Beyond+the+Like+Button

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 62 | Comments: 0 | Views: 486
of 17
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Facebook Like button mystery released.

Comments

Content

Rebecca Walker Naylor, Cait Poynor Lamberton, & Patricia M. West

Beyond the "Like" Button: The
Impact of Mere Virtual Presence on
Brand Evaluations and Purchase
Intentions in Social Media Settings
By 2011, approximately 83% of Fortune 500 companies were using some form of social media to connect with
consumers. Furthermore, surveys suggest that consumers are increasingly relying on social media to learn about
unfamiliar brands. However, best practices regarding the use of social media to bolster brand evaluations in such
situations remain undefined. This research focuses on one practice in this domain: the decision to hide or reveal
the demographic characteristics of a brand's online supporters. The results from four studies indicate that even
when the presence of these supporters is only passively experienced and virtual (a situation the authors term "mere
virtual presence"), their demographic characteristics can influence a target consumer's brand evaluations and
purchase intentions. The findings suggest a framework for brand managers to use when deciding whether to reveal
the identities of their online supporters or to retain ambiguity according to (1 ) the composition of existing supporters
relative to targeted new supporters and (2) whether the brand is likely to be evaluated singly or in combination with
competing brands.
Keywords: social influence, mere presence, social media, social networks, ambiguity

who have voluntarily affiliated with the brand. We refer to
the passive exposure to a brand's supporters experienced in
such social media contexts as "mere virtual presence"
(MVP). Little is known about if, or how, MVP affects consumers or how it can best be managed.
Note that MVP takes many forms. For example, some
Facebook brand pages display profile pictures of the
brand's supporters. Companies may also use Facebook
Connect, so that a user's Facebook profile picture is displayed to other prospective users on their site (see, e.g.,
www.Groupon.com and www.Connect.Redbullusa.com).
Other companies encourage consumers to post pictures of
themselves using a brand either to their Facebook brand
page (e.g., Talbots) or to a company-run social network
(e.g.. Burberry's Art of the Trench website and the "How We
Wear Them" section of Tom's Shoes' website). Although a
2011 study shows that more than 80% of Fortune 500 companies use some form of social media (Hameed 2011), practitioners recognize that a large number of "likes" does not
necessarily translate into meaningful outcomes (Lake 2011).
Given that consumers increasingly look to social media to
form opinions about unfamiliar brands (Baird and Parasnis
2011; Newman 2011), how can managers use MVP to generate substantive differences in brand evaluations and purchase intentions?
We answer this question by exploring the effects of four
distinct types of MVP on brand evaluations and purchase
intentions. Note that in the pre-social-media world, the
identity of a brand's supporters was largely unknown. The
analog to this position in the social media world would be

W

hile a decade and a half of work building on Hoffman and Novak's (1996) analysis of computermediated environments has informed management
of online media, much of this work suggests that consumers
interact with brands online in ways similar to what they do
offline. That is, consumers join online brand communities
for many of the same reasons they join offline brand communities (e.g., Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann 2005;
Muniz and O'Guinn 2001; Schau, Muñiz, and Amold 2009;
Thompson and Sinha 2008).
However, social media practitioners now seek best practices for contexts in which brick-and-mortar research is
largely inapplicable. Specifically, social media can make
the identity of a brand's supporters transparent to prospective consumers in ways that have no offline analog. Before
the advent of social networking, consumers could only
guess at the identities of other brand supporters on the basis
of advertising or the identity of spokespeople. In contrast,
in the social media world, consumers viewing a brand page
are likely to see pictorial information about other people
Rebecca Walker Naylor is Assistant Professor of Marketing (e-mail:
[email protected]), and Patricia M. West is Associate Professor
of Marketing (e-mail: west_284§fisher.osu.edu). Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. Cait Poynor Lamberton is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburgh (e-mail: cpoynor§katz.pitt.edu). Order of authorship is arbitrary; all authors contributed equally to this article. The authors thank Darren Dahl, Jeff Inman, Greg Allenby, and Andrew Hayes for their comments
on various aspects of this research.

® 2012, American Marketing Association
iSSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (eiectronic)

105

Journal of Marketing
Voiume 76 (November 2012), 105-120

choosing not to reveal the identity of a brand's online supporters, a case we call "ambiguous MVP." If a brand displays the identity of its supporters, in social media settings,
this information is typically conveyed through profile photographs that display brand supporters' demographic characteristics.' Relative to a target consumer, displayed MVP
may be demographically similar or demographically dissimilar, or it may present a heterogeneous mix of similar
and dissimilar consumers. We compare the effects of maintaining ambiguous MVP with that created by each of these
types of identified MVP. In doing so, we show when it is
more beneficial to reveal the identity of current brand supporters to prospective customers and when to retain ambiguity about the brand's support base.
From a practical perspective, this research contributes
to the limited academic research investigating how firms
can best configure their social networks to meet strategic
objectives. For example. Tucker and Zhang (2010) demonstrate that displaying the number of sellers and buyers in
online exchanges can change business-to-business listing
and buying behavior. However, such findings provide limited managerial guidance because they do not compare the
effects of displaying the number of members on a particular
site with the range of other actions a manager may consider
when deciding how or whether to display online supporters.
From a theoretical perspective, our work challenges social
influence theory (SIT; Latane 1981), which suggests that
virtual exposure to unknown others should exert little social
influence. Furthermore, we provide novel insights into
social influence effects created by heterogeneous groups
and ambiguous others, for which the traditional reference
group literature (e.g., Bearden and Etzel 1982; Bearden,
Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; Berger and Heath 2007;
Bumkrant and Cousineau 1975; Childers and Rao 1992;
Escalas and Bettman 2003) is largely silent. In addition, we
show the importance of joint versus separate evaluation
mode (Hsee et al. 1999; Hsee and Leclerc 1998) as a moderator of the influence of ambiguous MVP. Finally, our
findings yield a road map for brand managers to use when
deciding whether to reveal the identities of their online supporters or to retain ambiguity according to (1) the demographic composition of existing supporters relative to targeted new supporters and (2) whether the brand is likely to
be evaluated singly or in combination with competing
brands.

Predicting Consumer Response to
MVP
Building on past work in mere presence effects (e.g., Argo,
Dahl, and Manchanda 2005), we use the MVP term to
describe the photographic presence of brand supporters in
online settings. This virtual exposure to other consumers
'Although consumers may use pictures of things other than
themselves as their profile picture on social networking sites, in an
online survey we conducted of 307 Intemet users (M^g^ = 28.7
years), 97% of participants who reported having a Facebook profile (n = 274) indicated that they use a photograph of themselves
as their profile picture.

106 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012

contrasts with the social influence a consumer might
encounter in an offline setting, where, for example, in a
retail outlet, interpersonal comparison is more immediate,
spatial crowding may occur, or future interaction is possible
(e.g., Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005).
Notably, classic theory suggests that MVP may have little effect on a consumer evaluating a new brand. Social
impact theory (SIT; Latane 1981) contends that for social
influence to be manifest, individuals must be present in
large numbers and be in close proximity to the target and
that the influence must be provided by an important or powerful source. In MVP, these conditions are not met. Rather,
brand supporters are generally displayed in small groups
(making them relatively few in number), are not in physical
proximity to the consumer, and, given that they are
strangers to the target consumer, are low in "source
strength."
However, we question whether the conditions of SIT are
necessary for MVP to exert influence. The reference group
literature acknowledges that knowing who the other users
of a brand are may affect a consumer's reaction to that
brand (e.g., Bearden and Etzel 1982; Bearden, Netemeyer,
and Teel 1989; Berger and Heath 2007; Bumkrant and
Cousineau 1975; Childers and Rao 1992; Escalas and
Bettman 2003). Although this literature has not explored
virtual presence of other users, it raises the possibility that
information about a brand's supporters may change brand
evaluations even if it does not meet SIT's requirements. We
first use the reference group literature to discuss the likely
effects of similar and dissimilar MVP. We then make predictions about the impact of maintaining ambiguity as
opposed to displaying different types of MVP. We also predict consumers' responses to a heterogeneous group of
similar and dissimilar individuals, a topic that, while not
addressed in the reference group literature, becomes important when firms use social media platforms with potentially
highly diverse users.
Peas in a Pod: Simiiar Versus Dissimiiar MVP
People tend to express affinity for those to whom they are
similar (Lydon, Jamieson, and Zanna 1988; Morry 2007;
Shachar and Emerson 2000). Furthermore, seeing similar
others supporting a brand will lead to greater affinity for the
brand (Berger and Heath 2007; Escalas and Bettman 2003;
McCracken 1988). Target marketing relies on this idea, such
that individuals are assumed to be more persuaded by advertising featuring those who are similar to the self (Aaker,
Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000; Deshpandé and Stayman 1994).
More recent work shows parallel effects in the context of
online reviews, in which consumers infer shared tastes and
preferences from verbally provided descriptive information
(vs. photos) about a reviewer, which in tum determine how
persuasive they find the reviewer's recommendation (Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton 2011). We refer to this inference of shared preferences as "inferred commonality."
Note, however, that inferred commonality has primarily
been considered in cases in which such inferences are rationally based on provided information. For example, information provided in reviewer posts could rationally inform

