Positive and Negative Opinion Modeling: The Influence of Another's Similarity and Dissimilarity.

Hilmert, Clayton J.; Kulik, James A.; Christenfeld, Nicholas

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.44

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We feel attracted to people merely because their taste in music mirrors our own [55] and to music merely because the people that like it resemble us [56]. The similarity-breeds-attraction principle holds for non-human primates as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monkeys readily learn to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded items or actions by observing their conspecifics. However, they do not systematically learn from humans. Understanding what makes human-to-monkey transmission of knowledge work or fail could help identify mediators and moderators of social learning that operate regardless of language or culture, and transcend inter-species differences. Do monkeys fail to learn when human models show a behavior too dissimilar from the animals’ own, or when they show a faultless performance devoid of error? To address this question, six rhesus macaques trained to find which object within a pair concealed a food reward were successively tested with three models: a familiar conspecific, a ‘stimulus-enhancing’ human actively drawing the animal’s attention to one object of the pair without actually performing the task, and a ‘monkey-like’ human performing the task in the same way as the monkey model did. Reward was manipulated to ensure that all models showed equal proportions of errors and successes. The ‘monkey-like’ human model improved the animals’ subsequent object discrimination learning as much as a conspecific did, whereas the ‘stimulus-enhancing’ human model tended on the contrary to retard learning. Modeling errors rather than successes optimized learning from the monkey and ‘monkey-like’ models, while exacerbating the adverse effect of the ‘stimulus-enhancing’ model. These findings identify error modeling as a moderator of social learning in monkeys that amplifies the models’ influence, whether beneficial or detrimental. By contrast, model-observer similarity in behavior emerged as a mediator of social learning, that is, a prerequisite for a model to work in the first place. The latter finding suggests that, as preverbal infants, macaques need to perceive the model as ‘like-me’ and that, once this condition is fulfilled, any agent can become an effective model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Demonstrating an instance in which consumers diverge from similar models and conform to dissimilar models is important since previous research and theory emphasize that similarity encourages conformity (e.g., Aaker, Brumbaugh, & Grier, 2000;Berger & Heath, 2007, 2008Chang, 2008;Day & Stafford, 1997;Forehand, Deshpandé, & Reed, 2002;Grohmann, 2009). Likewise prior work indicates that dissimilarity encourages divergence even when dissimilar others are liked (Berger & Heath, 2007, 2008Hilmert et al, 2006). Note -Model age effect on product-use intent for 1.3+ age dissatisfaction (M=2.2, SD=3.7), p < .05.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Consumers avoid undesirable selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986;Norman & Aron, 2003) and one way of doing this may be to avoid products associated with an undesirable self. In effect, in such cases, dissimilarity may drive conformity and similarity may drive divergence (c.f., Berger & Heath, 2007, 2008Hilmert, Kulik, & Christenfeld, 2006). Furthermore, since consumers are influenced by marketing communications that are relevant to the self-concept (Escalas & Bettman, 2005;Hong & Zinkhan, 1995), middle-aged adult models may not affect adolescents.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of advertising models for age‐restricted products and self‐concept discrepancy on advertising outcomes among young adolescents

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artículo de publicación ISIResearch on discrepancies between the actual self and ideal self has examined self-discrepancies in knowledge, skills and stature but age-based self-discrepancies have only recently received attention and so we studied this phenomenon in young adolescents. In three studies we identified a product-category contextual cue that apparently caused adolescents to respond to an existing age-based self-discrepancy. Specifically we found that when the contextual cue was advertising for an age-restricted product, adolescents conformed to dissimilar young adult advertising models and diverged from similar adolescent models. This indicated that the contextual cue caused them to respond to an age-based self-discrepancy and use a product associated with the ideal self rather than the actual self. Importantly, this response was stronger among adolescents that were more dissatisfied with their age. With advertising for an age-unrestricted product, adolescents conformed to adolescent advertising models and diverged from young adult models. Industry policies for age-restricted products assume that similarity drives influence and therefore mandate that advertising models be young adults rather than adolescents. Our findings suggest this assumption is invalid for age-restricted products

show abstract

“… Deutsch and Gerard (1955) identified two types of conformity in adults. First, conformity can result from the pursuit of accuracy (informational influence); studies have shown that adults tend to follow other people as a guideline in novel or unfamiliar situations ( Hilmert, Kulik, & Christenfeld, 2006 ; Jetten, Hornsey, & Adarves-Yorno, 2006 ). Second, conformity can arise from the pursuit of acceptance (normative influence); adults yield to social influence to avoid rejection ( Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence

Knoll¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescence is a period of life in which peer relationships become increasingly important. Adolescents have a greater likelihood of taking risks when they are with peers rather than alone. In this study, we investigated the development of social influence on risk perception from late childhood through adulthood. Five hundred and sixty-three participants rated the riskiness of everyday situations and were then informed about the ratings of a social-influence group (teenagers or adults) before rating each situation again. All age groups showed a significant social-influence effect, changing their risk ratings in the direction of the provided ratings; this social-influence effect decreased with age. Most age groups adjusted their ratings more to conform to the ratings of the adult social-influence group than to the ratings of the teenager social-influence group. Only young adolescents were more strongly influenced by the teenager social-influence group than they were by the adult social-influence group, which suggests that to early adolescents, the opinions of other teenagers about risk matter more than the opinions of adults.

show abstract

Positive and Negative Opinion Modeling: The Influence of Another's Similarity and Dissimilarity.

Cited by 18 publications

References 82 publications

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

The effects of advertising models for age‐restricted products and self‐concept discrepancy on advertising outcomes among young adolescents

Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About