Article

Journal of Service Research

2018, Vol. 21(2) 235-248
An Examination of Construal Effects on ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Price Perceptions in the Advance Selling DOI: 10.1177/1094670517738367
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsr
of Experience Services
Lane T. Wakefield1 and Kirk L. Wakefield2

Abstract
Service research in the advance selling of experience services is limited in regard to how individual and situational differences
influence price information processing. Applying construal-level theory in the context of advance selling of tickets for experience
services, this research demonstrates that who (near vs. far social distance), when (near vs. far temporal distance), and where
(spatial distance) influence price sensitivity and perceived value of the experience service. Study 1 finds that consumers are more
price sensitive when they consider the advance purchase of events taking place further in the future, unless they are experienced,
as Study 2 finds. Across both studies, buyers perceive greater value when the time and location of the event are psychologically
near. Compared to when social distance is near (self-reference), consumers construe other average buyers in the market to be
relatively more price sensitive and to perceive relatively higher value for experience services. Since an important factor at work in
the minds of buyers is other buyers, the results imply that service providers should frame offers in reference more to others than
the self for experiences. The effects of time and distance suggest managers should carefully geo-target offers customized to when
and where customers are when buying tickets. As experienced buyers have learned to be price sensitive for tickets, managers
should identify these individuals to provide relevant value-added offers.

Keywords
construal-level theory, psychological distance, price sensitivity, perceived value, experience service

The true price of anything you do is the amount of time you
exchange for it.
Henry David Thoreau
Services are often sold in advance, and price fluctuations are
common with the influx of intermediaries in secondary markets
(e.g., StubHub) that facilitate the resale of all kinds of experi-
ences. How do buyers process price information about experi-
ences closer or farther away in terms of for whom, when, and
where the event occurs? We examine price information pro-
cessing in the context of the advance selling of experience
services.
Construal-level theory (CLT) suggests that individuals
travel across time, space, and social contexts by forming
abstract mental pictures of distal objects (Liberman and Trope
1998; Trope and Liberman 2010). Consider the purchase of
tickets to a concert, play, sporting event, or other performances
and events with set capacities on given dates. Individuals pre-
dict or perceive the value depending on whether the event will
take place sooner or later (temporal distance), what they
believe about the value of the tickets personally relative to how
others in the market value the tickets (social distance), and
whether the event is located nearby or far away (spatial dis-
tance). We investigate how these aspects of psychological
distance influence perceived value and price sensitivity in two
field studies involving the advance selling of tickets.
Advance selling by service providers and resellers has
increasingly drawn attention from service researchers (Geng,
Wu, and Whinston 2007; Moe and Fader 2009) at the aggregate
but not at the individual level. Specifically, Chandler and
Lusch (2015) call for research on the role of time and context
in determining how individual consumers perceive value pro-
positions for experience services. Yet, to date, no research has
examined individual differences in consumer processing of
prices for advance purchases. Prior investigations in advance
selling have treated consumer uncertainty as relatively homo-
geneous among rational consumers (Prasad, Stecke, and Zhao
2011; Shugan and Xie 2005; Xie and Shugan 2001). Research
has made some effort to examine elements of buyer-seller
1
Stetson School of Business and Economics, Mercer University, Macon,
GA, USA
2
Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lane T. Wakefield, Stetson School of Business and Economics, Mercer
University, 1501 Mercer University Drive, Macon, GA 31207, USA.
Email: wakefield_lt@mercer.edu
236
Figure 1. Construal effects on perceived value and price sensitivity of
experience services: A proposed framework.
perceptions but, in reference to advance selling, concluded that
sellers are blind to consumer valuations (Fay and Xie 2010),
with little regard to other factors that could reveal individual
consumer perceptions of value and price.
We examine differences in perceived value and price sensi-
tivity in the context of the advance selling of hedonic experi-
ence services. These services may be repeatedly purchased; yet
limited inventory or capacity exists for any given date. Exam-
ples include ski and vacation resorts, performing arts, sporting
events, movie theaters, amusement parks, and various hospi-
tality services. Employing CLT (Liberman and Trope 1998),
we present theoretical expectations and empirical evidence to
understand who might perceive greater value and be price sen-
sitive to admissions to future experiences and when and where
this may occur. Fundamentally, CLT holds that individuals
construe psychologically distant events in the abstract and eval-
uate events perceived as near (in time, in space, or in person) in
concrete terms (Trope and Liberman 2003). Figure 1 illustrates
the proposed framework.
This research contributes to the field of advance selling of
services by applying CLT to examine multiple sources of psy-
chological distance while accounting for individual differences
that may interact and explain perceived value of and price
sensitivity to such purchases. Prior service research (e.g., Pizzi
et al. 2015) has focused only on temporal distance. Although
Liberman and Trope (2014, p. 364) claim that much of people’s
lives “revolve around things that are not happening to [them]
right now,” little is known about how psychological distance
influences price information processing in advance selling con-
texts in which time, person, and space variations are inherent.
In Study 1, we find that temporal, social, and spatial distance
influences perceived value and price sensitivity among consu-
mers considering buying tickets in advance across a range of
professional sporting events. In Study 2, the focus turns to
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
performing arts among past buyers considering prices for per-
formances in the near versus distant future, considering self-
perceptions of price or those of others and considering the
effects of spatial distance (those who live nearby vs. far away)
in that market. We find temporal distance effects on price
sensitivity dissipate among experienced buyers, but other
construal-level effects are consistent with the first study. Ser-
vice marketers in advance selling scenarios may benefit by
more effectively promoting and pricing experiences according
to likely consumer psychological dispositions. Doing so should
increase advance selling to end consumers (over brokers),
allowing service marketers to better control inventory and max-
imize profits. Researchers may benefit by better understanding
the interplay of multiple dimensions of psychological distance
and responses to the advance selling of experience services.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Price Perceptions
Perceived value precedes purchase intentions for experience
services (Wakefield and Barnes 1996). An individual
exchanges time, effort, and money in return for admission
to an experience, comparing the total utility with what is
given for it—this is the perceived value (Zeithaml 1988). The
transactional components of giving and receiving is the ratio
of quality to price (Monroe 1990) conceptualized as value-
for-money (Sweeney and Soutar 2001). In short, the perceived
value is the benefits received for the price paid (Perera and
Vlosky 2013).
Price sensitivity is the extent to which an individual changes
behavior in response to a change in price based on the individ-
ual’s subjective scale (Gabor and Granger 1966). In early
empirical work, Gabor and Granger (1966) identified three
subjective responses to a given price within a reasonably homo-
geneous population: those who find the price “too cheap,”
those who find the price “too expensive,” and those who do
not view price as an obstacle to buying at the given price. In the
case of a product/service for which the consumer is familiar
and considers essential or somewhat essential, the effect of
price as an indicator of quality becomes less important, and
the consumer is generally less price sensitive (Sowter, Gabor,
and Granger 1971).
CLT and Price Perceptions
Liberman and Trope (2014, p. 365) suggest that “it is ever
important whether an object is real or imagined, certain or
probable, present, future or past, mine or somebody else’s.”
CLT proposes that individuals construe, or interpret, experi-
ences from different perspectives according to psychological
distance in terms of time, space, or other people (Trope and
Liberman 2010). Fundamentally, a higher level construal con-
stitutes abstract mental processes, while a lower level construal
denotes concrete thoughts. Individuals operate at higher con-
strual levels when psychological distance increases which
entails any way an object could be removed from the self
Wakefield and Wakefield 237