inferred commonality; writing style, expression of priorities, or shared interest could prompt reasonable consumers
to generalize to other facets of preference. In contrast, the
present study considers the effect of the pictorial MVP of
consumers. In this case, consumers have affiliated with the
brand but have done so without any persuasive intent.
Moreover, they have not provided written product information or recommendations to try the brand that would ground
inferences of commonality.
Despite these differences, we expect that similar MVP
will generate high levels of inferred commonality with a
brand's user base. We base this expectation in management
research suggesting that demographic similarity (which we
refer to simply as "similarity" and can be observed from
photographs) leads to inferences of deeper-level commonality. That is, even in the absence of any other information,
demographically similar individuals are presumed to share
personality traits, values, and attitudes (Cunningham 2007).
This inferred commonality prompts the individual to raise
his or her evaluation of the brand.
In contrast, previous literature has suggested that consumers exposed to dissimilar MVP will infer little commonality with the brand's users and will express lower evaluations for the brand than for a brand with similar MVP.
Importantly, the reference group literature suggests that
even if the dissimilar brand supporters are not explicitly
dissociative (i.e., members of groups with whom consumers
do not want to be associated) (White and Dahl 2006,2007),
consumers may avoid similar purchase patterns simply due
to demographic dissimilarity (Berger and Heath 2008).
Work on non-target market effects also suggests that seeing
dissimilar individuals can lead consumers to infer low levels of conunonality (Aaker et al. 2000). Thus, if MVP indicates that the brand is liked by people whom target consumers perceive as dissimilar, target consumers should infer
less commonality between themselves and the brand's user
base and adjust their liking for the brand downward compared with when MVP is similar.
Is Ignorance Bliss? Ambiguous MVP
Given that displaying MVP dissimilar to a target consumer
may lower brand evaluations in comparison with similar
MVP, perhaps displaying ambiguous MVP is the firm's
safest decision. Ambiguous MVP involves the display of
others about whom no or very limited identifying demographic information is provided. Thus, ambiguity may be
manifest by not showing any pictures of brand supporters,
showing only supporters who have not provided a picture,
or showing photos of brand supporters whose identity has
been obscured.
Prior research offers little guidance regarding the use of
ambiguous MVP. Some literature suggests that when people
encounter unidentified others, they infer little commonality
with them. Sassenberg and Postmes (2002), for example,
show that when people know nothing about other group
members, they report low levels of liking and low perceptions of group cohesiveness. These authors ground their
findings in social categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987),
which argues that individuals who cannot be placed in a

person's in-group will be subject to any stereotypes common to out-groups. However, recent research on ambiguity
adopts an information-processing perspective and comes to
a different conclusion. This work suggests that in the
absence of externally provided information about others,
consumers anchor on the self to infer that ambiguous others
are like them. Because of these inferences, Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton (2011) demonstrate that an ambiguous
online reviewer is more persuasive than a dissimilar
reviewer and equally as persuasive as a similar reviewer.
How does this research translate to the present context?
Note that MVP does not involve extended formation of inand out-groups or interaction among members. Rather, it
involves only incidental, passive exposure to other consumers. Given the nature of MVP exposure, we propose
that the information-processing explanation, rather than the
social categorization perspective, is likely to hold. In other
words, when MVP is ambiguous, consumers will project
their own characteristics onto the brand's user base (thus
inferring commonality), emerging with a level of affinity
like that generated by similar MVP but greater than that created by dissimilar MVP.
Heterogeneous MVP
Although the difference between similar and dissimilar
MVP can be predicted according to prior literature, existing
theory fails to explain responses to heterogeneous MVP.
Understanding reactions to heterogeneous groups is important, because it is possible that a brand will not present supporters that are uniformly similar or dissimilar to the target,
either because doing so is out of their control or because
their objectives include extension into previously uru-epresented market segments. Diverse groups do not form a
cohesive "reference group" in the traditional sense, and thus
the reference group literature has little to say on this point.
Some prior research has suggested that diverse groups may
be interpreted in the same manner as a group perceived to
be uniformly dissimilar (i.e., that the group's preferences do
not match the target's). For example, Jehn, Northcraft, and
Neale (1999) argue that diversity in a workgroup cues individuals to expect opinions and behaviors that diverge from
their own. Similarly, Chatman and Flynn (2001) show that
demographic heterogeneity within a workgroup initially
leads to low levels of cooperation. However, some
researchers advise broad inclusion of a wide range of consumers as members of social networking sites (Dholakia
and Vianello 2009), arguing that heterogeneity could indicate a brand's wide range of features or suggest broad
appeal.
Consistent with these recommendations, we predict that
the MVP of a heterogeneous mix of supporters can be a
strength rather than a weakness for firms, albeit for different reasons than those Dholakia and Vianello (2009) propose. We base our prediction in the idea that individuals
tend to be particularly sensitive to incidental similarities
between themselves and others, showing more positive attitudes toward a product in the presence of even superficial
similarities (e.g., Jiang et al. 2010). Furthermore, work on
the self-referencing effect shows the positive effect of self-

Beyond the "Like" Button /107

relatedness for information processing (e.g., Perkins, Forehand, and Greenwald 2005), such that individuals show
enhanced attention and cognitive fluency for information
perceived as self-congruent. If such effects hold in a social
media context, individuals will be more influenced by the
presence of even a small number of individuals in an MVP
array who are similar to themselves (i.e., who are directly
self-relevant) than a small number who are dissimilar (and
thus are less self-relevant). Therefore, we anticipate that a
consumer viewing a social media site with heterogeneous
MVP will be particularly sensitive to the presence of the
similar individual(s) in the array. In tum, brand evaluations
will be equivalent to those formed when consumers are
exposed to similar MVP. Notably, given that we hypothesize that ambiguous MVP will create brand evaluations like
those created by similar MVP, heterogeneous and ambiguous MVP should also produce equivalent brand evaluations.
A question that remains, however, is how much similarity must be present in a heterogeneous MVP array for it to
generate inferences and evaluations like homogenous similar MVP. Note that in Asch's classic work on conformity
(Asch 1955, 1956), social influence effects can be generated by even a small number of individuals in a larger
group. That is, homogeneity among confederates was not
necessary to prompt study participants to alter their judgments of stimuli. Thus, while there is no theory to directly
guide predictions about heterogeneity in the social media
context, we propose that even a small proportion of similar
individuals in a heterogeneous MVP array may produce
evaluations like those produced by homogeneous similar
MVP. To test this, we empirically manipulate number of
similar individuals in an MVP array to range from zero (dissimilar MVP) to 100% (similar MVP).
Thus, we suggest that MVP will influence brand evaluations as follows:
H¡: Ambiguous MVP produces (a) equivalent brand evaluations to homogeneous similar MVP, (b) equivalent brand
evaluations to heterogeneous MVP, and (c) significantly
more positive brand evaluations than homogeneous dissimilar MVP.
H2: The relationship proposed between MVP composition and
brand evaluations in Hi^ is mediated by inferences of
commonality with the brand's user base.2
We flrst test these hypotheses across three studies
employing different operationalizations of ambiguous MVP
and similarity. Study la tests all parts of H| using age to
manipulate similarity. Study lb tests the parts of H] pertaining to ambiguity, similarity, and dissimilarity using gender
to manipulate similarity. Then, given that Study 1 leaves
unanswered questions about heterogeneity. Study 2 focuses
primarily on heterogeneity, providing a direct test of Hib.
Studies lb and 2 both include tests of H2 (the mediation
2Note that because H|a and H|b predict equivalence, a mediation test would not be able to explain variance in the dependent
measure for these hypotheses. Thus, H2 predicts that ambiguous
MVP leads to a higher level of inferred commonality than does
dissimilar MVP, which explains the difference in brand evaluations between these types of MVP predicted in Hj^.

108 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012

hypothesis). Study 3 introduces our theorizing regarding the
moderating effect of joint and single evaluation contexts
and replicates results related to Hi^ and Hi^..

Study 1a
Study la compares participants' liking for an unfamiliar
brand when they observe different types of MVP. We use
age to manipulate similarity given previous work by practitioners and academics highlighting the influence of age
similarity on product preferences. For example, the
Yankelovich report on generational marketing argues that
determinants of product value are strongly influenced by
age cohort, shared experiences, media icons, and life stage
(Smith and Clurman 2009). Previous academic studies have
argued that other demographic characteristics drive attraction between consumers, but note that age is likely to be
correlated with many of these characteristics. For example,
Byme (1971) finds that shared job classification and marital
status make television media attractive to consumers. Similarly, Shachar and Emerson (2000) flnd that individuals
who have families prefer watching shows about families.
These characteristics are likely to be shared within at least
broad age ranges, such that college students will differ from
people 30-40 years of age, who will again differ from
people older than 65 years. Thus, perceived age of the individuals in an MVP array may act as a proxy for numerous
other demographic characteristics that have been shown to
influence similarity-based attraction.
Stimuii and Procedure
A total of 128 undergraduate students participating in this
study in exchange for extra credit were told that they would
be viewing an excerpt from the Facebook fan page created
by Roots, a Canadian clothing company. Participants read
the following information:
In this section of today's study, we'd like to you to look at
excerpts from an actual Facebook page for a real brand.
This is the type of page where you can "become a fan" of
a company or brand .3 You will see excerpts from a page
maintained by Roots, a real Canadian company interested
in expanding to the United States. Please look at the information featured on their Facebook page and respond to
the questions as honestly as possible.
Participants then viewed an excerpt from a simulated
Roots Facebook page (see the Web Appendix at www.
marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix) and answered questions about Roots clothing. As discussed previously, we
operationalized similarity using perceived age, holding gender constant. Participants indicated their gender before the
study began so that all participants viewed fans matched to
their gender. All participants were told that there were the
same number of total fans regardless of MVP condition.
Depending on condition, participants saw one of the following: (1) total number of fans and pictures of six fans that
3At the time we began this research, Facebook called brand supporters "fans" and brand pages "fan pages." The term "fan" has
since been replaced by the "like" button; consumers who were
fans of a brand are now those that like the brand.

