and Higgins (2003) show that
people are willing to pay 40% more for the same book-light
when there is (vs. is not) a fit between the strategy used in
choosing the book-light and the consumer’s regulatory
orientation.
Regulatory Fit in Comparative Advertising
Two prior studies have explored regulatory fit in the context
of comparative advertising (Jain, Agrawal, & Maheswaran,
2006; Jain, Lindsey, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2007).
Findings of these two studies suggest that an ad message
emphasizing a brand’s superiority over its competitors is
more effective among promotion-focused individuals due
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
to their focus on gains, whereas stressing competitors’ infe-
riority is more effective among prevention-focused indi-
viduals whose focus is on avoiding losses. The current
study extends their findings by contrasting the persuasive-
ness of comparative advertising against noncomparative
advertising. We speculate that people with a promotion
(prevention) goal are eagerly seeking gains (vigilantly
avoiding losses); therefore, they tend to interpret compara-
tive ads in a manner that fits their regulatory goals. This
regulatory fit, in turn, will transfer into higher levels of pur-
chase intention toward the advertised brand (Aaker & Lee,
2006; Avnet & Higgins, 2003, 2006). In contrast, with no
mention of a reference brand, noncomparative ads fail to
trigger gain or loss perceptions, thus they will not boost pur-
chase intention.
We examine narrative ads and list ads separately as pre-
sentation format influences consumers’ information pro-
cessing strategies (Adaval & Wyer, 1998; Boller, 1988;
Mattila, 2000; Padgett & Allen, 1997). Narratives portray
the audience as a character in the story (Padgett & Allen,
1997) and they tend to lead to a greater transportation into
an experience and reduced cognitive counterarguing
(Escalas, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). Narrative-
comparative ads depict a superior service experience with
the advertised brand against its competitors. Consequently,
narrative-comparative ads should be particularly persuasive
among promotion-focused individuals (Jain et al., 2006,
Jain et al., 2007). On the contrary, such ads might not be as
effective among prevention-focused individuals because
there is no explicit information about loss avoidance or
inferiority. Taken together, narrative-comparative ads are
expected to be effective among promotion-focused individ-
uals. Formally,
Hypothesis 1: For technology-based service ads in a
narrative format, promotion-focused individuals will
generate more gain-approach perceptions when the
ads are comparative (vs. noncomparative); in con-
trast, this difference will not occur among prevention-
focused individuals.
Hypothesis 2: For technology-based service ads in a
narrative format, promotion-focused individuals will
exhibit higher levels of purchase intention when the
ads are comparative (vs. noncomparative); in con-
trast, this difference will not occur among prevention-
focused individuals.
In contrast, the list format facilitates the audience to
actively compare the advertised brand and its competitor on
an attribute-by-attribute basis (Swinyard, 1981), and such a
process is characterized with increased cognitive elabora-
tion and analytical processing (Muehling, Stoltman, &
Grossbart, 1990; Thompson & Hamilton, 2006). Due to
people’s motivational states of goal pursuit, the same
Liu and Mattila 3

list-comparative ad can lead to different perceptions: People Table 1.