Table 1. Distinguishing High- and Low-Level Construal and Psycho- (2010) suggest that the perception of distance between objects
logical Distance in Advance Selling of Experience Services. does not necessarily follow a linear function but is subjective,
High-Level Construal Low-Level Construal
dependent on psychological characteristics of the individual
and physical characteristics of the object/place considered.
Abstract Concrete Similarly, thinking about personally purchasing in advance
Simple Complex (near social distance) or thinking of how others perceive prices
Structure, coherent Unstructured, incoherent (far social distance) leads to differing types of reasoning. Con-
Decontextualized Contextualized
sidering opinions (self vs. others) and timing (sooner vs. later),
Primary, core Secondary, surface
Superordinate Subordinate buyers might perceive prices differently depending on psycho-
Goal relevant Goal irrelevant logical distance.
Desirability Feasibility Psychological distance can influence price information pro-
Ends Means cessing for products. Bornemann and Homburg (2011) suggest
that price sensitivity can be explained in terms of construal
High psychological distance Low psychological distance
level and psychological distance. When psychologically dis-
Temporal (far) Temporal (near) tant, consumers use price information to make quality infer-
Purchase far in advance of the Purchase close to the time of the ences (Bornemann and Homburg 2011; Yan and Sengupta
event event 2011) and to determine their preferences for products based
Social (others) Social (self) on desirability (Lee and Zhao 2014). Chen (2009) argues that
What a buyer believes others think What a buyer thinks of prices
reference prices have differential effects depending on whether
of prices
Spatial (far away) Spatial (nearby) consumers consider the perspective of others. However,
How a buyer thinks about distant How a buyer thinks about places beyond a study on charitable giving (MacDonnell and White
places close by 2015), researchers have not examined the role of psychological
distance when individuals process price information for
Note. Adapted from Trope and Liberman (2003, 2010) and Liberman and Trope
(2014).
advanced purchases in the service industry and experience ser-
vices in particular.

(Trope and Liberman 2010). Table 1 contains the characteris-

tics of low- and high-level construal derived from the work of
Trope and Liberman (2003, 2010; also Liberman and Trope
2014) applied to experience services that form the basis for our
CLT-related hypotheses.
Three recognized psychological distances are temporal,
social, and spatial (Trope and Liberman 2010). Temporal psy-
chological distance is near the closer the experience is to the
present time and farther as the event extends into the future. If
considering tickets for an event (e.g., movie, sporting event,
and concert) commencing in a matter of minutes, temporal
distance is very near. In contrast, buying in advance for next
month or next year (e.g., vacations) is more distant and requires
higher level construal. Social psychological distance can be
near for a personal experience or far if it is someone else’s
experience; personal experience is interpreted at low construal
levels in concrete terms and at high construal in abstract terms
when considering the point of view of others. Others in distal
groups are regarded holistically, in abstract form, characterized
by stereotypes (Liberman and Trope 2014). Spatial distance is
often considered with respect to the perceived physical distance
or space between the self and others but may also include the
degree of space between the self and some other physical place
(Williams and Bargh 2008). Experiments examining spatial
distance typically involve manipulations of objects within
view, such as words, pictures, and other people (e.g., Amit,
Algom, and Trope 2009). Less frequently studied are spatial
distances between consumers and places they have seen or
visited. Fujita et al. (2006) find that spatially distant events are
associated with high-level construal, but Trope and Liberman
Hypotheses
Temporal. Temporal distance of an event alters the evaluations,
predictions, and choices people make daily (Trope and Liber-
man 2003). Applying construal characteristics to advance pur-
chases of experiences, temporally distant tasks or goals are
perceived with more optimism than those same tasks to be
completed sooner (Pennington and Roese 2003). Finding a
better price among a variety of (ticket) purchase options for
an event in the distant future seems more likely than for a
limited supply of seats available for an event this weekend.
In the near term, buyers access relatively concrete information
regarding availability and consciously consider the complex-
ities of the immediate buying situation (e.g., limited search
time), resulting in less price sensitivity. In contrast, in the con-
text of the more distant and nebulous future, they think in
abstract terms and overestimate ability and the time available
to accomplish the price search task (i.e., the planning fallacy;
Kahneman and Tversky 1977).
Consumers think in more abstract and simple terms with
respect to future events because of increased confidence in
their ability to successfully complete a task in the future rather
than in the present or near future (Gilovich, Kerr, and Medvec
1993). This confidence is partly accounted for by the discount-
ing of potential obstacles (Kahneman and Tversky 1977;
Newby-Clark et al. 2000). An affective explanation is also
associated with how one feels about near or distant events
(Sanna 1999), but temporal construal is the cognitive explana-
tion for the increased (decreased) confidence in achieving goals
for future (proximate) events (Pennington and Roese 2003).
238
Applied to price search, in general, consumers believe that they
will have the time and ability to find better prices in the more
distant future, but pessimism sets in closer to the date of the
event when they focus more on specific obstacles to finding
lower prices (Sweeny and Krizan 2013).
Hypothesis 1: Price sensitivity is higher when temporal
distance is far than when it is near.
Perceived value of an experience increases as the time to
consume draws nearer. Concrete attributes are mentally stored
and play a role in making subsequent judgments. Thoughts
about monetary expenditures comprise concrete thinking and
lead to more concrete construal about related actions (MacDon-
nell and White 2015). If the time of a purchase is near to the
consumption experience, the consumer’s perceptions of gain
include explicit thoughts. For example, during the week pre-
ceding a football game, a fan may recall specific images asso-
ciated with the event, such as pregame tailgating, wearing of
team colors, or the exciting stimuli (e.g., food, drinks, facilities,
lighting, sounds). For temporally distant events, the perceived
value of the purchase is diminished as the buyer draws on more
abstract benefits (e.g., enjoyment) versus the concrete benefits
that come with immediacy.
Proximal events are more attractive than more distant events
(Jhang and Lynch 2015), as individuals become more focused
on what is about to happen now as they near the commence-
ment and completion of consumption goals. Individuals are less
willing to give up slack time to achieve the goal when the event
is coming sooner than later (Jhang and Lynch 2015; Lynch
et al. 2010). With respect to CLT, such consumption experi-
ences are considered more valuable in the near term, when
concrete details are available in the present context, compared
to the abstracted, decontextualized view of the distant future.
From a practical standpoint, as the consumption experience
draws nearer, less is left to the imagination as potential buyers
access concrete information pertaining to the reality of experi-
encing the event. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived value is higher when temporal
distance is near than when it is far.
Social. Social distance exists if the prediction, evaluation, or
choice is for anyone other than the self. Decisions for the self
are concrete, specific, and relatively more complex than the high
levels of construal necessary when one considers how others
may evaluate an experience. Social distance is a lens that psy-
chologically alters evaluations such that for socially distal peo-
ple, one speculates what “seems to be the case” versus “what is
the case” for one’s self (Stephan, Liberman, and Trope 2010).
Consideration of the opinions and actions of others is inher-
ent in advance selling contexts. For example, when considering
a ticket several months in advance of the concert of a favorite
artist, a buyer may think about how many others will buy tick-