were the same age and gender as the participant^ (homogeneous similar MVP condition), (2) total number of fans and
pictures of six fans that were the same gender but a different
age than the participant (homogeneous dissimilar MVP condition), (3) total number of fans and three pictures of fans
that were the same gender and age and three pictures of fans
that were the same gender but a different age (heterogeneous
MVP condition) as the participant, or (4) no fan pictures,
only the total number of fans (ambiguous MVP condition).
No specific direction was given to attend to the fans, and
participants viewed the page as long as they liked. Other
information on the page was held constant across conditions.
We captured brand liking by asking, "Based on the
information you just saw from their Facebook page, how
much do you like Roots brand clothing?" on a nine-point
scale ranging from "do not like at all" to "like very much."
As manipulation checks, we asked participants in the similar, dissimilar, and heterogeneous MVP conditions to indicate how much they agreed that "Roots 'fans' are the same
age I am" and "Roots 'fans' are the same gender I am."
Finally, we asked all participants whether they had heard of
Roots before the study and, if so, how familiar they were
with the brand on a nine-point scale (1 = "not at all familiar," and 9 = "very familiar").

erogeneous MVP [HiJ, and [3] ambiguous MVP vs. dissimilar MVP [Hic]). This analysis thus indicates the effect
of the managerial decision to reveal consumers' similar or
different demographic information to one another or to
obscure it, maintaining ambiguity. Note that these contrast
codes partition the multivariate analysis of variance sums of
squares into interpretable subsets, obviating the need for
special alpha levels (Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin 2000).
Consistent with our hypotheses, only the contrast code
comparing the ambiguous MVP condition with the dissimilar MVP condition was significant. There was no significant
difference in liking between the similar (M = 4.74) and
ambiguous (M = 4.48) MVP conditions (F(l, 107) = .86,/? =
.36) or between the heterogeneous (M = 4.89) and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(l, 107) =l.91,p= .17), in support
of Hja and H|b, respectively. We also note that there were
no differences in brand liking in the similar, heterogeneous,
and ambiguous conditions when these conditions were considered together in a separate analysis (F(2, 82) = .38,/? =
.68). As Hic predicts, the only one of the three contrast
codes that was significant was the one comparing ambiguous MVP with dissimilar MVP: Participants liked Roots
significantly less in the dissimilar (M - 3.81) than the
ambiguous (F(l, 107) = 5.04,p< .05) MVP condition.5

Results

Discussion

Sample and manipulation check. We first examined participants' familiarity with Roots. Of the 128 participants, 27
had heard of Roots before the study. Of these participants,
15 indicated a familiarity score of five or above on the ninepoint familiarity scale, and therefore we removed them
from the data set. Of the remaining participants, two indicated that Roots fans were not the same gender they were
(presumably because they did not follow instructions and
indicated a different gender than their own before the beginning of the study); they were also removed from the data
set. This left a final usable sample of 111 participants (59
men and 52 women) with an average age of 21 years. The
manipulation check revealed that participants in the similar
condition rated the fans as more similar to themselves in
age (M = 7.81) than did participants in the heterogeneous
(M - 5.11) and dissimilar conditions (M = 1.12; F(2, 81) =
147.76,/? < .0001). We also note that there were no differences in amount of time spent viewing the page across conditions (M = 26.7 seconds; F(3,107) = 1.13,/? = .34).

The result of Study la suggest that fans on a social networking site do not need to directly interact with a target
consumer or post comments about a brand to influence the
brand evaluations of a consumer new to the brand. Specifically, MVP evokes equivalent levels of liking when it is
composed of a homogeneous group of similar individuals,
when it is composed of a heterogeneous group of dissimilar
and similar individuals, and when brand supporters are left
demographically ambiguous. In contrast, a homogenous
group of dissimilar others produced significantly less brand
liking. Thus, H] is supported in this context.

Liking for Roots clothing. We next examined participants' liking for Roots clothing. Because MVP composition
was a four-level variable, we used three orthogonal contrast
codes to compare the ambiguous condition with the other
three conditions (i.e., these codes compared [1] ambiguous
MVP vs. similar MVP [H|a], [2] ambiguous MVP vs. het^Because all participants in the subject pool at the university
where the studies were conducted were in their late teens to early
20s, the fans used in the similar condition were also in this age
range. All fans in the dissimilar age condition were older, ranging
from their 30s to their 60s. All pictures used were actual Facebook
profile pictures selected from the Facebook pages of individuals
whose profile picture was public. We note that these pictures
manipulate perceived age, not objective age.

Study 1b
It is possible that part of the reason that ambiguity was
treated like similarity in Study la was because the numeric
representation of fans in the ambiguous condition made it
difficult for consumers to consider the possibility that these
fans are different from themselves. It is also possible that
the results we obtained could be unique to using age to
manipulate similarity. Therefore, in Study lb, we tested
whether our results hold using a different type of ambiguity
(i.e., generic Facebook profile picture silhouettes) and when
manipulating (dis)similarity using participants' gender
5We also analyzed these data using an alternate set of contrast
codes comparing (1) the similar, ambiguous, and heterogeneous
MVP conditions with the dissimilar MVP condition; (2) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with the heterogeneous MVP
condition; and (3) the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions
with each other. Consistent with our hypotheses, only the first of
these alternate contrast codes had a signiflcant effect on brand liking: Roots was liked significantly less in the dissimilar than in the
other conditions (F(l, 107) = 5.04, p < .05); the other two contrast
codes had a nonsignificant effect on liking (both ps >.4O).

Beyond tiie "Like" Button/109

(holding age constant). We also test our findings by altering
MVP through "fans of the day," an approach currently used
both on Facebook and on the social portions of some
brands' own websites (e.g., the "Fan of the Month" featured
on Blackberry's blog).

Stimuli and Procedure
Study lb once again asked participants about Roots brand
clothing. All participants therefore first read the following:
As part of its social networking strategy, in addition to a
Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a blog. Roots also
invites consumers to post photos of themselves to the
main Roots website where they can be featured as "fans of
the day."
Participants then saw a Screenshot of what was purportedly
the "Community" section of the Roots website, which featured six fans of the day (see the Web Appendix at www.
marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). We held all elements constant except the photos of the fans of the day.6 This
study included three between-subjects conditions. Participants in the ambiguous MVP condition saw six photos of the
anonymous Facebook silhouettes shown when someone does
not provide or make public a profile picture. Participants in
the similar MVP condition saw six photos of individuals
who were the same age and gender that they were, while
participants in the dissimilar MVP condition saw six photos
of individuals who were the same age but opposite gender.
After participants viewed the Roots website information, they indicated their level of agreement with the following statement on a seven-point scale: "Roots is a brand
for me." Next, they answered the question "How likely are
you to join the Roots community so that you can have a
chance to be featured as one of the 'fans of the day'?" To
capture inferred commonality to test our mediation hypothesis, we also asked all participants how much they agreed
that "I have a lot in common with the typical Roots shopper." As a manipulation check, participants in the similar
and dissimilar MVP conditions also indicated (yes/no)
whether the fans of the day were the same gender they
were. Given that it could be argued that by manipulating
age in Study la, we also inadvertently manipulated attractiveness, we also measured perceived attractiveness to rule
out this altemative explanation using the question, "Compared to the average person of their age and gender, how
attractive were the Roots 'fans of the day'?" (1 = "significantly less attractive than average," and 7 - "significantly
more attractive than average"). Finally, all participants
stimuli for this study were adapted from the Roots website, which does feature a "Community" section (though this section does not actually include fans of the day). We note that the
fans of the day are not actual Roots users, however, and that Roots
does currently sell clothing in the United States. We found the
photos of purported Roots fans by searching various websites on
which consumers had posted public photos of themselves (e.g.,
Facebook, HotorNot.com). Because all participants in the subject
pool at the university where the studies were conducted are in their
late teens to early 20s and we held age constant in this study, all
photos used depicted people who would be perceived to be in this
age range.

110 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012

answered the same questions about their familiarity with
Roots used in Study la.

Results
Sample and manipulation check. Of the 116 undergraduate students who participated in this study, 25 had heard of
Roots before the study. Of these participants, we removed 4
from the data set because they reported being highly familiar with the brand. This left a final usable sample of 112
participants (53 men, 59 women) with an average age of 21
years. All participants in the similar MVP condition indicated that the fans of the day were the same gender they
were, and all participants in the dissimilar MVP condition
indicated that the fans of the day were the opposite gender.
We also note that there were no differences in amount of
time spent viewing the page across conditions (M = 35.6
seconds; F(2,107) =l.Ol,p= .37).
Brand liking and willingness to interact with the brand
through social media. Given that the independent variable in
this study had three levels, we used two orthogonal contrast
codes (no special alpha levels required) to analyze the data
comparing (1) the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions
with each other (H|a) and (2) the ambiguous with the dissimilar MVP condition (H](,). We analyzed brand liking and
willingness to interact with the brand through social media
separately. Again, consistent with Hia, participants in the
ambiguous (M = 4.16) and similar (M = 3.91) MVP conditions expressed equivalent liking for Roots (F(l, 109) = .14,
p = .71). Furthermore, consistent with Hi^, participants in the
dissimilar MVP condition (M = 3.46) liked Roots marginally
less than participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (F(l,
109) = 3.15,p = .06). The results for willingness to interact
with Roots through social media are similar. Participants
reported that they were equally likely to interact with the
brand in the ambiguous (M - 2.63) and similar (M - 2.57)
MVP conditions (F(l, 108) = .90,/? = .35) and more likely to
join the Roots community in the ambiguous than the dissimilar (M = 1.97) MVP condition (F(l, 108) = 4.50,p < .05).?
Mediation. Using the same contrast codes, we examined
whether consumers' inferences that they had "a lot in common with the typical Roots shopper" followed the same pattem, as H2 predicted. As we expected, participants reported
that they had the same amount of commonality with the
typical Roots shopper in the ambiguous and similar MVP
conditions (M^^biguous = 4.29, M,-,^,^^ = 3.85; F(l, 109) =
'We also conducted an alternate analysis of these data using two
contrast codes that compare (1) the similar and ambiguous MVP
conditions with the dissimilar condition and (2) the similar and
ambiguous MVP conditions with each other. The results revealed
that the brand was liked marginally more in the similar and
ambiguous MVP conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition
(F(l, 109) = 3.75, p = .06) and was liked equally well in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(l, 109) = 2.37, p = .13).
Participants were also more likely to want to connect with the
brand through social media in the similar and ambiguous MVP
conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition (F(l, 109) = 4.50,
p < .05) and were equally likely to want to connect with the brand in
the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(l, 109) = 1.40,p =
.24).

