A Study on the Difference in Perception between Double-decker Buses and Double-decker Trains based on the Cohesiveness Theory

Do passengers see double-decker buses and double-decker trains the same or different? The cohesiveness theory provides insight into this question. In comparison between cohesive targets, i.e. between objects arranged in an orderly manner, passengers pay more attention to the differences than to the similarities between the two targets. However, in comparison between less cohesive targets, i.e. between poorly arranged targets, passengers pay more attention to commonalities than differences. The reason is that men seek a psychological balance. Overall, Korean passengers are more familiar with double-decker buses than double-decker trains. Thus, the comparison between double-decker buses and conventional buses is closer extension and more cohesive than between double-decker trains and conventional ones. If double-decker buses are considered cohesive extension, double-decker buses will receive more favorable judgment from passengers when emphasizing differentiation rather than emphasizing common ground with conventional buses. On the other hand, if double-decker trains are less cohesive extension, double-decker trains will be more liked when emphasizing common ground rather than emphasizing differentiation from conventional ones. Study 1 supported this prospect. In the case of double-decker buses, promotional messages emphasizing differences from conventional buses were more favorable, and in the case of double-decker trains, promotional messages emphasizing common ground with conventional trains were more favorable. According to a mediation test, the subjects had different levels of attention to messages for double-decker buses and double-decker trains. In the case of double-decker buses, the subjects paid more attention to the wording expressing the differentiation, and in the case of double-decker trains, they paid more attention to the wording expressing common ground. Study 2 explored the possibility that cognitive resource would be required differently to understand common vs. distinct phrases. Through the manipulation of cognitive depletion setting, the results of the depletion vs. control condition were compared. For control condition, the main results of Study 1 were replicated. Under the cognitive depletion condition, the same results as in study 1 for double-decker buses, but different patterns for double-decker trains. In the case of double-decker trains, under the depletion condition, the emphasis on common points was no longer favorable. This reflects the need for cognitive resource to find common ground with existing ones for less cohesive extension, such as double-decker trains.