ets the first day of release, wait until closer to the event, or not
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
buy at all. The buyer speculates on the beliefs and actions of
others and the impact on ticket availability.
In the high-level construal context of considering how oth-
ers (the average consumer) might evaluate and respond to
prices for an experience, we expect that individuals will gen-
eralize or predict that others will perceive relatively high value
for hedonic experience services. In high construal, individuals
resort to stereotypes of group identities (Liberman and Trope
2014). While social distance may reduce positivity about an
opposing out-group (Liberman, Trope, and Wakslak 2007),
positive attributions are likely for desirable out-groups insofar
as they are accessible and aspirational (Dimofte, Goodstein,
and Brumbaugh 2015).
With respect to socially desirable experiences, such as
cruise ships, professional sporting events, popular concerts, and
ski trips, individuals think popular experiences are just that—
popular and positively perceived among the event’s clientele,
even if the individual sees little personal value. Individuals
perceive high-status brands (purchased by others) as having
higher symbolic and social value than low-status brands
(Stockburger-Sauer and Teichmann 2013). Just as individuals
believe others place high value on a Rolex watch or Porsche
car, even though they may not own one, we expect they will
construe that others will perceive high value for hedonic expe-
rience services under purchase consideration.
Conversely, when social distance is near—when one per-
sonally considers the value received for a selected experience
service—other concrete personal factors come into play. Liber-
man and Trope (2014) maintain that focus shifts to situational
factors that may differ from the global abstractions attributed to
the group of consumers who typically enjoy the experience.
Among a cross-section of potential buyers considering advance
purchases, some may not enjoy the experience or, at least,
enjoy the experience less than the ideal associated with the
typical experiences of others who ski, take cruises, or attend
concerts, theater, operas, and sporting events. Individuals who
see themselves as further (different) from those highly identi-
fied with consuming the experience are likely to access per-
sonal, concrete opinions that represent lower perceptions of
value than the average consumer who identifies with the pro-
vider of the consumption experience (e.g., fans of a sports
team, musical artist, or performers). Thus:
Hypothesis 3: Perceived value is higher when social dis-
tance is far than when it is near.
Distal others are stereotyped as highly sensitive to differ-
ences in prices. Regardless of their own behaviors, cultural
norms may lead individuals to believe that others highly regard
price-sensitive, frugal behaviors (Borrayo and Jenkins 2003;
Schmidt and Boland 1986). As Westacott (2016, p. 1) explains,
“Each year new books appear urging us to live more econom-
ically, advising us how to spend less and save more, critiquing
consumerism . . . .. Websites and blogs devoted to frugali-
ty . . . are legion.” Consistent with Irmak, Wakslak, and Trope
(2013), in the superordinate approach associated with high
Wakefield and Wakefield
construal, consumers assume that others fit the mold and will
pay attention to prices rather than ignore prices. Accordingly,
when individuals are asked how others might respond to price
variations (i.e., willingness to seek lower prices), we expect the
stereotype of price sensitivity to prevail in the far social con-
text. Thus:
Hypothesis 4: Price sensitivity is higher when social dis-
tance is far than when it is near.
Spatial. Individuals considering advance purchases for experi-
ence services are likely to evaluate the distance required to get
to the destination. In keeping with CLT, that which is more
accessible will be perceived more positively (Agrawal and
Maheswaran 2005). Spatially near events are associated with
low-level construal (Fujita et al. 2006) such that individuals
living nearby will perceive the feasibility of attending an event
as more likely than those living far away. Thus:
Hypothesis 5: Perceived value is higher when spatial dis-
tance is near than when it is far.
Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 is to assess temporal, social, and spatial
distance on perceptions of price sensitivity and perceived value
when purchasing hedonic experience services in advance. We
test each hypothesis in the context of buying advance tickets to
professional sports events.
Method
Sample
We investigate consumer response to prices in an advance
selling context within (1) the category of advance sales of
admissions to spectator sports, (2) the topic of related advance
selling studies at the aggregate level (e.g., Geng, Wu, and
Whinston 2007; Moe and Fader 2009), and (3) a setting impor-
tant to services researchers (Grove et al. 2012). We used a
nationwide online panel to obtain a sample of 281 adult parti-
cipants representing all markets containing professional teams
(National Football league [NFL], National Basketball Associ-
ation [NBA], National Hockey League [NHL], Major League
Baseball [MLB], and Major League Soccer [MLS]). Respon-
dents were predominantly Caucasian (84.0%), 55.5% were
men, and the average age was 33 years (range: 20–67 years).
The sample represented households of lower (<$30,000,
32.4%), middle ($30,000–$69,999, 48.8%), and upper
($70,000þ, 19.8%) income levels.
We collected data in two waves during the respective sea-
sons of each sport. One wave occurred in November and asked
respondents to select an NFL, NBA, or NHL team geographi-
cally closest to their current residences. The second wave (col-
lected in May) asked respondents to select the geographically
closest MLB or MLS team. Respondents were instructed to
239
Table 2. Study 1 Construct Items, Means, and Standard Deviations.
Item (*Reverse scored) M (SD)
Perceived value: When you think about buying a ticket to a (team)
game for (time/date) what do you think (the average fan thinks)
about ticket prices? (a ¼ .906)
PV1 Bad buy/Good buy 4.45 (1.53)
PV2 Not worth the money/Worth the money 4.50 (1.72)
PV3 Too high for the quality of entertainment/Not too 4.19 (1.73)
high for the quality of entertainment
Price sensitivity: With respect to buying a ticket for (time/date), what
do you think (the average fan thinks) about ticket prices? (a ¼ .836)
PS1 I (The average fan) will make an extra effort to find a 4.21 (1.54)
low price for a ticket to the game.
PS2 I (The average fan) will change what I (s/he) had 4.07 (1.49)
planned to buy in order to take advantage of a
lower price for a ticket to the game.
PS3 I (The average fan) am (is) sensitive to differences in 4.32 (1.38)
prices of tickets to the game
Perceived distance: Think about the scenario of buying tickets to the
game. Did you picture the place as being: (a ¼ .959)
SD1 Someplace nearby* 3.09 (1.74)
SD2 Close to me* 3.11 (1.80)
SD3 Somewhere in close proximity* 3.12 (1.78)
SD4 Far away from me 2.98 (1.83)
select a single team if two teams were equal distance from their
residences. Respondents represented individuals in the markets
of all 32 NFL teams (N ¼ 115) and all 30 MLB teams (N ¼ 97)
as well as 16 NBA teams (N ¼ 40), 13 NHL teams (N ¼ 19),
and 9 MLS teams (N ¼ 10). One quarter of the respondents
lived within 13 miles of the team selected and 51.6% within 35
miles; thus, respondents represented both local and regional
consumer markets.
Procedure
To manipulate psychological distance, we employed a 2 (tem-
poral distance: near vs. distant)  2 (social distance: near vs.
distant) between-subjects design. Respondents were randomly
assigned to one of four scenarios in which the team name
provided by the respondent was inserted into the setting. With
respect to temporal distance, we asked respondents to consider
the purchase for this weekend in the near condition1 versus
buying a ticket the same time of the year next season in the
far condition. To manipulate social distance, we asked those in
the near condition, “What do you think about ticket prices?”
We asked those in the far condition, “What do you think the
average fan of the [team] thinks about ticket prices?” The exact
wording of the items appears in Table 2. A separate panel (N ¼
337) of recent ticket buyers found that 65.8% agree or strongly
agree that they consider the ticket-buying behavior of other
fans in deciding when and what to buy; only 18.1% reported
they do not consider the buying behavior of others when buy-
ing. Thus, asking what people believe about the average fan is
relevant among ticket buyers.
240 Journal of Service Research 21(2)

