There are two options for product attributes to be presented: one way is to align the same attribute with different levels and the other way is to present nonalignable, ie. different attributes. Structural alignability theory defines the former as alignable attributes which are easy to compare and the latter as nonalignable attributes which are difficult to compare. This study suggested that the attribute importance between alignable vs. nonalignable attributes could be adjusted by the level of perceived control. Three alternative hypotheses were formed based on prior research. First, considering the close relations between personal control and goal orientation, the attribute importance could be affected by processing types of regulatory focus: High(vs. low) control is expected to use relational(vs. item-specific) processing. Second, based on the positive relations between the level of personal control and cognitive resources nuanced by previous findings, high control with enough cognitive resources is expected to compare every attributes carefully although low control with depleted resources would put more importance on alignable attributes which are easy to compare. Third, if the recent finding of which financial poverty reminds trade-off between benefits and costs and evokes more objective judgement on valuation could apply to the cognitive resources as well, low control would be expected to remind the nature of limited cognitive resources and motivate consumers to spend it objectively. Two experimental studies verified the question and confirmed the third hypothesis. Study 1 found that high control made use of nonalignable attributes but low control evaluated importance of both types of attributes equally. Study 2 confirmed that this effect happened due to value objectification. Finally, theoretical as well as managerial contributions were discussed.