.05, p = .82) and more in common with the typical Roots
shopper in the ambiguous than in the dissimilar MVP condition (Mdi,5i^i,ar = 3.29; F(l, 109) = 7.45,p < .01).
To explore whether inferred commonality mediated the
relationship between the ambiguous versus dissimilar MVP
contrast code and liking for Roots clothing, we used a bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch,
and Chen 2010). A confidence interval (CI) that excludes
zero for the indirect effect reveals that inferred commonality with the typical Roots shopper mediates the relationship
between the ambiguous versus dissimilar MVP contrast
code and liking (95% CI [-.72, -.12]), consistent with Hj.
Given that we used photographs to manipulate MVP, it
is possible that our results could be driven by the perceived
attractiveness of the specific fans shown, not perceptions of
how similar the fans are to the participant (attractiveness
and inferred commonality were moderately correlated; r .38, p < .0001). To test whether this was the case, we examined whether perceived attractiveness mediated the relationship between the focal contrast and liking. When attractiveness is the only mediator in the model, it is a significant
mediator (95% CI [-.38, -.004]). However, when we included
both inferred commonality and perceived attractiveness in
the model as mediators, only inferred commonality mediates
the relationship (95% CI [-.74, -.12]). The lower bound of
the CI for perceived attractiveness is negative in this model,
and the upper bound is positive (95% CI [-.05, .17]), indicating that attractiveness is not a significant mediator. The
results for willingness to interact with the brand through
social media are substantively identical. Inferred commonality mediates the relationship between the focal contrast
and the dependent variable both when alone in the model
(95% CI [-.37, -.05]) and when attractiveness is included in
the model (95% CI [-.36, -.04]). Attractiveness is a significant mediator when it is the only mediator in the model
(95% CI [-.37, -.03]) but not when the model also includes
inferred commonality as a mediator (95% CI [-.26, .05]).
Discussion
The results of Study lb provide additional support for H],
demonstrating that the results hold across a different operationalization of ambiguity. In support of H2, consumers
express greater liking for a brand and greater willingness to
interact with that brand through social media when the
brand displays ambiguous or similar MVP than when the
brand displays dissimilar MVP because of greater inferred
commonality with the brand's user base.^ Note that ambigu^Although not reported in the interests of brevity, we collected
additional data in which we measured inferred commonality before
brand evaluations. The results suggest that the effect of dissimilar
MVP does not change regardless of whether it is made salient
before brand evaluation questions are asked (F(l, 210) = 6.95,p <
.01). As such, it appears that the effects of dissimilar and ambiguous MVP on brand evaluations are likely to be obtained either
below or above the radar. However, when individuals are cued to
notice similar MVP, they appear to discount it when forming
brand evaluations (F(l, 210) = 4.50,p < .05). We would attribute
this to the possibility that drawing attention to homogeneous similar MVP activates persuasion knowledge, such that consumers try
to avoid being manipulated by the individuals presented.

ity in this format would be driven by consumers who have
chosen not to upload pictures to their social media profile.
Thus, this study suggests that if firms choose to select fans
of the day, they can strategically choose to select or avoid
individuals who have opted to maintain their privacy.
Studies la and lb provide support for Hi using two different manipulations of similarity (age and gender, respectively). These findings suggest that our results will be
usable by a marketer who may only have access to either
age or gender information based on consumers' past searching behavior or information provided by a social media
platform. We would anticipate that in some product categories, the similarity-enhancing effect of gender and age
could be additive. That is, participants might infer greater
commonality if they saw the similar MVP of brand supporters who were both the same age and same gender as themselves than if they saw brand supporters who match only in
terms of age or gender. Whether age, gender, or both
together are most effective at raising inferred commonality
is likely dependent on the type of brands or products consumers consider. Clothing is a category in which both factors are clearly important, as shown in these two studies.
Further work could identify specific categories for which
one demographic factor or another is more central in determining inferred commonality.

Study 2
Although the numbers-only presentation used in Study la
and the fans-of-the-day format used in Study lb are both
common ways to display MVP, firms also increasingly
allow consumers to upload pictures of themselves using or
wearing a product to social media sites. If such pictures are
displayed in ways that do not provide complete demographic information, they would also present the consumer
with a type of ambiguous MVP. Therefore, Study 2
explores whether photos that do not reveal all of a supporter's demographic characteristics create identical effects
to those created by revealing only the total number of fans
or showing profile pictures that reveal no demographic
information. Study 2 also explores the effect of heterogeneous MVP in greater depth, testing the level of heterogeneity required to create effects equivalent to those seen
with similar MVP. A secondary goal of this study was to
test whether effects observed in prior studies extend to other
downstream consequences of interest to managers beyond
brand liking and interacting with a brand through social
media.
Stimuli and Procedure
Study 2 asked participants to react to an online clothing
retailer called asos:
In this survey, we are interested in your opinions about a
real brand's social networking presence. This brand, asos,
is an online clothing retailer that sells both men's and
women's clothing mostly in the U.K. As part of its social
networking strategy, in addition to a Facebook page and a
Twitter account, asos also hosts "asos marketplace" on its
company-owned website. Visitors to the website are
invited to join asos marketplace and to post photos of
themselves wearing asos brand clothing.

Beyond the "Like" Button /111

Participants then saw a screen shot of what was purportedly
the splash page Internet users would find if they went to
www.asos.com. They then viewed the "Marketplace" section of the asos website, which featured user-posted photos
of brand users wearing asos clothing (see the Web Appendix at www.marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). We
manipulated photos to create the different types of MVP,
such that everything on the website was held constant
except the user-posted photos .^ Participants indicated their
gender before the main study began so that all participants
viewed members of the asos marketplace who were
matched to their own gender. We manipulated similarity
using perceived age, as in Study la.
Study 2 had eight between-subjects conditions in which
participants saw six photos of brand users. The number of
similar brand users ranged from zero of six (homogeneous
dissimilar MVP) to six of six (homogeneous similar MVP)
in seven of the conditions. The eighth condition displayed
six photos of brand users that showed only their clothing,
not their faces (ambiguous MVP condition).
After participants viewed the asos website information,
they responded to the following three questions on sevenpoint scales (1 = "very unlikely," and 7 = "very likely"):
"How likely would you be to buy asos clothing if it were
available in the U.S.?" "Recently, asos has been considering
opening retail stores in addition to selling clothes online....
How likely would you be to shop at an asos store if one
opened in your area?" and "If asos sent you a coupon to use
in-store (for 20% off your total in-store purchase) to your
home mailing address, how likely would you be to use that
coupon?" We captured inferred commonality through
agreement (on a seven-point scale) with the statement, "I
have a lot in common with the typical asos shopper."
As a manipulation check, participants in the similar and
dissimilar MVP conditions rated how much they agreed that
"The asos marketplace users are the same age I am" and
indicated (yes/no) whether the users were the same gender
they were. Participants in all conditions responded to the
question "Compared to other people in their age group, how
attractive were the asos marketplace users?" on a sevenpoint scale anchored by "significantly less attractive than
average" and "significantly more attractive than average."
'We adapted the stimuli for this study from the asos website. We
note that the users shown are not actual asos users, however, and
that asos does currently sell clothing in the United States. We
selected asos for this study because of its user-posted marketplace
photo section and because it was unfamiliar to the majority of the
subject pool at the university where the study was conducted. We
found the photos of purported asos users through a Google image
search (thus, photos came from a variety of different websites
where people had posted public photos of themselves, including
Burberry's Art of the Trench website) and Facebook brand pages
where users had posted photos of themselves wearing a particular
clothing brand (e.g., Talbots), so the clothing used was not actually asos clothing. As in Study la, because all participants in the
subject pool at the university where the studies were conducted
were in their late teens to early 20s, the photos used in the similar
condition depicted people who would also be perceived to be in
this age range. The purported asos users in the dissimilar age condition were older, with perceived ages ranging from their 40s to
their 70s.

112 /Journal of Marketing, November 2012

Finally, all participants were asked whether they had heard
of asos before the study and, if yes, how familiar they were
with the brand on a seven-point scale (1 = "not at all familiar," and 7 = "very familiar").
Resuits
Sample and manipulation check. Of the 289 undergraduate students who participated in this study for extra credit,
17 had heard of asos before the study. All 17 indicated a
familiarity score of four or greater on the seven-point familiarity scale, and therefore we removed them from the data
set. Of the remaining participants, 12 indicated that the asos
marketplace users were not the same gender they were (presumably because they did not follow instructions and indicated a different gender than their own before the beginning
of the study) and were also removed from the data set. This
left a final usable sample of 260 participants (151 men, 109
women) with an average age of 21 years. The age similarity
manipulation check revealed that participants in the similar
MVP condition rated the asos marketplace members as more
similar to themselves in age (Mg similar,0 dissimilar = 5.18) than
did participants in the heterogeneous (M5 ^in^w^, 1 dissimilar =
4.07, M4 similar, 2 dissimilar = 3-74, M3 similar, 3 dissimilar = 3.75,
^ 2 similar, 4 dissimilar = 2.74, Mj similar, 5 dissimilar = 2.38) and
dissimilar MVP conditions (MQ similar, 6 dissimilar = 1 -88; F(6,

233) = 23.71,/7<.0001).
Purchase intentions. Because the three purchase intention measures were highly correlated (a = .90), we averaged them to form an overall purchase intention index. Our
analysis uses seven contrast codes that compare purchase
intentions in the ambiguous MVP condition with every
other condition (with no need for special alpha levels
because the codes are orthogonal). Consistent with H ¡a and
H]),, none of the contrasts comparing ambiguous MVP with
the homogeneous similar MVP condition or any of the heterogeneous conditions were significant (all ps > .24). The
only significant contrast (of the seven contrast codes comparing the ambiguous MVP condition with every other condition) was the contrast code comparing the ambiguous
MVP condition directly with the homogeneous dissimilar
MVP condition. Consistent with H^^, participants in the dissimilar MVP condition were less likely to buy asos clothing
(M - 3.60) than participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (M = 4.60; F(l, 249) = 6.84,p < .Ol).io
To learn more about the effect of different levels of
heterogeneity, we conducted follow-up analyses comparing
the heterogeneous MVP arrays that contained the fewest
number of dissimilar individuals with the homogeneous dissimilar MVP array. We found that one similar individual in
the MVP array was not enough to create purchase intentions
significantly different from those generated by a homogeneous dissimilar MVP array (F(l, 65) = 1.29, p - .26).
However, when two of the six displayed individuals were
'"In a separate analysis (excluding the dissimilar MVP condition), we also tested for differences across the homogeneous similar and all heterogeneous MVP conditions. This omnibus analysis
revealed that there were no differences in purchase likelihood
across these seven conditions (F(6, 228) = .ll,p = .60).

similar to the participant, purchase intentions were greater
than for a dissimilar only MVP array (F(l, 64) = 3.75, /? =
.06). Further analysis demonstrates the incremental impact
of adding an additional similar individual to the mix using
regression. This analysis revealed a significant linear (b =
.13, t = 2.15,p < .01), not curvilinear (b - -.03, t = -I.18,p =
.24), relationship between the degree of similarity in the
MVP array and purchase intentions (see Table 1).
Mediation. Using the same seven contrast codes comparing each condition with the ambiguous MVP condition,
we next examined whether consumers' inferences that they
had "a lot in common with the typical asos shopper" followed the same pattem of results found for purchase intentions. As we expected, the only signiflcant difference was
again that participants in the dissimilar MVP condition (i.e.,
six dissimilar users and zero similar users) perceived lower
commonality with the typical asos shopper (M - 3.03) than
participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (M = 3.50;
F(l, 252) = 3.85,i» = .05) (for means, see Table 1).
As in Study lb, we tested both inferred commonality
and perceived attractiveness (r = .34,p < .0001) of the asos
marketplace users as potential mediators of purchase intentions using a bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes
2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010). The results reveal that
inferred commonality with the typical asos shopper mediates
the relationship between the contrast code comparing the
dissimilar MVP condition with the ambiguous MVP condition
(95% CI [.09, .72]). In contrast, when we tested attractiveness as a mediator, the lower bound of the CI is negative, and
the upper bound is positive (95% CI [-.07, .34]), indicating
that perceived attractiveness is not a signiflcant mediator.
When we included both potential mediators in the model,
inferred commonality remains a signiflcant mediator (95%
CI [.10, .69]), and perceived attractiveness does not (95%
CI [-.03, .15]).
Discussion
Study 2 demonstrates that the brand liking effects in Studies
la and lb extend to purchase intentions and are consistently
mediated by inferred commonality with the brand's users.
These results hold when manipulating ambiguity by showing
photos that concealed key demographic characteristics. We
note that this is a more conservative test of our hypotheses
than that in Study la or lb, given that the photos used in Study
2 conceal some, but not all, demographic characteristics.

Study 2's results also indicate that consumers may
respond to heterogeneous MVP in the same way they do to
ambiguous and homogeneous similar MVP. Exposure to
two or more similar individuals in a set leads to purchase
intention levels not significantly different from ambiguous
or homogenous similar MVP. We suspect, however, that the
raw number of similar individuals in a heterogeneous MVP
array is likely not as important as the proportion of similar
individuals. Would two similar individuals in a heterogeneous MVP array of 100 individuals produce equivalent
levels of brand liking as an ambiguous or homogeneous
similar MVP array? We leave identification of the absolute
tipping point to further study but expect that two would
likely not be enough in this context.
Across the three studies reported thus far, we show that
leaving a brand's online supporters ambiguous has only
positive consequences. However, Studies 1 and 2's effects
were viewed in the context of only one brand's presence—
that is, in a separate evaluation context. In many cases, consumers will not evaluate a brand in isolation. Thus, the prescription to maintain ambiguity may need to be tempered
for firms that face a more rather than less competitive
space.
Therefore, Study 3 examines whether our effects hold in
a joint evaluation context more similar to the experience a
consumer is likely to actually have on a social networking
site. In previous research on interpretation of ambiguous
others. Nay lor, Lamberton, and Norton (2011) showed participants a set of different, verbally described reviewers
(varying in identification and similarity) providing input
about different products. In this setup, they found that an
ambiguous reviewer was slightly less persuasive than a
similar reviewer. This result diverged somewhat from flndings in their other studies, in which participants viewed
only one reviewer, leaving an explanation for this "cost of
ambiguity" for further research. We propose that whether
ambiguous MVP creates liking equivalent to or less than
that created by similar MVP will depend on whether a
brand is evaluated alone (i.e., no competing brands or their
supporters are viewed) or evaluated at the same time as
other competing brands. From a practical standpoint, consumers may view only one brand's Facebook page (or the
social component of only one brand's website) in a category
with little direct competition or may view many brands'
pages in a densely populated space.

TABLE 1
Study 2: Means by MVP Composition

Condition

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

MVP Composition
6 ambiguous users
6 simiiar, 0 dissimilar users
5 simiiar, 1 dissimilar user
4 simiiar, 2 dissimilar users
3 simiiar, 3 similar users
2 similar, 4 dissimilar users
1 similar, 5 dissimilar users
0 similar, 6 dissimilar users

Mean Purchase Intention
(Indexed Variable)

Mean Rating of How Much
in Common Participant Has
with Typical asos Shopper

4.61
4.38
4.48
4.25
4.21
4.23
3.96
3.54

3.63
3.94
3.75
3.49
3.35
3.45
3.21
3.00

Beyond the "Like" Button/113

Viewing multiple competing brands at the same time
can be characterized as a case of joint evaluation, whereas
single brand viewing can be characterized as separate
evaluation (Hsee et al. 1999; Hsee and Leclerc 1998). Previous research has shown that people evaluate options differently in these two decision contexts, such that products
that are evaluated highly under separate evaluation may be
evaluated less positively under joint evaluation (Hsee and
Leclerc 1998). This is because when an objectively attractive product is evaluated singly, consumers rely on an internal reference point to evaluate it. In contrast, when that target product is evaluated alongside another objectively
attractive product, consumers shift away from their intemal
reference point. Instead, consumers focus more on the other
product, rather than an intemal source, as a reference point
(Hsee and Leclerc 1998).
In the present context, consider separate evaluation of a
brand with ambiguous MVP. We have argued that this brand
will be evaluated positively because consumers infer that
ambiguous others are like themselves. Now imagine that
the same brand is viewed alongside a brand with similar
MVP. Rather than focusing exclusively on egocentric
anchor-driven inferences of similarity, the consumer compares the ambiguous MVP directly with the similar MVP of
the other brand. When ambiguity is directly compared with
similarity, the consumer will still infer commonality with the
ambiguous MVP brand's user base, but this inferred information is likely to be weaker than the information observed
when demographic similarity is displayed. Thus, in joint
evaluation contexts, we predict that consumers will have
higher evaluations of a brand about which commonality is
more strongly indicated by the similar MVP displayed than
a brand about which they have to make an inference (i.e., a
brand whose supporters constitute ambiguous MVP), even
if the egocentric-anchoring-driven inference would have,
under separate evaluation, led to equivalent levels of liking
for the brands with ambiguous and similar MVP. Formally,
H3: In a joint evaluation context, ambiguous MVP creates
brand evaluations that are less positive than those generated by homogeneous, similar MVP but more positive
than those generated by homogeneous, dissimilar MVP.