Table 3. Study 1 MANCOVA: Multivariate (Wilks’s Lambda) and Univariate Between-Subjects Effects.

Variables

H’s Independent Dependent F df df error p Adjusted Means Z2

Temporal distance 5.85 2 265 .003 Near Far .042

H1 Price sensitivity 6.41 1 266 .012 4.23 4.45 .024
H2 Perceived value 3.97 1 266 .047 5.06 4.90 .015
Social distance 12.21 2 265 .001 Near Far .084
H4 Price sensitivity 13.95 1 266 .001 4.22 4.45 .048
H3 Perceived value 13.51 1 266 .001 4.66 5.30 .050
Continuous independent variable b t-value
Spatial distance 4.98 2 265 .007 .035
H5 Perceived value 9.48 1 266 .002 .126 2.74 .034
Note. H ¼ hypothesis; MANCOVA ¼ multivariate analysis of covariance. Means adjusted for covariates of spatial distance, identification, age, and household
income.

The temporal distance scenario (buying for this weekend vs. and perceived value, with perceived spatial distance included
same time next year) comes from prior CLT experiments (Bor- as a covariate. The results confirming each hypothesis appear
nemann and Homburg 2011; Liberman and Trope 1998) to fit in Table 3.
the context of this experience service. Bornemann and Hom-
burg (2011) provide evidence that asking individuals to con-
sider purchase situations for themselves versus for the average Discussion
person produces distinct social distance. In advance selling
Study 1 represents an initial effort to understand how differ-
contexts, both buyers and sellers speculate about the behavior
ences in psychological distance with respect to who (self vs.
of the average customer to determine acceptable prices (Happel
others), when (sooner vs. later), and where (spatially near/far)
and Jennings 2002). Like other CLT studies (e.g., Kim, Zhang,
influence price information processing in advance selling of
and Li 2008), we measured motivation to complete the survey
hedonic experience services. Confirming Hypothesis 1, consu-
tasks with high levels of care (M ¼ 6.84; 7-point scale) and
mers considering ticket purchases for the coming weekend
found no differences (p > .40) across the four scenarios.
were significantly (p ¼ .012) less price sensitive (M ¼ 4.23)
We measured perceived spatial distance by asking respon-
than those considering a ticket for use in the distant future (M ¼
dents to think about the buying scenario and where they pic-
4.45). As anticipated, those in the near temporal condition
tured the place of the experience. We captured responses with 4
perceived significantly (p ¼ .047) higher value for the ticket
items (a ¼ .96) from Zhang and Wang (2009) that describe
to use in the near term (M ¼ 5.06) than in the distant future (M
spatial distance in terms of being nearby,” “close to,” “in close
¼ 4.90), in support of Hypothesis 2. Confirming Hypothesis 3,
proximity,” and “far away from me (reversed).” Thus, we mea-
consumers considering ticket prices for themselves perceived
sured perceived distance as a function of naturally occurring
significantly (p < .001) lower value (M ¼ 4.66) than those
phenomenon with respect to variations in distances traveled.
asked about the opinions of what distant others perceived the
Respondents also reported the actual distance in miles from
value of a ticket to be (M ¼ 5.30). In support of Hypothesis 4,
their residences to the venues, which correlates with spatial
price sensitivity was significantly (p < .001) lower for those in
distance perceptions (r ¼ .366, p < .01).
the psychologically near social condition considering the self
Prior research has tested the dependent measures in hedonic
(M ¼ 4.22) than for those in the far social condition construing
service contexts. We adapted price sensitivity (a ¼ .84) from
the price sensitivity of others in the market (M ¼ 4.45). Spatial
Wakefield and Inman (2003) and captured perceived value (a
distance produced a significant overall effect (p ¼ .007), indi-
¼ .88) with items drawn from Wakefield and Barnes (1996).
cating the farther away respondents perceived the venue to be
Table 2 lists the items, means, and SDs. As does other CLT
from their residences, the less value they placed on the ticket (b
work (Fujita et al. 2006; MacDonnell and White 2015; Zhao
¼ .126, t ¼ 2.74). Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported. Overall,
and Xie 2011), we account for affinity of the service provider
including the individual differences, the model explains 38.2%
via social identification (Mael and Ashforth 1992) as well as
of variance in perceived value and 16.3% in price sensitivity.
accounting for individual differences (demographics).
Our findings indicate that individuals process price infor-
mation differently depending on the extent to which they rely
on concrete versus abstract construal. The key implication for
Analysis and Results (ticket) sellers is that the multidimensional mental frame of the
We conducted a 2 (temporal: near/far)  2 (social: near/far) buyer alters the acceptance of a price as a good value and
multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to test the influences willingness to search for a better price. We discuss
hypotheses. The dependent variables were price sensitivity related managerial issues more fully following Study 2.
Wakefield and Wakefield 241

Study 2 for a specific type of experience (theatre), may behave

differently.
The cross-section of individuals surveyed in the context of
As noted previously, ticket purchases in the secondary mar-
sporting events in Study 1 gives rise to several issues. First,
ket frequently occur in the days immediately preceding the
sports tickets constitute a major market for advance selling, but
event. Although ticket scalping exceptions generate publicity
are sports a special case? Although we account for different
in special cases (White 2016), prices for individual tickets in
leagues and seasons, the context of sports may not transfer to
the secondary market for performing arts generally increase
other advance selling contexts. Second, compared to the
immediately after release, followed by a slow, steady decline,
exchange of money for many goods and services, the decision
including drops of 21%–37% on the day of the event (Grant
to consume hedonic experiences involves an exchange of time,
2015). With increased ticket-buying experience in markets in
money, and effort (Zeithaml 1988); effort can be both physical
which prices tend to decline closer to the event date, experi-
and cognitive (Van Beuningen, de Ruyter, and Wetzels 2010).
enced buyers may perceive the ticket marketplace less in the
In Study 1, we measured perceived value in terms of an
abstract but in richer detail from incidents in which price search
exchange of money but did not account for time and effort.
produces relative gains in the near condition.
Third, the temporal manipulation of buying a year in advance
Low-level construal includes specific incidents within the
effectively creates a low- and high-level construal context, and
context of events (Stephan, Liberman, and Trope 2010). Expe-
though this may fit some buying situations (e.g., season ticket
rienced buyers will recognize the pattern of price fluctuations
renewal offers begin before the current season is complete), it
by organizations using dynamic pricing as well as the changes
overlooks more frequent, realistic buying situations among
in the secondary markets for tickets sold by individuals and
buyers. Fourth, examining the demographics, few respondents
brokers as the event draws near. Armed with this knowledge,
in Study 1 reported frequent game attendance (11.4%), and
experienced buyers should construe that prices will decline
approximately one-half (48.4%) lived more than 35 miles away
over time such that lower prices are typically worth the search
from the venue. Thus, the sample largely represents those apt to
whether the event is coming sooner or later. Benning, Breugel-
have an abstract view of others who may frequently attend and
mans, and Dellaert (2012) find that recent experience overruled
live closer to the venue. Given that more than one-third of the
temporal distance effects when considering health-care ser-
market buys tickets within 72 hours of the event (Hall 2015),
vices. Kyung, Menon, and Trope (2014) show that those more
Study 2 aims to understand how temporal distance influences
experienced and knowledgeable more easily retrieve judg-
such purchase decisions among buyers with more concrete
ments, and this fluency or salience moderates temporal dis-
information within a particular market that allows for some
tance effects. We expect the same in our context. In a
control of externalities.
specific ticket market of experienced buyers, we revise
To address the questions raised in Study 1, we turn to the
Hypothesis 1 to account for experience.
performing arts to assess consumer response to advance ticket
sales. Aside from the year-round Broadway productions in Hypothesis 6: Among experienced buyers, price sensitivity
New York City, theaters offer subscriptions and individual is higher when the time of the event is psychologically near
tickets in advance similar in number to the sports settings in than when it is psychologically distant. As experience
Study 1 (except for baseball). In this study, we take the per- increases, temporal distance effects decrease.
spective of the experience service provider to assess the price
perceptions of the subscriber base and individual ticket buyers.
The sample (N ¼ 1,023) includes individual ticket buyers Method
(93.4%) with at least one ticket-buying experience at the thea-
The selected experience service is the largest theater house
ter from the previous 12 months. As in Study 1, we expect to
(capacity exceeds 3,000) in one of the five largest metropolitan
find the same relationships with respect to social distance
areas in the United States. The theater is in the downtown
(Hypotheses 3 and 4) and spatial distance (Hypothesis 5).
theater district, among other theaters and clubs. Subscriptions
for the theater include up to 12 productions, with Thursday
through Sunday shows for at least 2 weekends, for each per-
Temporal Distance formance. Standard prices range from $37.75 (rear gallery) to
While we anticipate the same temporal distance effects on more than $114 for premium seats (with additional donations
perceived value (Hypothesis 2), we expect a reversal of tem- necessary for best seats).
poral effects on price sensitivity due to experience. In the cross- In cooperation and mutual interest in the findings, the thea-
section of individuals in Study 1 with limited concrete buying ter independently recruited a sample (N ¼ 1,633) to complete
experiences across 100 different buying markets and five an online survey, including prospective buyers in the market
sports, we surmised that low construal in the near-temporal with no recent experiences (last 12 months) at the theater (N ¼
condition would lead to less price sensitivity as potential buy- 93). No incentive was offered to members of the theater data-
ers focused on feasibility (secondary features) more than desir- base. Altogether, 92.4% completed the survey (comparing
ability (primary features). However, previous buyers, who have favorably with other web surveys; Albaum et al. 2010), pro-
ready access to recent concrete information regarding tickets ducing usable responses from 1,509 people, reflective of the
242
demographics of season ticket holders (N ¼ 486) and previous
individual buyers and prospects (N ¼ 1,023).
Procedure
Study 1 manipulated social distance (self vs. average customer)
and temporal distance (this weekend vs. 1 year later); however,
the purchase of a ticket 1 year in advance may also enhance
hypothetical distance, which could alter choice (Liberman,
Trope, and Wakslak 2007). To address this issue, the service
provider offered insight into realistic advance buying situa-
tions, given the administration of the survey in early fall after
the season-opening performances. Respondents were randomly
assigned to one of four scenarios regarding ticket prices for the
service provider. With respect to temporal distance, respon-
dents were asked to consider buying a ticket today in advance
for one of the next performances (3 or 4 weeks away) in the
near condition versus in advance for a performance the follow-
ing May (7 months away) in the far condition. To manipulate
social distance, respondents were instructed with clear refer-
ence points in the near condition (“We are interested in what
you think about ticket prices”) and the far condition (“We are
interested in your perception of what the average theatre cus-
tomer thinks about ticket prices”). As in Study 1, we framed the
associated perceived value and price sensitivity items with the
appropriate reference to the self (i.e., “I will change what I
planned to buy”) or others (i.e., “The average theatre customer
will change what s/he planned to buy”). Manipulation checks
for temporal and social distance indicated that respondents
recognized the appropriate conditions (see Table 4).
Measures
The measure for price sensitivity (a ¼ .82) is the same as in
Study 1, with a slider scale (0–100; disagree/agree) employed
to more precisely capture responses. To address perceived
value (a ¼ .86) as more than a financial exchange, respondents
indicated whether the ticket is worth the (1) time it takes to
attend, (2) money spent, and (3) effort it would take to attend.
Slider scales (0–100) were anchored by not at all worth it and
completely worth it.
As in Study 1, respondents were asked the actual distance in
miles of their residences from the theater district as well as
perceived distance with 3 items (nearby, close to you, and far
away [reversed]; a ¼ .88). A positive curvilinear relationship
between miles and perceived distance suggests a strong linear
relationship between reality and perception up to approxi-
mately 35 miles, where perceived distance plateaus and then
increases at a decreasing rate. With this analysis, we examined
spatial distance between 2 groups: those living within the met-
ropolitan area within 35 miles of the theater and those living
outside the beltway (more than 35 miles). We obtained signif-
icant results with perceived distance as a covariate (continuous
variable), but the two-group analysis allows for mean
comparison.
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
Table 4. Study 2: Manipulation Checks.
Temporal Social
Item Near Far Near Far
T1: To use soon—To use much later 3.47 4.27 3.80 3.94
T2: To attend this year—To attend 3.45 4.56 3.83 4.18
next year
S1: About ticket prices for yourself— 2.85 2.99 2.06 3.78
About what others think of ticket prices
S2: What I personally think about prices— 2.88 2.98 2.05 3.81
My opinion of what others think
about prices
Note. All 7-point scales. Shaded/bold print all significant at p < .001.
Following other CLT research (e.g., Fujita et al. 2006), we
accounted for attitudes toward the service provider as a funda-
mental alternative explanation to variations in perceived value
and price sensitivity in the advance selling of tickets. We mea-
sured passion for the leisure activity (Vallerand et al. 2003),
which accounts for the degree to which individuals love, value,
and invest time and energy in an activity. We also accounted
for perceived quality of performances and attendance at other
performing arts (ballet and symphony) in the arts district as
well as demographics.
Analysis and Results
We employed a 2 (temporal: near/far)  2 (social: near/far)  2
(spatial: near/far) MANCOVA design, including the entire
sample of season ticket holders and individual buyers and pros-
pects, which confirmed all hypotheses, except that temporal
distance did not significantly (p < .20) affect perceived value
(Hypothesis 2). However, given our interest in patrons consid-
ering buying individual tickets in advance, rather than those
who already bought in advance in the form of season tickets,
we ran another model excluding season ticket holders. The
remainder of the analysis focuses on these individual buyers.
Together, the independent variables explain 32.3% of the var-
iance in perceived value and 19.6% in price sensitivity.
Table 5 contains the relevant results of the multivariate
analysis of variance for individual buyers with perceived value
and price sensitivity as the dependent variables and temporal
distance, social distance, and spatial distance as factors. We
account for the number of ticket purchase experiences in the
previous 12 months (range: 0–5 or more) as a main and inter-
action effect on the dependent variables to determine the mod-
erating role of experience on temporal distance effects
(Hypothesis 6).
Hypotheses 2–5 were supported, confirming the findings of
Study 1. For Hypothesis 6, among active ticket buyers, price
sensitivity was significantly (p ¼ .002) higher in the temporally
near condition (M ¼ 65.43) than in the far condition (M ¼
60.83) as expected. As Figure 2 illustrates, recent ticket experi-
ences significantly (p ¼ .046) interacted with temporal dis-
tance. Temporal effects influenced those with less experience
Wakefield and Wakefield 243