with a promotion focus tend to interpret the ad as “attaining Characteristics of the Participants (N = 254).
advantages by choosing the advertised brand,” while those
Variable Frequency %
with a prevention focus are likely to perceive the same mes-
sage as “avoiding disadvantages by preferring the adver- Gender
tised brand.” This experience of regulatory fit is expected to  Female 78 30.7
boost purchase intention (Aaker & Lee, 2006; Avnet &  Male 176 69.3
Higgins, 2003, 2006). In sum, we propose that comparative Age
ads in a list format are persuasive among both promotion-   Below 20 24 9.4
focused and prevention-focused individuals. Accordingly,  21-30 142 55.9
we put forth the following hypotheses:  31-40 59 23.2
 41-50 15 5.9
  51 or older 14 5.5
Hypothesis 3: For technology-based service ads in a
Ethnicity
list format, (a) promotion-focused individuals will
 Caucasian 198 78.0
generate more gain-approach perceptions and (b) pre-
  African American 13 5.1
vention-focused individuals will generate more loss-  Hispanic 10 3.9
avoidance perceptions when the ads are comparative  Asian 26 10.2
(vs. noncomparative).   American Indian, Alaskan Native, 1 .4
Hypothesis 4: For technology-based service ads in a Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander
list format, promotion-focused individuals and pre-  Other 6 2.4
vention-focused individuals will both exhibit higher Educational level
levels of purchase intention when the ads are com-   High school or less 26 10.2
parative (vs. noncomparative).   Some college 79 31.1
 College 121 47.6
  Graduate school 28 11.0
Method Household income
  Less than US$20,000 51 20.1
Participants   US$20,000 to US$39,999 63 24.8
Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to recruit U.S. adult   US$40,000 to US$59,999 66 26.0
participants online.1 Mechanical Turk features a diverse   US$60,000 to US$79,999 32 12.6
nationwide pool of consumers and provides high-quality   US$80,000 to US$99,999 18 7.1
data (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci,   US$100,000 or more 24 9.4
Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). Prior hospitality research has Hotel stays (per year)
utilized Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect data (Mattila &   Less than 5 152 59.8
Choi, 2014; Wu, Mattila, & Han, 2014). Each participant  6-10 64 25.2
received 50 cents for completing the study. A total of 254  11-15 15 5.9
 16-20 18 7.1
usable responses were received. As shown in Table 1, the
  21 or more 5 2.0
sample was 69% male and between the ages of 18 and 72
years (M = 30 years). Although the sample had more male
participants, the proportion of male participants did not dif-
service might not be the most important factor in hotel book-
fer across experimental conditions, and gender was not sta-
ing decisions, we aim to show that such a feature can signifi-
tistically significant in the data analyses. The median
cantly boost consumers’ purchase intention when properly
income was US$40,000 to US$59,999, and median educa-
advertised.
tion was a 4-year college degree. For usage frequency, par-
The study employed a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs.
ticipants reported an average of seven hotel nights per year
prevention) × 2 (comparison framing: comparative vs. non-
and 77% of them stayed three nights or more.
comparative) × 2 (presentation format: narrative vs. list)
between-subjects design. Regulatory focus was primed via
Study Design and Stimuli an ostensibly unrelated task, whereas presentation format
and comparison framing were manipulated using four dif-
A “keyless check-in” service, which has gained growing ferent advertisements. A summary of the experimental con-
attention in the lodging industry (Karmin, 2014; Trejos, ditions is presented in Figure 1.
2014), was used as a context to test our proposed interaction First, participants were randomly assigned to the two reg-
effect of regulatory focus and comparison framing under dif- ulatory focus conditions. Regulatory focus was primed using
ferent ad presentation formats. Although a keyless check-in a well-established procedure (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, &

