People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B

IF 5.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Research Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucae055
Graham Overton, Joachim Vosgerau, Ioannis Evangelidis
{"title":"People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B","authors":"Graham Overton, Joachim Vosgerau, Ioannis Evangelidis","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucae055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity, and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae055","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

We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity, and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.
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
人们认为,如果 90% 的人喜欢 A 而不是 B,那么 A 一定比 B 好得多
我们的研究表明,消费者会混淆民意调查中的共识信息(如 90% 的受访者更喜欢 A 产品而非 B 产品)与喜欢程度的差异(即受访者喜欢 A 产品的程度高于 B 产品)。我们通过经验和模拟证明--虽然这可能是真的--但更有可能的是,A 的平均喜爱程度只略高于 B 的平均喜爱程度。这种规律性对 A 和 B 评价之间相关性的符号和大小以及 A 和 B 的喜爱程度的大多数分布都是稳健的。传播者(营销者、管理者、公共政策制定者等)可以利用这些错误的推断,战略性地将偏好信息显示为共识或喜欢度,从而导致选择的巨大变化。消费者的错误推断可以通过教育他们了解喜好差异的分布形状来纠正。我们讨论了理解和使用民意调查的理论和管理意义。
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