Study 3
Study 3 tests our hypothesis that the effect of ambiguity
depends on the evaluation context in which a brand is
viewed. In addition. Study 3 shows that the results from
Studies 1 and 2 replicate in a different product category and
in an additional social networking context.
Stimuli and Procedure
A total of 312 undergraduate students (178 men, 134
women) with a mean age of 21 years participated in this
study for course credit. All participants read the following
introduction:
Now we'd like to you to look at some social networking
websites developed by restaurants with locations nationwide. To protect confldentiality, the names of the restaurants have been changed to Restaurants X, Y, and Z [in the
joint evaluation condition; only Restaurant X was men-

114 / Journai of Marketing, November 2012

tioned in the separate evaluation condition]. You will see
some of the material that appears on the first page of each
restaurant's social networking site. After potential users
see this information, they can create an account to join a
restaurant's site, which lets them post information that
other users can see, including comments and photographs.
Participants in the joint evaluation condition were told that
the first pages of all three social networking sites that they
would observe featured a "welcome" to the site, photographs of the restaurant, and photographs of members of
the restaurant's site. Participants in this condition were then
shown the first page of the three restaurants' sites with the
pictures of five website members varying such that one
restaurant featured members similar to the subject pool,"
one featured dissimilar members, and one featured ambiguous members (using the same anonymous Facebook silhouettes used in Study lb). We rotated the order of type of
member featured for each restaurant such that there were
actually three joint evaluation conditions that differed only
by order. (In all conditions, participants saw three restaurants, one with similar, one with ambiguous, and one with
dissimilar members.) Participants in the joint evaluation
conditions rated the restaurants sequentially.
In contrast, participants in the separate evaluation condition saw information about only one restaurant, which
was manipulated between subjects to display similar, dissimilar, or ambiguous MVP. Participants in all conditions
were asked, "How much do you think you'd like the bar
area at [restaurant name]?" (for each restaurant they saw)
on a nine-point scale (1 = "would not like at all," and 9 =
"would like very much").
Results
Separate evaluation. We first assessed whether our predictions held in the separate evaluation conditions using
two contrast codes that compare (1) the ambiguous and
similar MVP conditions with each other and (2) the
ambiguous with the dissimilar MVP condition. When we
regressed the liking variable on the two contrast codes, we
again observed support for Hja, as the bar area was liked
equally well in the similar (M = 5.78) and ambiguous MVP
conditions (M = 5.92; F(l, 144) = .55, p- .46). That is, as
in Studies 1 and 2, there is no cost to ambiguity relative to
similarity in a separate evaluation context. Consistent with
Hic and the results of the prior studies, participants liked the
bar area more in the ambiguous MVP condition than in the
dissimilar (M = 5.18) MVP condition (F(l, 144) = 4.11,p <
.05). 12
"Member pictures used were the same used in Study la. Participants were again asked their gender before the study began so
that the fans shown matched their gender. We manipulated similarity using perceived age.
'2We also conducted an alternate analysis using two contrast
codes that compare (1) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions
with the dissimilar condition and (2) the similar and ambiguous
MVP conditions with each other. The results revealed that participants liked the bar area more in the similar and ambiguous MVP
conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition (F(l, 109) = 5.24,
p < .05) and equally well in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(l, 109) = .06,p = .81).

Joint evaluation. An omnibus repeated measures analysis of all three conditions revealed that there was not a significant between-subjects effect of order (in which the
restaurants were viewed) on brand liking, so we dropped
order from further analysis (F(l, 163) = .65,p = .42).i3 We
then used within-subject contrast codes analogous to the
ones used in the separate evaluation analysis to analyze participants' liking for the three restaurants. Consistent with H3
and diverging from Hig, participants liked the bar area in the
restaurant with similar MVP (M - 5.97) significantly more
than the bar area in the restaurant with ambiguous MVP (M =
5.34; F(l, 164) = 13.22,/? < .001), showing a cost of ambiguity relative to known similarity. However, even under
joint evaluation, ambiguity is stiU preferable to dissimilarity:
Participants anticipated liking the bar area in the restaurant
with ambiguous MVP more than the bar area in the restaurant with dissimilar MVP (M = 4.39; F(l, 164) = 30.01,p <
.0001).i4

Discussion
Study 3 examines participants' response to similar versus
ambiguous MVP in joint versus separate evaluation contexts. In separate evaluation, ambiguous MVP leads to an
almost identical response to that generated by similar MVP,
as in Studies 1 and 2. However, in joint evaluation, ambiguous MVP leads to a significantly less positive response than
does similar MVP. Still, ambiguous MVP generates liking
greater than that evoked by dissimilar MVP.
These findings shed light on the decision managers
must make about whether to reveal the identity of their
brand's supporters: The decision must be determined not
just by whether the brand supporters shown are likely to be
perceived as similar or dissimilar to a target consumer but
also by whether the consumer is likely to encounter the supporters in a joint or separate evaluation context, an issue we
retum to in the "General Discussion" section.

General Discussion
At the end of 2011, iMedia Connection published an article
titled "Why Facebook Fans Are Useless" (Lake 2011). In the
article, the author notes that "on their own, Facebook 'likes'
don't add any value." Yet research has shown that social
media can translate into increases in sales (Stephen and
i3We also analyzed the joint evaluation data using only each
participant's rating of the first restaurant they saw. Because participants viewed the restaurants sequentially, we expected these
results to be consistent with the separate evaluation results. As we
expected, participants liked the bar area equally well in the similar
(M = 5.57) and ambiguous MVP conditions (M = 5.88; F(l, 162) =
.90,p = .34) but more in the ambiguous MVP condition than in the
dissimilar (M = 4.66) MVP condition (F(l, 162)= 10.69, p< .01).
'''The results using the same alternate contrast codes used in the
separate evaluation analysis reveal that participants anticipated
liking the bar area in the restaurants with similar and ambiguous
MVP more so than the bar area in the restaurant with dissimilar
MVP (F(l, 164) = 63.47, p < .0001). However, in contrast to the
separate evaluation results, they liked the bar area in the restaurant
with similar MVP significantly more so than they did the bar area
in the restaurant with ambiguous MVP (F(l, 164) = 13.22, p <
.001).

Galak 2012). The present work shows how mini-connections
with consumers created through social networking can
indeed yield positive effects on brand evaluations and purchase intentions. A central proposition of our research is
that the decision to reveal a brand's fan base or to leave
supporters' identities ambiguous is important because the
demographic composition of the MVP presented affects
consumers' reactions to the brand.
Importantly, the effects of revealing the identities of a
brands' fan base vary depending on the demographic composition of the individuals presented. In Study la, we
demonstrate that consumers respond as positively to a
brand when the brand's supporters remain ambiguous
(because no photos of supporters are displayed) as they do
when the brand reveals the identity of supporters that the
consumer perceives to be similar to the self. Consumers
also respond as positively to the display of a heterogeneous
group of similar and dissimilar brand supporters as they do
to an ambiguously presented group. Importantly, ambiguous MVP produces significantly greater brand liking than
homogeneous dissimilar MVP. Study lb replicates these
effects using a different type of ambiguity (i.e., the generic
Facebook silhouette profile picture) and a different manipulation of similarity (gender instead of age).
Perhaps surprisingly for many who assume that transparency is key in developing a brand's social networking
presence, the results of both Studies la and lb suggest that
revealing the identities of a brand's online supporters may
actually have negative consequences if the brand's supporters are homogeneous and dissimilar to the target consumer.
This may be the case when a brand initially extends into a
new target market. In these cases, leaving a brand's fan base
ambiguous may be a safer strategy because consumers will
like the brand as much when supporters are ambiguous as
when at least some similar supporters are revealed.
Notwithstanding expectations about the "social" nature of
such platforms. Studies la and lb show no negative consequences of choosing not to reveal the identity of a brand's
supporters.
Study 2 uses a third type of ambiguity (photos of brand
supporters with key demographic characteristics obscured)
and further explicates the impact of heterogeneous MVP,
showing that a small proportion of similar supporters can
create effects like that of ambiguous MVP. This finding
suggests that brands need not fear diversity on social networking sites as long as they can anticipate that a target
audience will make up a nontrivial proportion of the group
of supporters shown. Both Studies lb and 2 also document
that the effects of MVP on brand liking are driven by consumers' inferences about how much they have in common
with the brand's supporters.
While Studies 1 and 2 suggest that ambiguity is the preferred strategy in separate evaluation contexts. Study 3
shows that in joint evaluation contexts, ambiguity is not as
powerful as similarity in generating brand liking. These
findings suggest that if the consumer is likely to evaluate a
brand in isolation, ambiguity may be the safest strategy. In
contrast, if the brand is likely to be encountered in a context
in which it is being compared with multiple other brands,
managers may need to display information about online

Beyond the "Like" Button /115

supporters, despite the potential risks, to compete with
brands with supporters whose demographic characteristics
are displayed.

information more positively than those that lack identifying
information. In the same way, our work suggests that some
identification information may be better than none, particularly in joint evaluation contexts.