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016

4 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
Figure 1.
Experimental conditions.
Hymes, 1994; Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001;
Scholer, Ozaki, & Higgins, 2014). Participants in the promo-
tion focus condition were asked to write down their current
“hopes and aspirations” and explain how the current “hopes
and aspirations” differ from those they had when growing up.
Conversely, participants in the prevention focus condition
were instructed to write down their current “duties and obli-
gations,” the differences between their current “duties and
obligations,” and those they had when growing up.
Next, participants were randomly assigned to view an
advertisement featuring a “keyless check-in” service at a
fictitious hotel (Royal Crown). They were told the follow-
ing prior to their exposure to the ad: “Imagine that Royal
Crown Hotel is located in a city you are traveling to. Please
examine the following hotel advertisement.” There were
four versions of the ad: narrative-comparative, narrative-
noncomparative, list-comparative, and list-noncomparative.
The narrative-comparative ad used a story-telling style to
actively convey how the check-in experience at Royal
Crown is superior to its major competitors, whereas the
narrative-noncomparative ad did not contain any compari-
son information (see Appendix A). The list-comparative ad
presented attributes of the check-in process at Royal Crown
versus its major competitors and let the consumer decide
which attribute was superior or inferior, whereas the list-
noncomparative ad excluded the competitor information
(see Appendix B). Finally, participants indicated their pur-
chase intention and loss–gain perceptions, and responded to
manipulation check questions and demographic questions.
Measures
Purchase intention was measured via a three-item scale:
unlikely = 1/likely = 7, impossible = 1/possible = 7, and
improbable = 1/probable = 7 (Cronbach’s α = .92), adapted
from Mattila (2000) and Yi (1993). To gain insight into
whether the ads induced loss–gain perceptions, we asked
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
participants the extent to which the ad suggested that choos-
ing the Royal Crown would enable them to avoid disadvan-
tages = 1/have advantages = 7, avoid a loss = 1/achieve a
gain = 7, and avoid the inferior experience = 1/have the
superior experience = 7 (Cronbach’s α = .77). For the regu-
latory focus manipulation, we asked participants to indicate
the extent to which the information they provided about
themselves was focused on “responsibilities = 1/hopes = 7”
and “obligations = 1/aspirations = 7” (r = .89, p < .001).
Results
Manipulation Checks
There was a significant difference in the manipulation check
between the prevention focus (M = 2.35) and promotion focus
condition (M = 5.70), t(252) = 16.56, p < .001. There was also
a significant difference in the manipulation check between the
narrative format (M = 2.11) and list format conditions (M =
6.28), t(252) = 23.76, p < .001. In addition, there was a signifi-
cant difference in the manipulation check between the non-
comparative (M = 2.57) and comparative conditions (M =
5.62), t(252) = 14.01, p < .001. Finally, the mean rating on
stimuli realism was 5.60, indicating that participants in this
study perceived the stimuli to reflect real-life hotel ads. In
conclusion, our experimental manipulations were effective.
Results of the Narrative Format
We first examine ads in a narrative presentation format. A
Regulatory Focus × Comparison Framing two-way ANOVA
was performed on loss–gain perceptions (see Figure 2).
Results revealed a main effect of regulatory focus,
F(1, 127) = 6.52, p < .05, and a Comparison Framing ×
Regulatory Focus interaction, F(1, 127) = 6.61, p < .05. A
series of planned contrasts with one-tailed tests (Aaker &
Lee, 2001) showed that promotion-focused individuals
experienced greater gain perceptions when the ad was com-
parative (M = 6.34) rather than noncomparative (M = 5.46),
t(127) = 2.83, p < .01. As expected, such a difference was
not detected among prevention-focused individuals, t(127)
= 0.78, ns. These findings are congruent with Hypothesis 1.
To test Hypothesis 2, we ran a two-way ANOVA on pur-
chase intention (see Figure 3). There were main effects of
comparison framing, F(1, 127) = 4.65, p < .05, and regula-
tory focus, F(1, 127) = 4.88, p < .05, but these two main
effects were qualified by a significant Comparison Framing
× Regulatory Focus interaction, F(1, 127) = 3.94, p < .05.
The patterns were similar to those of loss–gain perceptions.
Results suggested that promotion-focused individuals
exhibited higher levels of purchase intention when the ad
was comparative (M = 5.64) as opposed to noncomparative
(M = 4.71), t(127) = 2.89, p < .01; in contrast, comparison
framing had no effect among prevention-focused individu-
als, t(127) = 0.39, ns. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
Liu and Mattila 5
Figure 2.
Effects of regulatory focus and comparison framing on
loss–gain perceptions (narrative format).
Figure 3.
Effects of regulatory focus and comparison framing on
purchase intention (narrative format).
Results of the List Format
We then examine ads in a list presentation format. A two-way
ANOVA on loss–gain perceptions (see Figure 4) revealed a
main effect of regulatory focus, F(1, 119) = 5.16, p < .05, and a
Comparison Framing × Regulatory Focus interaction,
F(1, 119) = 7.35, p < .01. Consumers’ regulatory focus drove
their loss–gain perceptions: promotion-focused individuals
experienced higher gain-approach perceptions with the com-
parative (vs. noncomparative) ad (M = 6.34 vs. M = 5.46), t(119)
= 1.85, p < .05; prevention-focused individuals, conversely, indi-
cated greater loss-avoidance perceptions with the comparative
(vs. noncomparative) ad (M = 4.83 vs. M = 5.52), t(119) = 1.97,
p < .05. Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b are also supported.
To test Hypothesis 4, we conducted a two-way ANOVA
on purchase intention (see Figure 5). Results revealed a main
effect of comparison framing, F(1, 119) = 10.23, p < .01. As
expected, promotion-focused individuals exhibited higher
levels of purchase intention when the ad was comparative
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
Figure 4.
Effects of regulatory focus and comparison framing on
loss–gain perceptions (list format).
(M = 5.42) as opposed to noncomparative (M = 4.47), t(119)
= 2.65, p < .01. Similarly, prevention-focused individuals
also exhibited higher levels of purchase intention when the
ad was comparative (M = 5.48) rather than noncomparative
(M = 4.80), t(119) = 1.87, p < .05. These findings are congru-
ent with Hypothesis 4.
Please note that results from 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs showed
that the three-way interactions did not reach significance
(see Table 2). Hence, the two different patterns of 2 × 2
interactions for narrative and list formats, respectively,
though consistent with expectations, were not significantly
different due to insufficient power. A summary of cell
means is provided in Table 3.
Discussion
Our findings contribute to the hospitality literature in several
ways. First, our findings demonstrate that comparative
advertising enhances persuasion by taking advantage of con-
sumers’ motivation to attain gain (promotion goals) or avoid
losses (prevention goals). Moreover, the study findings pro-
vide insight into how gain- or loss-related perceptions influ-
ence consumers’ purchase intention. These findings are
consistent with previous regulatory fit research showing that
the experience of regulatory fit can transfer into consumers’
evaluation of an advertised product (Cesario et al., 2004;
Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). Using noncom-
parative ads as a control condition, we show that noncom-
parative ads fail to trigger consumers’ loss or gain
perceptions, and consequently, they do not benefit from a
boost of regulatory fit. In sum, our findings suggest that
regulatory focus is an important factor in understanding con-
sumers’ reactions to hospitality/service advertising.
Second, this study identifies presentation format as a criti-
cal boundary condition in comparative advertising. To the best
of our knowledge, previous research has failed to contrast the
narrative and list formats in a single study. More importantly,
6 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 

Figure 5. 2010, 2012; Rosenzweig & Gilovich, 2012). The current

Effects of regulatory focus and comparison framing on study addresses this gap by examining regulatory focus
purchase intention (list format). theory and comparative advertising in a service context.

Managerial Implications
Despite the increasing importance of innovative technolo-
gies, only a few hospitality companies have considered using
comparative messages to highlight their superiority. The
findings of this study indicate that it is important to under-
stand that consumers have different regulatory goals and
these goals make them more susceptible to certain types of
messages. For example, consumers with a promotion goal
seek for opportunities to attain gains or advantages, whereas
consumers with a prevention goal focus on avoiding losses or
disadvantages. Consequently, hospitality marketers can high-
light their unique technology-based offerings by creating
comparisons with other companies who are less innovative.
Table 2. Such comparative advertisements imply that consumers can
2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA Table for Loss–Gain Perceptions and attain advantages or avoid disadvantages by choosing the
Purchase Intention (N = 254). focal brand, thus enhancing consumers’ purchase intention.
Many hospitality companies are striving to attract con-
Loss–gain sumers with new service technologies. For example, Marriott
perceptions Purchase intention
and JetBlue have become the first major hotel chain and air-
Source  df F p F p line to accept Apple Pay. Starbucks has introduced free wire-
less charging for smartphone in select stores and McDonald’s
RF 1 11.602 .001** 1.120 .291
is planning to make wireless charging spots available in
CF 1 0.870 .352 14.162 .000**
2,000 restaurants by 2016. The findings of this study suggest
PF 1 0.982 .323 0.045 .832
that these hospitality companies should use comparative
RF × CF 1 14.011 .000** 3.209 .074
advertising to highlight their superior IT offerings. Hospitality
RF × PF 1 0.002 .961 4.494 .035*
CF × PF 1 1.148 .285 0.437 .509
marketers can create comparative advertisements based on
RF × CF × PF 1 0.070 .792 1.129 .289 ad examples in our study (see Appendices A and B). Thus, the
current study offers hospitality managers a novel means to
Note. RF = regulatory focus; CF = comparison framing; PF = presentation enhance their advertising effectiveness.
format. Moreover, hospitality marketers should consider the role of
*p < .05. **p < .001.
presentation format when creating comparative advertisements.
While the narrative format elicits gain perceptions and as such
the current study examines how regulatory focus affects con- is particularly effective among promotion-focused consumers
sumer responses to comparative ads across different presenta- (e.g., U.S. consumers), the list format can generate either gain
tion formats. The findings of this study suggest that the or loss perceptions, depending on the viewer’s regulatory focus.
interpretation of gains and losses is more flexible with com- Consequently, the list format appeals to both promotion-focused
parative ads in a list (vs. narrative) format. Specifically, the list and prevention-focused consumers. When it is difficult to
format enables consumers to actively adopt a viewpoint (i.e., assess the target market’s regulatory focus or when the target
attaining advantages or avoiding disadvantages) that matches market has mixed regulatory orientations (e.g., Hong Kong,
their regulatory focus, and such a “fit” experience elevates Singapore), the list format might be more effective.
consumers’ purchase intention. Therefore, the present study
also adds to the hospitality/service advertising literature by
demonstrating an interactive effect between regulatory focus
Limitations and Future Research
and ad presentation format on persuasion. As any experiment, this study has several limitations. First,
Finally, previous research on regulatory focus and com- we used ad stimuli for a hypothetical hotel brand. It is pos-
parative advertising has mainly focused on material goods sible that other factors, such as familiarity or prior experi-
rather than experiential services. This neglect is surprising ence with the brand, might affect consumers’ evaluations.
as recent research shows that consumers may engage in dif- Second, we measured participants’ purchase intention
ferent decision-making processes when evaluating services rather than actual purchase behaviors. To overcome these
versus goods (Bolton & Alba, 2006; Carter & Gilovich, limitations, empirical investigations in a field setting are