Table 5. Study 2 MANCOVA: Multivariate (Wilkes’s Lambda) and Univariate Between-Subjects Effects.

Variables

H’s Independent Dependent F df df error p Adjusted means Z2

Temporal Distance 3.66 2 978 .026 Near Far .007

H6 Price sensitivity 5.44 1 979 .002 65.43 60.83 .006
H2 Perceived value 4.00 1 979 .046 69.15 66.05 .004
Social distance 12.76 2 978 .001 .025
H4 Price sensitivity 25.19 1 979 .001 58.19 68.03 .025
H3 Perceived value 4.14 1 979 .042 66.02 69.17 .004
Spatial distance 8.24 2 978 .001 .017
H5 Perceived value 11.04 1 979 .001 70.38 64.82 .011
Interaction
Temporal  Past Experiences* 2.38 5 979 .038 .012
H6 Price sensitivity 2.27 5 979 .046 .011
Note. H ¼ hypothesis; MANCOVA ¼ multivariate analysis of covariance. Means adjusted for passion for theater, age, prior ticket purchases of other performing
arts, perceived performance quality, and years of residence in community.
*Roy’s largest root

but disappeared as buyers searched for and bought five or more

tickets in this market. Hypothesis 6 is supported.

General Discussion
To our knowledge, these studies are the first to examine
consumer perceptions of advance selling of experience ser-
vices, offering insight into the mind-set of consumers in
advance selling of services (Xie and Shugan 2001) and
answering the call to focus on the dynamics of the who,
when, and where of experience services. Specifically,
Chandler and Lusch (2015) propose five properties of ser-
vice engagement that asks researchers to examine consu-
mers’ temporal (when) and relational (who) connections
with past, present, and future dispositions toward the ser-
vice. Within the framework of CLT, we confirm that what
people perceive today is based on how they perceive the self
and others in specific future settings as well as on past
consumption experience.
Contributions to Theory and Implications for
Further Research
We extend research on the effects of psychological distance to
services research and price information processing. Prior work
employing CLT has not explored the effects on price percep-
tions (Bornemann and Homburg 2011) or the associations
among multiple sources of psychological distance (Liberman
and Trope 2014). The current research contributes on both
fronts, showing that the concrete means (feasibility) and
abstract ends (primary goal) corresponding to low- and high-
construal contexts (temporal, social, and spatial) influence
price sensitivity and perceived value.
Bornemann and Homburg (2011, p. 502) find that increased
psychological distance causes consumers to “construe price
according to its high-level implications for quality and [that
they are] less likely to focus on its role as monetary sacrifice.”
Figure 2. Interaction between past experience and temporal
distance.
We find that consumers can experience increased psychologi-
cal distance and still construe price as sacrificial for experience
services. Specifically, in Study 1, those in the far temporal
condition were more price sensitive. In Study 2, theater patrons
with less experience were more price sensitive in the short run
but increasingly price sensitive (for both near and far condi-
tions) as they gained more experience in the market. Further-
more, in both studies, increased social distance increased price
sensitivity, as respondents perceived other patrons as sensitive
to changes in prices. Future studies applying CLT should con-
sider the effects in realistic field settings in which the consump-
tion context is repeated or routine (not novel) and consumer
resources (time and money) vary.
Study 2 shows that experienced consumers may more easily
retrieve price information that mitigates temporal effects. Inex-
perienced consumers may lack price knowledge but be confident
in successfully completing a task in the future (Gilovich, Kerr,
and Medvec 1993) and optimistic about finding a more accep-
table price, given the time to search. Conversely, as the date
244
nears, individuals focus on concrete obstacles (Sweeny and Kri-
zan 2013), which may inhibit price search for inexperienced
buyers. Buyers with recent and recurring experiences in purchas-
ing the service, however, may be more fluent with salient market
dynamics and be less vulnerable to temporal effects. Prior CLT
studies (e.g., Goodman and Malkoc 2012; Zhang, Zhang, and Li
2016) have focused on novel (e.g., new restaurants or online
retailers) or isolated (e.g., buying ice cream on the way to a
vacation) product choices and cases when consumers lack expe-
rience (e.g., selling coffee mugs to others), but our work con-
firms that recent experience reduces psychological distance
effects (Benning, Breugelmans, and Dellaert 2012) for fre-
quently repeated hedonic services. In line with Kyung, Menon,
and Trope (2014), we suggest that future CLT work find other
ways experience moderates psychological distance effects.
As Shugan and Xie (2004) emphasize, service providers can
increase profitability by selling in advance (vs. spot pricing)
when customers are uncertain. Our studies confirm that con-
sumers face a great deal of uncertainty, and the application of
CLT provides theoretical support for why uncertainty arises.
Buyers face uncertainty about price perceptions of others
(social distance), which influences availability and prices;
about the value, which depends on the amount of time between
the present and the event (temporal distance); and about the
real and perceived spatial distance between themselves and the
physical location of the event. We expect psychological dis-
tance to influence price perceptions of other services in
advance selling opportunities. One potential area for research
is the possible interaction with mobile devices, as research
(Hein, O’Donohoe, and Ryan 2011) suggests that users per-
ceive the device as an extension of and, thus, close to the self.
Does using mobile devices and apps from the service provider
reduce psychological distance in advance selling? Do consu-
mers perceive prices differently, all else being equal, when
presented on a mobile app by the service provider versus by
intermediaries or on difference devices? Such research could
facilitate pricing models for service providers and
intermediaries.
Given advance selling, consumers of hedonic experience
services have much to gain by considering how others perceive
price. The decisions of others affect price dispersion and avail-
ability in dynamic markets. Thus, we introduce an important
decision factor in the advance selling of experience services
that may not be present in other buyer-seller contexts. Our
studies demonstrate that individuals construe others to more
highly value tickets to sporting events and theater perfor-
mances than when they reference self-perceptions. In a collec-
tive sense, this suggests buyers overestimate the market’s value
for a given ticket. This bias, which we argue is based on high
construal of stereotypical responses to patrons of hedonic
experiences, may explain why individuals may buy a ticket at
a price higher than if based on self-reference alone. This type of
bias is apt to be present in dynamic markets but seems less
likely for grocery store shopping or utilitarian services in which
individuals are less concerned about what others think of prices
and have little fear of inventory depletion. However, further
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
research might extend our work to the advance selling of uti-
litarian services to determine such psychological distance
effects. Temporal, social, and spatial distance may influence
perceptions of value for services with high opportunity costs
regarding the time customers must wait to be served if consid-
ering advance selling (appointments) versus on the spot (walk-
in). Examples include tire service, hair styling, retail phone
carriers, cable and dish television providers, and departments
of motor vehicles.
Across both studies, perceived value was higher when tem-
poral distance and spatial distance were near. While other CLT
studies often examine psychological distance effects in isola-
tion of each other, our studies suggest that individuals who live
nearby and are considering an event coming soon are apt to
perceive higher value than in either case alone. Although not a
significant interaction effect, in the theater context the per-
ceived value for respondents in the near temporal and spatial
conditions (M ¼ 74.23) was higher than it was for those who
lived nearby considering a distant-future ticket (M ¼ 72.81),
for those considering a ticket for an event coming soon but
living farther away (M ¼ 70.30), and for those who lived far
away considering a ticket for the distant future (M ¼ 69.55).
Additional research could include experimental and field set-
tings that account for multiple dimensions of psychological
distance that may alter the magnitude or direction of results,
particularly with respect to advance selling versus spot selling.
Managerial Implications
Service marketers can benefit from this research by gaining a
better understanding of how to promote hedonic experience
services in advance selling scenarios. First, as Shugan and Xie
(2004) note, to effectively use advance selling, service provi-
ders benefit by limiting the resale of tickets. Because the
growth of the secondary market makes this less feasible, adding
value through other means (e.g., experiences, concession vou-
chers, and souvenirs) to individual ticket owners could per-
suade buyers to forgo financial gain in favor of psychological
gain through the enhanced experience. Alternatively, some ser-
vice firms (e.g., Philadelphia 76ers, New York Yankees, and
Golden State Warriors) have partnered with resellers (e.g.,
StubHub and Ticketmaster) to provide more control and to
share risk and revenue. This practice can be risky, though, as
some resellers may gain too much control and encounter anti-
trust lawsuits (Novy-Williams and Smythe 2016).
Understanding the effects of psychological distance can
help service providers identify circumstances when buyers per-
ceive less value—those temporally distant, socially near, or
spatially distant. Service providers account for temporal dis-
tance by offering incentives for purchasing far in advance or
renewing in the off-season. However, digital or personal mes-
sages could frame the purchase situation to prompt buyers to
access more concrete information with respect to temporal
(“What happened the last time you waited to buy tickets?”),
social (“Customers like you bought tickets . . . ”), and spatial
(“When was the last time you came to town?”) distance. To
Wakefield and Wakefield
reach those who see little value from a personal standpoint,
marketers could use a seeding strategy, in which influencers
spread messages in online social networks (Hinz et al. 2011).
The effects of time and distance suggest managers should care-
fully geo-target offers customized to when and where custom-
ers are when buying tickets.
Since an important factor at work in the minds of buyers is
other buyers, the results imply that service providers should
frame offers in reference more to others than the self for experi-
ences. Hedonic experience services often promote with a
“reward yourself” or “you deserve it” theme. However, from
a pricing promotion standpoint for tickets, customers may per-
ceive higher value when they think of how much others desire
the tickets and are searching for good seats. StubHub, with its
“Your ticket out” campaign may do well to cue the thought of
others in its messaging, such as, “When everyone wants to go,
it’s your ticket out.”
As experienced buyers have learned to be price sensitive for
tickets, managers should identify these individuals in the data-
base to provide relevant value-added offers to increase pur-
chases. An example for theatres for select performances or
ticket bundles is to offer a post-show red carpet gala with
complimentary food, beverages, music, and photo opportuni-
ties as they meet and greet with the cast and creative team.
Cobranding with partners can add value to attract experienced,
more frequent buyers by providing extras (e.g., team or theatre
cobranded water bottles) for making additional purchases (e.g.,
buy 4 or more to receive the offer) without reducing prices.
Service providers may try to attract single-event buyers by
providing adequate incentives to combat the learned behavior
of shopping secondary market sites. While salespeople often
have inadequate knowledge of the competition (Johnston and
Marshall 2016), it may also be the case that they have not
offered the proper incentives to price-sensitive consumers.
According to Study 2, inexperienced prospects are likely to be
less price sensitive for an event coming sooner and are optimistic
of finding a lower price for an event farther into the future.
Informal interviews with senior executives from major resellers
and service providers (professional sports and performing arts)
reveal that the original seller (e.g., the team and theater) often
has unsold inventory at prices below secondary market values.
Thus, salespeople and service providers, in general, need to
educate buyers in ways that recognize the convenience factor
of intermediaries while providing more intuitive and convenient
ways to do business with the original seller. One avenue for
improvement is the online buying experience. Consumers are
accustomed to clicking once (Amazon.com) or twice (StubHub)
to purchase. However, for many service providers in these sec-
tors, the process often takes eight or more clicks.
Conclusion and Limitations
The findings add to the service marketing and CLT literature
and the sparse investigations of price information processing in
advance selling contexts. To date, CLT studies have focused on
245
packaged goods, with less attention paid to services and the
advance selling of experience services.
While Hypotheses 2–5 hold in both studies, we proposed,
tested, and found that temporal distance effects on price sensi-
tivity reverse course in Study 2 among experienced buyers. We
reasoned that as buyers gain experience, they access concrete
price information that leads to greater price sensitivity in the
near term than when accessing abstract price dispersion in the
more distant future. However, Vallacher and Wegner (1989)
suggest that buyers differ depending on individual differences
related to low or high levels of personal agency. Future work
might examine the interaction between CLT effects and per-
sonal agency styles.
This research provides the basis for other research streams
in addition to those already noted. First, tangential to our work
is the understanding of scarcity effects, which may interfere or
moderate consumer response (Suri, Kohli, and Monroe 2007),
considering different states of psychological distance. Second,
we did not explicitly account for consumer knowledge or accu-
rate recall of prices (Monroe and Lee 1999), which might also
moderate CLT effects. Third, the field settings provide external
validity but less control of other factors that might prove useful
in experimental designs to confirm and extend our findings.
Fourth, our study is limited to sports and performing arts.
Future work in other settings and an examination of consumer
characteristics with actual purchase data would be fruitful.
Fifth, although not our focus, others might further explore the
effects of covariates included in our models (identification and
passion) on price perceptions. Sixth, our study did consider
probabilistic distance (Liberman, Sagristano, and Trope
2002). Although our scenarios presumed purchase (Study 1)
and included previous buyers (Study 2), by controlling for
attitudes toward the provider, further research might discover
that those who find ticket purchase improbable (e.g., just think-
ing about it) behave differently than those predetermined to
purchase in advance.
Changes in psychological distance influence perceived value
and price sensitivity. Perceived value and price sensitivity
increase as individuals take the perspective of others likely to
patronize the service provider. Perceived value is greater when
the time of consumption and the location is nearer. Study 2 helps
answer the question of which buyers wait until the last 72 hours
to purchase—that is, experienced buyers are more price sensitive
as the date of the event draws nearer (vs. those with little or no
experience). In summary, who (near vs. far social distance),
when (near vs. far temporal distance), and where (spatial dis-
tance) influence price sensitivity and perceived value of the
experience service in advance selling contexts.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
246
Note
1. The day of the week on which respondents completed the survey
has no significant effect on any measure nor does day of the week
interact with temporal (near/far) distance.
References
Agrawal, Nidhi and Durairaj Maheswaran (2005), “The Effects of
Self-Construal and Commitment on Persuasion,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 31 (4), 841-849.
Albaum, Gerald, Catherine A. Roster, James Wiley, John Rossiter,
and Scott M. Smith (2010), “Designing Web Surveys in Marketing
Research: Does Use of Forced Answering Affect Completion
Rates?” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 18 (3), 285-293.
Amit, Elinor, Daniel Algom, and Yaacov Trope (2009), “Distance-
Dependent Processing of Pictures and Words,” Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 400-415.
Benning, Tim, Els Breugelmans, and Benedict Dellaert (2012),
“Consumers’ Evaluation of Allocation Policies for Scarce Health
Care Services: Vested Interest Activation Trumps Spatial and
Temporal Distance,” Marketing Letters, 23 (3), 531-543.
Bornemann, Torsten and Christian Homburg (2011), “Psychological
Distance and the Dual Role of Price,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 38 (3), 490-504.
Borrayo, Evelinn A. and Sharon Rae Jenkins (2003), “Feeling Frugal:
Socioeconomic Status, Acculturation, and Cultural Health Beliefs
Among Women of Mexican Descent,” Cultural Diversity and Eth-
nic Minority Psychology, 9 (2), 197-206.
Chandler, Jennifer D. and Robert F. Lusch (2015), “Service Systems:
A Broadened Framework and Research Agenda on Value Proposi-
tions, Engagement, and Service Experience,” Journal of Service
Research, 18 (1), 6-22.
Chen, Cathy Yi (2009), “Who I Am and How I Think: The Impact of
Self-construal on the Roles of Internal and External Reference
Prices in Price Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
19 (3), 416-26.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Ronald C. Goodstein, and Anne M. Brumbaugh
(2015), “A Social Identity Perspective on Aspirational Advertis-
ing: Implicit Threats to Collective Self-esteem and Strategies to
Overcome Them,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (3),
416-430.
Fay, Scott and Jinhong Xie (2010), “The Economics of Buyer Uncer-
tainty: Advance Selling vs. Probabilistic Selling,” Marketing Sci-
ence, 29 (6), 1040-1057.
Fujita, Kentaro, Marlone D. Henderson, Juliana Eng, Yaacov
Trope, and Nira Liberman (2006), “Spatial Distance and Mental
Construal of Social Events,” Psychological Science, 17 (4),
278-282.
Gabor, Andre and Clive W. J. Granger (1966), “Price as an Indicator
of Quality: Report on an Enquiry,” Economica, 33 (129), 43-70.
Geng, Xianjun, Wu Ruhai, and Andrew B. Whinston (2007),
“Profiting from Partial Allowance of Ticket Resale,” Journal of
Marketing, 71 (2), 184-195.
Gilovich, Thomas, Margaret Kerr, and Victoria H. Medvec (1993),
“Effect of Temporal Perspective on Subjective Confidence,” Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (4), 552-60.
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
Goodman, Joseph K. and Selin A. Malkoc (2012), “Choosing Here
and Now versus There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psycho-
logical Distance on Assortment Size Preferences,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 39 (4), 751-768.
Grant, Kelli B. (2015), “How to Avoid Sky-High Summer Concert
Ticket Prices,” (accessed August 11, 2017) [available at http://
www.cnbc.com/2015/05/21/how-to-avoid-sky-high-summer-con
cert-ticket-prices.html].
Grove, Stephen J., Gregory M. Pickett, Scott A. Jones, and Michael J.
Dorsch (2012), “Spectator Rage as the Dark Side of Engaging
Sport Fans: Implications for Services Marketers,” Journal of Ser-
vice Research, 15 (1), 3-20.
Hall, Joe (2015), “StubHub and Viagogo See Increase in Last-Minute
Ticket Purchases for Sports Events,” (accessed February 2, 2016)
[available at http://www.cityam.com/228213/increase-in-late-pur
chases-from-secondary-ticket-websites-for-sport-events].
Happel, Stephen K. and Marianne M. Jennings (2002), “Creating a
Futures Market for Major Event Tickets: Problems and Prospects,”
CATO Journal, 21 (3), 443-461.
Hein, Wendy, Stephanie O’Donohoe, and Annmarie Ryan (2011),
“Mobile Phones as an Extension of the Participant Observer’s Self:
Reflections on the Emergent Role of an Emergent Technology,”
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14 (3),
258-273.
Hinz, Oliver, Bernd Skiera, Christian Barrot, and Jan U. Becker
(2011), “Seeding Strategies for Viral Marketing: An Empirical
Comparison,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (6), 55-71.
