Top Rated or Best Seller?: Cultural Differences in Responses to Attitudinal versus Behavioral Consensus Cues

IF 5.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Research Pub Date : 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucad074
Aaron J Barnes, Sharon Shavitt
{"title":"Top Rated or Best Seller?: Cultural Differences in Responses to Attitudinal versus Behavioral Consensus Cues","authors":"Aaron J Barnes, Sharon Shavitt","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucad074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Marketers commonly use consensus cues about others’ behavioral choices (“Best Seller”) or their attitudes (“Top Rated”) when labeling products. This paper suggests that the effectiveness of these types of cues may differ across cultures in ways that carry implications for marketing practice. Prior research shows that in contexts that give rise to an interdependent cultural self-construal, choices are often responsive to social expectations rather than personal preferences. We propose that, because interdependents expect such behavioral conformity, cues that convey consensus about others’ choices may be less diagnostic and, thus, less persuasive than cues that convey consensus about others’ attitudes. Five studies examining cultural self-construal in multiple ways, along with two cross-national industry datasets, offer evidence consistent with this reasoning, suggesting that among interdependents, behavioral consensus cues can actually be less effective than attitudinal ones, reducing persuasion and willingness to pay. However, among independents, because attitudes are assumed to influence behavioral choices, whether the consensus cue is attitudinal or behavioral makes little difference.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":" 44","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad074","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Marketers commonly use consensus cues about others’ behavioral choices (“Best Seller”) or their attitudes (“Top Rated”) when labeling products. This paper suggests that the effectiveness of these types of cues may differ across cultures in ways that carry implications for marketing practice. Prior research shows that in contexts that give rise to an interdependent cultural self-construal, choices are often responsive to social expectations rather than personal preferences. We propose that, because interdependents expect such behavioral conformity, cues that convey consensus about others’ choices may be less diagnostic and, thus, less persuasive than cues that convey consensus about others’ attitudes. Five studies examining cultural self-construal in multiple ways, along with two cross-national industry datasets, offer evidence consistent with this reasoning, suggesting that among interdependents, behavioral consensus cues can actually be less effective than attitudinal ones, reducing persuasion and willingness to pay. However, among independents, because attitudes are assumed to influence behavioral choices, whether the consensus cue is attitudinal or behavioral makes little difference.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
最受欢迎还是最畅销?对态度和行为共识线索反应的文化差异
在给产品贴标签时,营销人员通常会使用关于他人行为选择(“最畅销”)或态度(“最受好评”)的共识线索。这篇论文表明,这些类型的线索的有效性可能在不同的文化中有所不同,这对营销实践有影响。先前的研究表明,在产生相互依赖的文化自我解释的环境中,选择往往是对社会期望而不是个人偏好的反应。我们认为,由于相互依赖者期望这种行为一致性,因此传达对他人选择的共识的线索可能比传达对他人态度的共识的线索更缺乏诊断性,因此更缺乏说服力。五项以多种方式考察文化自我建构的研究,以及两个跨国行业数据集,提供了与这一推理一致的证据,表明在相互依赖的人群中,行为共识线索实际上可能不如态度共识线索有效,从而降低了说服和支付意愿。然而,在独立人士中,由于态度被认为会影响行为选择,共识提示是态度的还是行为的几乎没有区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Journal of Consumer Research, established in 1974, is a reputable journal that publishes high-quality empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers on a wide range of consumer research topics. The primary objective of JCR is to contribute to the advancement of understanding consumer behavior and the practice of consumer research. To be considered for publication in JCR, a paper must make a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in consumer research. It should aim to build upon, deepen, or challenge previous studies in the field of consumption, while providing both conceptual and empirical evidence to support its findings. JCR prioritizes multidisciplinary perspectives, encouraging contributions from various disciplines, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and substantive problem areas. The journal aims to cater to a diverse readership base by welcoming articles derived from different orientations and paradigms. Overall, JCR is a valuable platform for scholars and researchers to share their work and contribute to the advancement of consumer research.
期刊最新文献
Moralizing Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B When Is Digital Censorship Permissible? A Conversation Norms Account Brand Teasing: How Brands Build Strong Relationships by Making Fun of Their Consumers Positive Contrast Scope-Insensitivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1