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016

Liu and Mattila 7

Table 3.
Cell Means (Standard Errors) for Loss–Gain Perceptions and Purchase Intention.

Regulatory focus Comparison framing Loss–gain perceptions Purchase intention

Narrative format condition
 Promotion Comparative 6.34 (.23) 5.85 (.27)
  Noncomparative 5.46 (.22) 4.75 (.27)
 Prevention Comparative 5.22 (.21) 4.73 (.26)
  Noncomparative 5.46 (.22) 4.69 (.27)
List format condition
 Promotion Comparative 6.00 (.24) 5.42 (.26)
  Noncomparative 5.42 (.24) 4.47 (.25)
 Prevention Comparative 4.85 (.24) 5.48 (.26)
  Noncomparative 5.52 (.24) 4.80 (.26)

needed. Third, because this research was limited to a single
study, replications and extensions to other types of experi-
ential services are needed for enhanced generalizability.
Finally, the sample was U.S. consumers. Future research
should examine potential cross-cultural differences.
This study is an initial examination of comparative
advertising in the hospitality industry. Future research is
needed to gain a better understanding of how consumers
process comparative messages and what other factors influ-
ence advertising effectiveness. One direction is to look into
the role of power in influencing information processing
(Choi & Mattila, 2014). Another potential direction is to
explore comparative advertising in the context of pricing
and sales promotions.

Appendix A
Narrative Ads.

Source. Starwood Hotels and Resorts.

