Revisiting Individual Choices in Group Settings: The Long and Winding (Less Traveled) Road?

Abstract

This study revisits Ariely and Levav's previous findings in relation to consumers' need for variety when ordering (food or beverages) in a group setting. We examine how group opinion and unanimity can explain consumers' individual choice in a group setting. We hypothesize that the relationship between individual choice and group opinion is nonmonotonic as it is moderated by the degree of unanimity around an alternative. We demonstrate this effect in two empirical studies. We show that choice patterns are curvilinear, with previous findings accurately reflecting only specific sections of the overall pattern of individual choices in a group setting. (c) 2009 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Retracted: Proud to Belong or Proudly Different? Lay Theories Determine Contrasting Effects of Incidental Pride on Uniqueness Seeking

“…This is pertinent in the given context, because of the inferential consequences of the two types of pride -getting along with versus getting ahead of others. Ariely and Levav (2000) demonstrated that the salience of in-group members' choices leads to uniqueness-seeking (insofar as ones dining partners are ingroup members), but Quester and Steyer (2010) then showed that the effect is actually not linear, This is the Pre-Published Version but in fact much more complex. Hence, returning to our opening vignette, Pia's choice of cocktail versus microbrew might depend not just on how she attributes her pride based on her lay theories, but be further qualified by how she relates that pride to her colleagues in the product launch team.…”

A contemporary review of three types of social influence in consumer psychology

“…However, the choices of others do not always result in consumers internalizing the social presence's option. Rather, in the context of food choices, various characteristics related to the social presence such as appearance (e.g., McFerran, Dahl, Fitzsimons, & Morales, ) and social number (Quester & Steyer, ), can lead to divergent choice behaviors. For example: when deciding how much food to select, a consumer may use a social presence's food quantity decision as information to establish an anchor, but the social presence's body type (i.e., obese vs. thin) as information in adjustment decisions.…”

On Being Social: How Social Identity Impacts Social Commerce for the Millennial Shopper

“…These items become part of the extended self, and can be used to satisfy psychological needs, such as reinforcing and expressing self-identity, and allowing one to differentiate oneself and assert one's individuality (e.g., Ball & Tasaki, 1992;Belk, 1988;Kleine, Kleine, & Allen, 1995). Possessions can also serve a social purpose by reflecting social ties to one's family, community, and/or cultural groups, including brand communities (Muniz &O'Guinn, 2001;Escalas&Bettman, 2005;Algesheimer, Dholakia& Herrmann, 2005). Products can signal our status (Wang &Griskevicius, 2014), our individuality (Quester&Steyer, 2010;White, Simpson, & Argo, 2014), or our relationships (Fuchs, Schreier, & van Osselaer, 2015).…”