Theoretical Contributions
This work provides several novel theoretical insights. First,
the concept of MVP offers a new framework for understanding social influence. Although spatial proximity is
absent, exposure is only passive, typically just a handful of
individuals are shown, and no future relationship is likely to
exist among the consumers, we show that MVP still has
substantial effects on consumers' brand evaluations and
purchase intentions. As such, the concept of MVP highlights the ways that online social influence may have an
effect despite its difference from the offline presence of others and despite its failure to conform to the parameters of
SIT (Latane 1981).
Importantly, in contrast to traditional advertising or
spokesperson contexts, we also note that MVP created by
social media exposure is provided by individuals who voluntarily affiliate with a brand, making it less likely that
their action will be discounted by consumers due to reactance against marketer-driven recommendations (Fitzsimons and Lehmann 2004) or persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright 1994). Further research could explore
whether the effects of MVP hold if consumers do not trust
that the brand supporters presented are truly other consumers (as opposed to, e.g., employees of the brand "posing" as supporters).
Furthermore, our investigation into consumers' responses
to ambiguous others may prompt deeper explorations of
interpretations of interpersonal ambiguity. In the present
research, we show the equivalence of three types of ambiguity: that created when (1) MVP is represented only
numerically, (2) MVP is displayed using silhouette pictures
that suggest real individuals but obscure all their demographic characteristics, and (3) MVP is displayed using pictures of real supporters that obscure some of their demographic characteristics. Although these operationalizations
of ambiguity appear to have similar effects, further research
may find additional nuances in the concept of ambiguity
and may actually find that different types of ambiguity have
variant impacts on consumers.
Finally, by directly comparing consumer response to
ambiguous others in separate and joint evaluation, we
explain Nay lor, Lamberton, and Norton's (2011) findings.
We suggest that the difference in ambiguity's effects across
evaluation modes stems from the finding that the intemally
derived egocentric anchor is the determinant of similarity
when ambiguity is encountered in a separate evaluation
mode but that the importance of this intemal anchor is
diminished in joint evaluation. Therefore, in joint evaluation, a brand with ambiguous MVP will be less attractive
when compared with a brand with similar MVP. Thus, in
Study 3, consumers evaluated a brand with identified similar
supporters more positively than a brand whose supporters
were not identified. This finding is consistent with work by
Forman, Ghose, and Wiesenfeld (2008), who find that consumers rate product reviews containing identity-descriptive

116 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012

How Can This Research inform Practice?
To determine how our findings can be used, we should first
note the breadth of applicability for our studies. Note that
we have removed consumers who are extremely familiar
with a brand from our analysis and that we focus on brand
perceptions and purchase intentions as our outcomes of
interest. This makes our findings most applicable to consumers who are relatively new to a brand and who, at least
passively, have the goal of forming an opinion about the
brands to which they are exposed. This is a substantial segment: Approximately 23.1 million consumers between 13
and 80 years of age use social media to discover new brands
or products, and 22.5 million people use social media to
leam about unfamiliar brands or products (Knowledge Networks 2011). Thus, our results will be relevant to marketers
seeking to reach this large segment of consumers but may
not be applicable for marketers of universally known
brands.
Our research will also be easiest to use when marketers
can manipulate their displayed MVP in response to target
consumer demographics. Emerging tracking and targeting
tools can be used to do this. For example, Facebook ads are
often targeted only to certain demographic groups. In such
cases, marketers know that individuals who click on a link
to their social media sites will fit a certain demographic
profile and can adjust MVP accordingly. In other cases,
consumers who remain logged in to social media sites while
browsing other Intemet sites may inadvertently provide
access to age or gender information to the other sites they
visit. Altemately, forms that have been filled out in one
online location can provide information to other sites
through stored cookies. Using this information, companies
can tailor the MVP that a given consumer encounters when
he or she visits a brand's social media page.
However, we recognize that this may not always be possible. To help brand managers manage MVP both when
they have granular demographic information about the specific consumers visiting their site and when they do not, we
developed a decision framework based on two key factors:
(1) the demographic composition of existing brand supporters relative to targeted new supporters and (2) whether the
brand is likely to be evaluated singly or in combination with
competing brands. This framework (presented in Figure 1)
shows when brands should reveal the identity of their
online supporters and when ambiguity is preferable, and it
highlights cases in which managerial control over MVP
composition is particularly crucial.
When brands should reveal the identity of social media
supporters. If a brand has a social media support base that
is either homogeneous and similar to target consumers or a
heterogeneous base that includes at least some supporters
similar to a target consumer, our research suggests that
revealing the identity of a brand's supporters is unlikely to
have adverse consequences for brand evaluations or pur-

FIGURE 1
Framework for Decisions About Revealing the Identity of a Brand's Fan Base and Selection of a Social
Media Platform
Fan base is
homogeneous and
similar to target
audience

Reveal Identity of fan base: May use any
social media platform because no control
is needed over specific fans shov»/n.

Fan base is
heterogeneous but
includes fans similar
to target audience

Reveal Identity of fan base: Use only
social media platforms that a\\o\N control
over specific fans shown.

Fan base is
homogeneous and
different from
target audience
Fan base is
heterogeneous and
includes no fans
similar to target
audience

chase intentions. This is true in both more and less competitive product categories. If the brand is being evaluated in
isolation, revealing a fan base similar to a target consumer
(or one that contains at least some similar supporters) is
likely to prompt relatively positive evaluations. In joint
evaluation contexts, revealing the brand's similar supporter
base may give the brand an edge over brands that provide
no supporter information on their social media sites.
When a brand's supporters are better left ambiguous. If
a brand's current supporters are likely to be perceived as
dissimilar by new consumers, our results suggest that
revealing the identity of a brand's existing supporters will
undermine brand liking in both separate and joint evaluations. Thus, revealing supporters that are dissimilar to the
target consumer is an inferior alternative to leaving supporters ambiguous. One situation in which a brand's current
supporters are likely to be dissimilar to targeted consumers
is when a brand extends into new demographic segments. In
these cases, it will be important to recruit new supporters
first (who are perceived to be similar to the new target market). Managers should then ensure that these new supporters are displayed either as a homogenous group when the
new target market visits the brand's social networking site
or mixed in with the old supporters to create heterogeneous
MVP in which at least some supporters are shown that the
new target market perceives as similar.

Maintain ambiguity of fan base: May use
any social media platform because no
control is needed over specific fans shown.

When brand managers need control over the speciftc
brand supporters shown. Our research suggests that brand
managers may want to control who is displayed on their
social media brand pages, particularly if their supporter
base is heterogeneous. If the supporters to be shown are
randomly selected each time a consumer visits the page, it
is possible that supporters that the target consumer perceives as dissimilar will be shown. Giving the brand
manager the ability to tailor MVP makes revealing the identity of a brand's supporters much less risky. Brand managers may choose to use existing social media sites such as
Facebook more strategically (e.g., through a fans of the day
feature such as that used in Study lb) or may create social
portions of their own website where they have the ability to
control exactly which consumers are featured in MVP
arrays. Fortunately for brand managers, the finding that
consumers respond as positively to heterogeneous MVP as
they do to similar MVP suggests that the same heterogeneous MVP array can enhance brand liking for multiple different target segments.
Our research also suggests that brands may need to be
cautious in allowing consumers to post photos of themselves using the brand. An examination of sites that allow
users to post these types of photos suggests that many brand
managers do not realize the effect that failure to manage the
MVP these photos create may have on brand evaluations or

Beyond the "Like" Button /117

that this management can be done in ways that further their
strategic objectives. Many brands appear to focus on interactivity and inclusiveness, allowing any user-posted photo
to stay up on their site (unless it is offensive), with no
thought about how it may be influencing consumers new to
the brand. We hope that one of the outcomes of our research
is the importance of oversight of this type of content. Brand
managers should continually monitor these types of sites,
actively deleting photos or other content that does not create the desired form of MVP. If brands allow consumers to
post such photos with no oversight, they may risk the creation of MVP that is dissimilar from their target segment and
see brand evaluations suffer among new consumers as a
result.
The ethics of managing mere virtual presence. Companies must also carefully consider the ethical implications of
creating customized MVP arrays, as well as the potential
for customer backlash, particularly if different arrays will
be shown to different consumers. A firm might be perceived
as willfully misleading its consumers if it presents a strategically selected MVP array as being exhaustive of a brand's
supporters. However, as long as consumers are aware that
only a segment of the brand's supporters are shown (who
may not be representative), they may interpret the display
of individuals like themselves as providing customized,
diagnostic information, rather than as a dishonest tactic.
Fans-of-the-day MVP presentations (a tactic successfully
used by Oreo on Facebook; Keath 2012) have the advantage of not purporting to be representative or random,
which may decrease the potential for backlash.
It is also important to note that consumers do not seem
to be aware of the influence that MVP has on their brand
evaluations. In an online survey we conducted (for details,
see footnote 1), we asked participants how important the
identity of other people who have already "liked" a brand
on Facebook was in determining how much they themselves like the brand, which they answered on a seven-point
scale (1 - "not at all important," and 7 = "extremely important"). Notably, respondents seemed basically unaware of
the effect that the identity of other social media users has on
them, reporting a mean value of 3.13, significantly below
the scale midpoint. Thus, studying MVP is important not
only because of the potentially powerful effect it can have
on brand liking but also because of consumers' apparent
lack of awareness of its effects. Further research should
explore the possible interpretations of actively managed
MVP to avoid the possibility that consumers will be misled.
Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
There are several factors that may moderate the effects of
MVP and that warrant additional research. First, social
media can be used to affiliate with brands with which a consumer already has a relationship. When consumers have
experience with a brand, our effects may change. For example, existing brand users who encounter dissimilar MVP
might experience alienation or dissatisfaction because this
demographic composition violates their expectations. Alternately, existing users may discount MVP information altogether, lacking the need to make any inferences about a

118/Journalof Marketing, November 2012

product's appropriateness for them. For these consumers,
other major factors in a social media site (e.g., the prevalence of coupons, prizes, discounts) may dilute any effects
of MVP. Further work could combine both MVP effects and
other variations across social media platforms to determine
whether they lead to additive or interactive effects.
Next, our research suggests that consumers view dissimilar MVP as largely dissociative (White and Dahl 2006,
2007). In the context of clothing and restaurant choices, as
well as other socially embedded consumption contexts, we
anticipate that this is the case. In addition, for the young
consumers who participated in our studies, homophily is
strong. However, it is also possible that for high-identityconfiict or low-self-esteem consumers or in certain product
categories (e.g., luxury goods), a demographically dissimilar group may be aspirational rather than dissociative. For
example, Lambert-Pandraud and Laurent's (2010) study of
the French perfume industry notes that although older
women are the target market for some fragrances, the
advertising for almost all brands features young actresses
and models. It may be that, in such cases, dissimilar MVP
would have a positive effect on brand evaluations and purchase intentions.
Further research could also consider other operationalizations of similarity. We anticipate that gender and age
information are most likely to be available to marketers
and, therefore, that understanding the effects of these types
of similarity or dissimilarity is of most utility. However, if
marketers anticipate access to information about consumers' ethnicity, for example, further research could test to
determine whether this operationalization of similarity creates parallel effects. Furthermore, the decision to alter the
number of individuals displayed may also alter the effect of
MVP composition. For example, if there are only one or
two brand supporters shown, consumers may recognize that
the MVP composition is not diagnostic. As the number of
supporters displayed increases, their composition may have
greater impact.
We also note that the inferences consumers make on the
basis of MVP may be false because demographic similarity
often diverges from psychographic or value-based similarity (Wells 1975). Thus, inferences associated with the MVP
of similar others may inappropriately inflate expectations of
a "perfect fit" to a given consumer's preference, leading to
product dissatisfaction (Diehl and Poynor 2010). Therefore,
it would be worthwhile for further research to analyze the
accuracy of inferences stemming from MVP and how this
accuracy affects brand evaluations, satisfaction, word of
mouth, and either present or future purchase intentions.
Finally, in our studies, we instructed participants to simply look at a social networking site to form a perception of
a new brand. This might be considered a goal-directed
behavior, given that is extrinsically motivated, possesses an
instrumental orientation, and is part of a prepurchase search
process (Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003). However,
consumers may approach social media sites with numerous
goals, some of which are more focused on the production
than the consumption of content (see Hoffman and Novak
2012), while some may be more experiential (Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003). For example, consumers driven

by intrinsic motivation or in pursuit of an experiential goal
may primarily base their affinity for a brand on its social
networking site's ability to help them create the desired
level of hedonic benefit. Here, SIT's prediction of null or
weak effects may be correct. In contrast, if a consumer's
goal is to affiliate with others, the effect of MVP may be

magnified. An exploration of consumers' goals when interacting with a brand through social media, the effect of
MVP, and the interaction between the two on the influence
of downstream variables (e.g., consumer desire to stay affiliated with a brand over time) is an important avenue for further research.

REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer, Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya Grier (2000),
"Non-Target Markets and Viewer Distinetiveness: The Impact
of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 127-40.
Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Hermann
(2005), "The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence
from European Car Clubs," Journal of Marketing, 69 (July),
19-34.
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 (September),
207-212.
Asch, Solomon E. (1955), "Opinions and Social Pressure," Scientific American, 193 (5), 31-35.
(1956), "Studies of Independence and Conformity: A
Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs, 70 (416).
Baird, Carolyn Heller and Gautam Parasnis (2011), "From Social
Media to Social Customer Relationship Management," Strategy & Leadership, 39 (5), 30-37.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference
Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-94.
, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), "Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence," Jourrml of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473-81.
Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), "Where Consumers Diverge
from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains," Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 121-34.
and
(2008), "Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95
(September), 593-607.
Bumkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), "Informational
and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior," Journal of
Consumer Research, 2 (December), 206-215.
Byme, Donn Erwin (1971), The Attraction Paradigm. New York:
Académie Press.
Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), "The Influence of
Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Terms," Academy of
Management Journal, 44 (5), 956-74.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), "The Influence of
Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September),
198-211.
Cunningham, George B. (2007), "Perceptions as Reality: The
Influence of Actual and Perceived Demographic Similarity,"
Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 (1), 79-89.
Deshpandé, Rohit and Douglas M. Stayman (1994), "A Tale of
Two Cities: Distinetiveness Theory and Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (February), 57-64.
Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), "The Fans Know
Best," Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July 11, 2012), [available
at http://online.wsj.com/artiele/SB10001424052970204482304
574222062946162306 .html].

Diehl, Kristin and Cait Poynor (2010), "Great Expectations?!
Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction," Journal of
Marketing Research, 47 (April), 312-22.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), "You Are
What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers' Connections to Brands," Journal of Consumer Psychology, \3 (3), 339-48.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Donald R. Lehmann (2004), "Reactance
to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses," Marketing Science, 23 (1), 82-94.
Forman, Chris, Anindya Ghose, and Batia Wiesenfeld (2008),
"Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The
Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets,"
Information Systems Research, 19 (September), 291-313.
Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), "The Persuasion
Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion
Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1-31.
Hameed, Bilal (2011), "Social Media Usage Exploding Amongst
Fortune 500 Companies," Social Times (accessed January 17,
2012), [available at http://socialtimes.eom/social-media-usageexploding-amongst-fortune-500-companies_b35372].
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), "Marketing in
Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual
Foundations," Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 50-68.
and
(2012), "Why People Use Social Media: How
Online Social Identity and Motivations Influence the Experience of Being Connected," working paper, Sloan Center for
Intemet Retailing, University of California, Riverside.
Hsee, Christopher K., Sally Blount, George F. Loewenstein, and
Max H. Bazerman (1999), "Preference Reversals Between
Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and
Theoretical Analysis," Psychological Bulletin, 125 (5), 576-90.
and Frederic Leclere (1998), "Will Products Look More
Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?" Journal of
Consumer Research, 25 (September), 175-86.
Jehn, Karen A., Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale
(1999), "Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of
Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups," Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (December), 741-63.
Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, Darren W. Dahl, and Amitava Chattopadhyay (2010), "The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in a Sales Context,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February), 778-91.
Keath, Jason (2012), "Oreo Features Facebook Fans Daily," Social
Fresh, (January 5), (accessed March 2, 2012), [available at
http://soeialfresh.com/oreo-facebook-fan-of-the-day/].
Knowledge Networks (2011), "Social Media Now Influences
Brand Perceptions, Purchase Decisions of 38 Million in
U.S." (accessed January 17, 2012), [available at http://www.
knowledgenetworks .com/news/releases/2011/06141 l_soeialmedia.html].
Lake, Amielle (2011), "Why Facebook Fans Are Useless," iMedia
Connection, (accessed January 17, 2012), [available at http://
w w w.imediaconnection .com/content/30235 .asp].
Lambert-Pandraud, Raphaelle and Gilles Laurent (2010), "Why
Do Older Consumers Buy Older Brands? The Role of Attachment and Declining Innovativeness," Journal of Marketing, 74
(July), 104-121.

Beyond the "Like" Button /119

Latane, Bibb (1981), "The Psychology of Social Impact," American Psychologist, 36 (4), 343-56.
Lydon, John E., David W. Jamieson, and Mark P. Zanna (1988),
"Interpersonal Similarity and the Social and Intellectual
Dimensions of First Impressions," Social Cognition, 6 (4),
269-86.
McCracken, Grant (1988), Cuiture and Consumption: New
Approaches to the Symboiic Character of Consumer Goods
and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Morry, Marian M (2007), "Relationship Satisfaction as a Predictor
of Perceived Similarity Among Cross-Sex Friends: A Test of
the Attraction-Similarity Model," Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24 (1), 117-38.
Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O'Guinn (2001), "Brand
Community," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March)
421-32.
Naylor, Rebecca Walker, Cait Poynor Lamberton, and David A.
Norton (2011), "Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion," Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (June), 617-31.
Newman, Andrew Adam (2011), "Brands Now Direct Their Followers to Social Media," The New York Times, (August 4), B3.
Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Adam Duhachek
(2003), "The Influence of Goal-Directed and Experiential
Activities on Online Flow Experiences," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 {112), 3-16.
Perkins, Andrew W., Mark R. Forehand, and Anthony G. Greenwald (2006), "Decomposing the Implicit Self-Concept: The
Relative Influence of Semantic Meaning and Valence on
Attribute Self-association." Social Cognition, 24 (4), 387-408.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), "Asymptotic
and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models," Behavior Research
Methods, 40 {3), 819-91.
Rosenthal, Robert, Ralph L. Rosnow, and Donald B. Rubin
(2000), Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research: A
Correiationai Approach. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sassenberg, Kai and Tom Postmes (2002), "Cognitive and Strategic Processes in Small Groups: Effects of Anonymity of the
Self and Anonymity of the Group on Social Influence," British
Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (3), 463-81.

120 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012

Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz Jr., and Eric J. Amould
(2009), "How Brand Community Practices Create Value,"
Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 30-51.
Shachar, Ron and John W. Emerson (2000), "Cast Demographics,
Unobserved Segments, and Heterogeneous Switching Costs in
a Television Viewing Choice Model," Journal of Marketing
Research, 37 (May), 173-86.
Smith, J. Walker and Ann Clurman (2009), Generation Ageiess.
New York: HarperCollins.
Stephen, Andrew T. and Jeff Galak (2012), "The Effects of Traditional and Social Earned Media on Sales: A Study of a
Microlending Marketplace," Journai of Marketing Research,
49 (October), 624-39.
Thompson, Scott A. and Rajiv K. Sinha (2008), "Brand Communities and New Product Adoption: The Influence and Limits of
Oppositional Loyalty," Journal of Marketing, 72 (November),
65-80.
Tucker, Catherine and Juanjuan Zhang (2010), "Growing TwoSided Networks by Advertising the User Base: A Field Experiment," Marketing Science, 29 (5), 805-881.
Turner, John C , Michael A. Hogg, Penny J. Oakes, Stephen D.
Reicher, and Margaret S. Wetherell, eds. (1987), Rediscovering
the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York:
Basil Blackwell.
Wells, William D. (1975), "Psychographics: A Critical Review,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 196-213.
White, Katherine and Daren W. Dahl (2006), "To Be or Not Be?
The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer
Preferences," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4),
404--414.
and
(2007), "Are All Out-Groups Created Equal?
Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence," Journal of
Consumer Research, 34 (December), 525-36.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010), "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation
Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August),

197-206.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Sponsor Documents

Recommended

No recommend documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close