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016

8 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
Appendix B
List Ads.
Source. Starwood Hotels and Resorts.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, or publication of this article: The
authors thank the Marriott Foundation for the funding of this
research.
Note
1. A series of measures were taken to ensure the internal and
external validity when using Amazon Mechanical Turk,
including no repeated IP addresses of respondents, the use
of Qualtrics randomizer, and time allowed for the survey.
Details are available from the authors upon request. The aver-
age time participants spent on the study was 8 min.
References
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we”
avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research,
28, 33-49.
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit.
Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 15-19.
Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. (1998). The role of narratives in
consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7, 207-245.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and
regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what.” Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525-530.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects
value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 43, 1-10.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive
consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research,
25, 187-217.
Blose, J. E., Mack, R. W., & Pitts, R. E. (2015). The influence
of message framing on hotel guests’ linen-reuse intentions.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56, 145-154.
Boller, G. W. (1988). Narrative advertisements: Stories about
consumption experiences and their effects on meanings
Liu and Mattila 9
about products (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Bolton, L.E., & Alba, J. W. (2006). Price fairness: Good and
service differences and the role of vendor costs. Journal of
Consumer Research 33, 258-265.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-
quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of mate-
rial and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 146-159.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2012). I am what I do, not what I
have: The differential centrality of experiential and mate-
rial purchases to the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 1304-1317.
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit
and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404.
Choi, C., & Mattila, A. S. (2014). The effects of promotion fram-
ing on consumers’ price perceptions: The moderating role of
a personal sense of power. Journal of Service Management,
25, 149-160.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic
inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69,
117-132.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental
simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal
of Advertising, 33, 37-48.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in
the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J.
(1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1-15.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus
as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 1-46). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit.
American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct val-
ues: The case of promotion and prevention decision making.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 177-191.
Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden,
D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994).
Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance:
Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.
Hu, H.-H. (2012). The effectiveness of environmental advertis-
ing in the hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53,
154-164.
Jackson, D. W., Brown, S. W., & Harmon, R. R. (1979).
Comparative magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising
Research, 19, 21-26.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
Jain, S. P., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2006). When more
may be less: The effects of regulatory focus on responses to
different comparative frames. Journal of Consumer Research,
33, 91-98.
Jain, S. P., Lindsey, C., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2007).
For better or for worse? Valenced comparative frames and
regulatory focus. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 57-65.
Karmin, C. (2014). Smartphones to open doors at some hotels.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304856504
579339130820876304 (acessed Janurary 30, 2016).
Keinan, A., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Productivity orientation and the
consumption of collectable experiences. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37, 935-950.
Kim, S.-B., & Kim, D.-Y. (2014). The effects of message framing
and source credibility on green messages in hotels. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 64-75.
Law, R., Leung, D., & Au, N. (2013). Progress and development of
information technology in the hospitality industry: Evidence
from Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 54, 10-24.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The
influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.
Lee, S. A., & Oh, H. (2014). Effective communication strate-
gies for hotel guests’ green behavior. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 55, 52-63.
Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T.
(2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative
hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5-18.
Mattila, A. S. (2000). The role of narratives in the advertising of
experiential services. Journal of Service Research, 3, 35-45.
Mattila, A. S. (2001). Do emotional appeals work for hotels?
An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 25, 21-45.
Mattila, A. S., & Choi, C. (2014). An analysis of consumers’ reac-
tions to travel websites’ discrimination by computer platform.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 210-215.
Muehling, D. D., Stoltman, J. J., & Grossbart, S. (1990). The
impact of comparative advertising on levels of message
involvement. Journal of Advertising, 19, 41-50.
O’Connor, P., & Murphy, J. (2004). Research on information
technology in the hospitality industry. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 23, 473-484.
Padgett, D., & Allen, D. (1997). Communicating experiences: A
narrative approach to creating service brand image. Journal of
Advertising, 26, 49-62.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running
experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and
Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
Piccoli, G. (2008). Information technology in hotel management:
A framework for evaluating the sustainability of IT-dependent
competitive advantage. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49,
282-296.
Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sus-
taining superior performance. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer’s remorese or
missed opportunity? Differential regrets for material and
10 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 215-223.
Scholer, A. A., Ozaki, Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Inflating and
deflating the self: Sustaining motivational concerns through
self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
51, 60-73.
Siguaw, J. A., Enz, C. A., & Namasivayam, K. (2000). Adoption
of information technology in U.S. hotels: Strategically driven
objectives. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 192-201.
Swinyard, W. R. (1981). The interaction between comparative
advertising and copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18, 175-186.
Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of
information processing mode on consumers’ responses to
comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32,
530-540.
Trejos, N. (2014). Going keyless is the key: The hotel room
key goes mobile. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/
hotels/2014/06/26/hotel-room-key-goes-mobile/11418971/
(accessed Janurary 30, 2016).
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at HKUST Library on May 11, 2016
Wilkie, W. L., & Farris, P. W. (1975). Comparison advertising:
Problems and potential. Journal of Marketing, 39, 7-15.
Wu, L. L., Mattila, A. S., & Han, J. R. (2014). Territoriality revis-
ited: Other customer’s perspective. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 38, 48-56.
Yi, Y. (1993). Contextual priming effects in print advertise-
ments: The moderating role of prior knowledge. Journal of
Advertising, 22, 1-10.
Zauberman, G., Ratner, R. K., & Kim, B. K. (2009). Memories
as assets: Strategic memory protection in choice over time.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 715-728.
Author Biographies
Stephanie Qing Liu
Anna S. Mattila, PhD, is the Marriott professor of lodging manage-
ment in the School of Hospitality Management at the Pennsylvania
State University. She received her PhD in services marketing from
Cornell University. She currently serves on numerous editorial
boards of various service and hospitality management journals.