Irmak, Caglar, Cheryl J. Wakslak, and Yaacov Trope (2013), “Selling
the Forest, Buying the Trees: The Effect of Construal Level on
Seller-Buyer Price Discrepancy,” Journal of Consumer Research,
40 (2), 284-297.
Jhang, Ji Hoon and John G. Lynch (2015), “Pardon the Interruption:
Goal Proximity, Perceived Spare Time, and Impatience,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1267-1283.
Johnston, Mark W. and Greg W. Marshall (2016), Sales Force Manage-
ment: Leadership, Innovation, Technology. New York: Routledge.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1977), “Intuitive Prediction:
Biases and Corrective Procedures,” TIMS Studies in Management
Science, 12 (June), 313-327.
Kim, Kyeongheui, Meng Zhang, and Xiuping Li (2008), “Effects of
Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 706-713.
Kyung, Ellie J., Geeta Menon, and Yaacov Trope (2014), “Construal
Level and Temporal Judgments of the Past: The Moderating Role
of Knowledge,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 (3), 734-739.
Lee, Kelly Kiyeon and Min Zhao (2014), “The Effect of Price on
Preference Consistency over Time,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 41 (1), 109-118.
Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope (2014), “Traversing Psychological
Distance,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (7), 364-369.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Cheryl Wakslak (2007),
“Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 113-117.
Liberman, Nira, Michael Sagristano, and Yaacov Trope (2002), “The
Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Construal,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (6), 523-535.
Wakefield and Wakefield
Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope (1998), “The Role of Feasibility
and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Deci-
sions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5-18.
Lynch, John G., Richard G. Netemeyer, Stephen A. Spiller, and
Alessandra Zammit (2010), “A Generalizable Scale of Propensity
to Plan: The Long and the Short of Planning for Time and for
Money,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (1), 108-128.
MacDonnell, Rhiannon and Katherine White (2015), “How Con-
struals of Money Versus Time Impact Consumer Charitable
Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 551-563.
Mael, Fred and Blake E. Ashforth (1992), “Alumni and Their Alma
Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational
Identification,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (2), 103-123.
Moe, Wendy W. and Peter S. Fader (2009), “The Role of Price Tiers in
Advance Purchasing of Event Tickets,” Journal of Service
Research, 12 (1), 73-86.
Monroe, Kent B. and Angela Y. Lee (1999), “Remembering ver-
sus Knowing: Issues in Buyers’ Processing of Price
Information,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
27 (2), 207-225.
Monroe, Kent B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Newby-Clark, Ian R., Michael Ross, Roger Buehler, Derek J. Koehler,
and Dale Griffin (2000), “People Focus on Optimistic Scenarios
and Disregard Pessimistic Scenarios While Predicting Task Com-
pletion Times,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6
(3), 171-182.
Novy-Williams, Eben and Christie Smythe (2016), “NFL’s Ticket
Rules Said to Be Subject of Antitrust Investigation,” (accessed
August 31, 2016) [available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2016-01-28/nfl-s-ticket-rules-said-to-be-subject-of-anti
trust-investigation].
Pennington, Ginger and Neal J. Roese (2003), “Regulatory Focus and
Temporal Distance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
39 (6), 563-576.
Perera, Priyan and R. P. Vlosky (2013), “How Previous Visits Shape
Trip Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Future Behavioral
Intentions: The Case of Forest-Based Ecotourism in Sri Lanka,”
International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation and Tour-
ism, 11 (1), 1-24.
Pizzi, Gabriele, Gian Luca Marzocchi, Chiara Orsingher, and Ales-
sandra Zammit (2015), “The Temporal Construal of Customer
Satisfaction,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (4), 484-497.
Prasad, Ashutosh, Kathryn E. Stecke, and Xuying Zhao (2011),
“Advance Selling by a Newsvendor Retailer,” Production and
Operations Management, 20 (1), 129-142.
Sanna, Lawrence J. (1999), “Mental Simulations, Affect, and
Subjective Confidence: Timing Is Everything,” Psychological
Science, 10 (4), 339-345.
Schmidt, Daniel F. and Susan M. Boland (1986), “Structure of
Perceptions of Older Adults: Evidence for Multiple Stereotypes,”
Psychology and Aging, 1 (3), 255-260.
Shugan, Steven M. and Jinhong Xie (2005), “Advance-Selling as a
Competitive Marketing Tool,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 22 (3), 351-373.
247
Shugan, Steven M. and Jinhong Xie (2004), “Advance Selling for
Services,” California Management Review, 46 (Spring), 37-54.
Sowter, Anthony P., Andre Gabor, and Clive W. J. Granger (1971),
“The Effect of Price on Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical
Investigation,” Applied Economics, 3 (3), 167-181.
Stephan, Elena, Nira Liberman, and Yaacov Trope (2010),
“Politeness and Psychological Distance: A Construal Level
Perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98
(February), 268-280.
Stockburger-Sauer, Nicola E. and Karin Teichmann (2013), “Is Lux-
ury Just a Female Thing? The Role of Gender in Luxury Brand
Consumption,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 889-896.
Suri, Rajneesh, Chiranjeev Kohli, and Kent B. Monroe (2007), “The
Effects of Perceived Scarcity on Consumers’ Processing of Price
Information,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35
(Spring), 89-100.
Sweeney, Jillian C. and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2001), “Consumer
Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale,”
Journal of Retailing, 77 (2), 203-220.
Sweeny, Kate and Zlatan Krizan (2013), “Sobering Up: A Quantita-
tive Review of Temporal Declines in Expectations,” Psychological
Bulletin, 139 (May), 702-724.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2010), “Construal Level Theory of
Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440-463.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), “Temporal Construal,”
Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403-421.
Vallacher, Robin R. and Daniel M. Wegner (1989), “Levels of
Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification,”
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57 (4), 660-671.
Vallerand, Robert J., Céline Blanchard, Genevieve A. Mageau,
Richard Koestner, Catherine Ratelle, Maude Léonard, Marylene
Gagné, and Josée Marsolais (2003), “Les Passions De L’ame: On
Obsessive and Harmonious Passion,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85 (4), 756-767.
Van Beuningen, Jacqueline, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels
(2010), “The Power of Self-Efficacy Change During Service Pro-
vision: Making Your Customers Feel Better About Themselves
Pays Off,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (1), 108-125.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and J. Jeffrey Inman (2003), “Situational Price
Sensitivity: The Role of Consumption Occasion, Social Context
and Income,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 199-212.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and James H. Barnes (1996), “Retailing Hedonic
Consumption: A Model of Sales Promotion of a Leisure Service,”
Journal of Retailing, 72 (4), 409-427.
Westacott, Emrys (2016), The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less Is
More—More or Less. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
White, Martha C. (2016), “Ticket Prices for the Harry Potter Play May
Even Be Crazier Than ‘Hamilton,’” (accessed August 25, 2016)
[available at http://time.com/money/4464893/harry-potter-play-
ticket-prices/].
Williams, Lawrence E. and John A. Bargh (2008), “Keeping One’s
Distance: The Influence of Spatial Distance Cues on Affect and
Evaluation,” Psychological Science, 19 (3), 302-308.
Xie, Jinhong and Steven M. Shugan (2001), “Electronic Tickets,
Smart Cards, and Online Prepayments: When and How to Advance
Sell,” Marketing Science, 20 (3), 219-243.
248
Yan, Dengfeng and Jaideep Sengupta (2011), “Effects of Construal
Level on the Price-Quality Relationship,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 38 (2), 376-389.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality
and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,”
Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22.
Zhang, Meng and Jing Wang (2009), “Psychological Distance Asym-
metry: The Spatial Dimension vs. Other Dimensions,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 497-507.
Zhang, Ziyuan, Baojun Zhang, and Zhongquan Li (2016), “Price Dis-
crepancy Between Sellers and Buyers When Making Decisions for
the Self and Others,” Psychological Reports, 118 (3), 889-901.
Zhao, Min and Jinhong Xie (2011), “Effects of Social and Temporal
Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer Recommendations,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 486-496.
Author Biographies
Lane T. Wakefield is an assistant professor of sports marketing and
analytics at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia. After gaining
Journal of Service Research 21(2)
experience as a high school coach and teacher and in sponsorship sales
with Spurs Sports and Entertainment, he completed his doctorate at
Texas A&M University. His research interests are in hedonic experi-
ences, sponsorship, and ephemeral media and his work has recently
been accepted at the Journal of Interactive Marketing and Sport Man-
agement Review.
Kirk L. Wakefield is the Edwin W. Streetman professor of retail
marketing at Baylor University. He has authored dozens of influ-
ential publications in prestigious journals such as the Journal of
Service Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer
Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Advertising, and Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science. In addition, as executive
director of the Center for Sports Sponsorship & Sales (S3), Wake-
field has worked extensively with industry brand partners, includ-
ing StubHub, AT&T, The Marketing Arm, and BAV Consulting
(where he serves as a consulting scholar) as well as consulting
with the Dallas Cowboys, Cleveland Browns, San Diego Padres,
New Orleans Saints & Pelicans, Green Bay Packers, and many
others.