References
Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Rajesh V. Manchanda. 2005. “The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context.” Journal of Consumer Research 32 (2): 207–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/432230.
Hamilton, Rebecca W. 2003. “Why Do People Suggest What They Do Not Want? Using Context Effects to Influence Others’ Choices.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1086/346245.
Latan?, Bibb, and Sharon Wolf. 1981. “The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities.” Psychological Review 88 (5): 438–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.88.5.438.
McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Andrea C. Morales. 2010. “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Others.” Journal of Consumer Research 36 (6): 915–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/644611.
Moreau, C. Page, and Kelly B. Herd. 2010. “To Each His Own? How Comparisons with Others Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of Their Self-Designed Products.” Journal of Consumer Research 36 (5): 806–19. https://doi.org/10.1086/644612.
Simonson, Itamar, Stephen Nowlis, and Katherine Lemon. 1993. “The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality.” Marketing Science 12 (4): 357–77. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.4.357.
Wilson, Elizabeth J., and Daniel L. Sherrell. 1993. “Source Effects in Communication and Persuasion Research: A Meta-Analysis of Effect Size.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (2): 101–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02894421.
34.2 Social Influence
(McFerran et al. 2010)
body type of others influences one’s food consumption
moderated by body type (undesirable reference group) of the other consumers
low appearance self-esteem or cognitive load also moderate this relationship
Anchoring and adjustment processes
Social Influence and Food Choice
Study 1: Social influence effects is present regardless of food perception (healthy vs. unhealthy). People eat more when there is another person, but the magnitude is moderated by the other’s body type (consume less when seeing obese others - undesirable group). The effect persists after social influence.
Study 2: Presence of other increases food quantity.
High anchor (obese person takes high quantity), participants take less.
Low anchor (obese person takes small quantity), participants take more
Study 3: People with low appearance self-esteem and high processing resources will attenuate more
(Moreau and Herd 2010)
Social comparison: people want to gain self-knowledge.
Self-designed products are based on:
comparison with the characteristics of other comparable products
comparison with skills, talents, and expertise of the other designers.
Since professional designers are expert, consumer designers face upward comparison
Study 1:
Self-deigned product evaluation is lower when compared to professional default product, than consumer designed default design
Firm guidance moderates this effect
There is a premium for self-designed product.
Study 2: Defensive vs. Nondefensive processing
need to protect self-esteem/ self-image.
At low defensive processing, evaluations of self-designed products are lower when the default product is professionally designed than consumer designed
defensive processing reduces negative comparison
Study 3: The behavioral consequences of social comparison in self-design.
Public prize (visibility) enhance self-evaluations.
Repair opportunity affects the evaluation of self-designed products
(R. W. Hamilton 2003)
Influence based on context effects (suggesting other unlikely alternative)
People understand context effects (e.g., choice set construction).
To influence others, people construct a set of unattractive alternatives (attraction effect), or a compromise between two other alternatives (compromise effect).
Author hypothesized: People correct the contextual effects when they know constructors’ intentions (to influence them).
Results: “Subjects’ beliefs that menus had been created (by their friends) to influence their choices seemed to enhance rather than limit the effectiveness of the menus.” (p. 498) likely due to homophily bias.
Source credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness, and similarity can influence the effectiveness of persuasion attempt (Wilson and Sherrell 1993)
Hypothesis: ulterior motive of persuader moderates increase the resistant effect of chooser than group-oriented motive.
Subjects are likely to agree (choose) when they know the menu is created by their friends
knowing that the menu has been created by a stranger, under compromise strategy, subjects still choose the middle alternative.
Attraction strategy is more likely to be used than compromise strategy
Even if subjects understand contextual effects (manipulation), they do not resist because
it’s hard to recognize characteristics of a local set from the characteristics of a global set. (Simonson, Nowlis, and Lemon 1993)
If subjects assume that the most attractive option has been eliminated, they have to choose the best among alternatives.
(Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005)
Non interactive social presence in the consumption context.
social forces has greatest influence (Latan? and Wolf 1981):
number (social size) (large > small):
immediacy (proximity) (closer > far)
social source strength (importance) (high > low)
Social Impact Theory
Study 1:
0 -> 1 person increased positive emotions
1 -> 3 person decreased positive emotions
Study 2: