Consumer susceptibility to social influence in new product diffusion networks: how does network location matter?

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to empirically investigate how susceptibility to social influence in new product adoption varies with one’s structural location in a social network. Design/methodology/approach The social network data were collected based on a sociometric network survey with 589 undergraduate students. Social network analysis and ordinary least squares regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Findings This study finds that consumers with high degree centrality (i.e. hubs) who have a large number of connections to others and consumers with high betweenness centrality (i.e. bridges) who connect otherwise distant groups in social networks are both less sensitive to informational influence from others. More importantly, the authors find evidence that consumers with moderate levels of degree/betweenness centrality are more susceptible to normative influence and status competition than those with low or high degree/betweenness centrality. The inverse-U patterns in the above relations are consistent with middle-status conformity and anxiety. Research limitations/implications This research complements social influence and new product diffusion research by documenting important contingencies (i.e. network locations) in consumer susceptibility to different types of social influence from a social network perspective. Practical implications The findings will assist marketers to leverage social influence by activating relevant social ties with effective messages in their network marketing strategies. Originality/value This research provides a better understanding of the mechanisms driving susceptibility to social influence in new product diffusion.

Influencing and being influenced: effects of individual influence and susceptibility on new product adoption

“…Based on the “influentials” hypothesis, some studies focus on individual influence and suggest that new product diffusion is driven by influentials (Haenlein and Libai, 2013; Iyengar et al , 2011), whereas others focus on the role of susceptibility to influence in new product diffusion, indicating that large cascades of influence are driven by a great number of easily influenced individuals (Watts and Dodds, 2007). Recent research suggests that individual influence and susceptibility may drive social contagion together and accordingly affect the adoption of new products or services (Aral and Dhillon, 2018; Zhang and Gong, 2021).…”

The interaction of social influence and message framing on children’s food choice

“…Over a long period, studies into the effects of social influence on human behaviour, including with children (Lippitt et al, 1952;Prinstein and Dodge, 2008;Ragelienė and Grønhøj, 2020), are well established (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004;Hyman, 1960;Netemeyer et al, 1992;Zhang and Gong, 2021). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis that spanned 22 countries and over 40 years reported that social influence has remained strong and stable in guiding approved behaviour (e.g., healthy eating, donations), as well as disapproved behaviour (e.g., smoking, gambling) (Melnyk et al, 2021).…”

“…Similarly, social marketing could play a role in encouraging Nigerian parents to select healthy options for their children (Mcleay and Oglethorpe, 2013). However, while decades of marketing research has established the efficacy of social influence in shaping consumer behaviour (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Festinger, 1957; Netemeyer et al , 1992; Veblen, 1925; Witt and Bruce, 1970; Zhang and Gong, 2021), social influence has hardly been considered as a mechanism to address childhood obesity, particularly among school children. Indeed, a systematic review by Nga et al (2019) suggests that while formal health and nutrition education do play a crucial role in combatting obesity among school children, the issue is a complex problem that requires participation from a wider community.…”

“…An opening question prompted “If you were to pick something to eat now, which of these two items would you choose,” and the children picked from a binary pictorial choice of fruit or candy. The children then responded to a four-item scale that measured their susceptibility to compliance influence (COMPLY), and a five-item scale measuring their susceptibility to conformance influence (CONFORM), adapted from various sources (Bearden et al , 1989; Park and Lessig, 1977; Zhang and Gong, 2021) (see Table 5 in Experiment 2 for the items). Finally, they stated their gender (male or female).…”

“…Considering this interaction is particularly important because teachers and classmates coexist concurrently in a classroom environment to exert different social influence on student, and the influence message from each party may be framed differently (i.e., prescriptively or proscriptively). In other words, accounting for just the influence source (e.g., Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004;Zhang and Gong, 2021) or message framing (e.g., Bergquist and Nilsson, 2019;Rhodes et al, 2020) independently would have yielded inconclusive findings, especially for the important issue of tackling childhood obesity.…”