198 TU AND FISHBACH ption.Consistent with our prediction,participants repor d (M =2.97,SD=91.143)=2.37,p=019. tion mediated the s design. hase intention 45145 -235m= 020. such as colors s and tex 614 own style. the comp ntention (B= 87145 t each other.That is,while each item Study 3 confirm our hypothesis: using a new That is,although ac most-liked information on member on on ot Inot ge ation on others differ in the degre The surveys nted a picture of products (gree and blu ed cople the ense that Appendix A).wh Th sume (vs refer):this indic ofmental sharingm urvey then had participants list th ns these two color were comple both provide their ers on a sinele su withou ting to e mdy 4 tested f anoth marker of mental sharing as epreferenc e othe (pre s as partially their own,they for mark your choic You omly old as long as the "(items owned by others and self)is vered the question first and handed the suvey to the n the first mover's resp the choice their partner in the experiment made.and which we as actio dictationforta king thi Results and Discussion form me to a We coded second movers'responses(same as the first mover as preference rat than acn cho stie p ielded the predicted interaction =168 SE 69)Wald(1)= Method 6.03.p014(se Figure 2).In support of the hypothesis.for Participants. We predetermined a sample size of 35 natural (74%28/38)han 0s(39%:15 dyadic groups (students who sat with another
perceived frequency and recency of consuming each of the eight products, r .82, p .001 into an index of recalled recent consumption. Consistent with our prediction, participants reported they had consumed items described as most liked less frequently and recently (M 2.60, SD .93) than items described as most consumed (M 2.97, SD .91), t(143) 2.37, p .019, Cohen’s d .40. We next tested whether recalled past consumption mediated the effect of information type on purchase intention. We find that information on others’ actions versus preferences decreased purchase intention (.45), t(145) 2.35, p .020, and increased perceived past consumption ( .36), t(145) 2.37, p .019; perceived past consumption, in turn, lowered purchase intention (.87), t(145) 11.73, p .001. A bootstrap analysis revealed that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect excluded zero (.59, .05), suggesting a significant indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Thus, recalled recent consumption mediated the effect of social information (others’ action vs. preference) on purchase intention. Results from Study 3 confirm our hypothesis: using a new paradigm that compares purchase intentions in response to “best sellers” versus “most-liked” information on in-group members (i.e., fellow respondents), people conform to information on others’ actions less than others’ preferences. We further documented that these two types of information on others differ in the degree to which they give people the sense that they have acted too. Participants recalled greater recent consumption of the items that others consume (vs. prefer); this indicator of mental sharing mediated the effect of information-on-others on purchase-intentions. We next test for another marker of mentally sharing others’ actions, namely, that people choose differently to complement what others have rather than contradict it. Study 4: Moderation by Complementary Versus Contradictory Choice Sets Study 4 tested for another marker of mental sharing as the underlying cause of lower conformity to others’ actions: if people experience others’ possessions as partially their own, they should choose items that complement (go with) rather than contradict (go against) what others have. The documented effect should therefore hold as long as the “set” (items owned by others and self) is desired (i.e., consists of complementary items). Accordingly, participants in Study 4 chose between a green luggage tag and a blue luggage tag, which we presented as either complementary or contradictory colors, after they learned about the choice their partner in the experiment made, and which we framed either as action (“have it,” as compensation for taking this study) or preference (“like it”). We predicted that for complementary items, participants would conform more to another person’s choices that are framed as preference rather than action. This pattern should not hold for contradictory items, because in choosing differently, a person does not improve the overall experience from owning both. Method Participants. We predetermined a sample size of 35 natural dyadic groups (i.e., undergraduate students who sat with another person in a common university area; 70 people) per condition. We used the same sample size as in Study 1, because the choice paradigm in both studies was similar. We ran this study throughout 2 weeks, returning a total of 150 dyads (300 participants, 120 males, 177 females, 3 missing). Participants completed this study for candy prizes. Materials and procedure. This study used a 2 (choice framing: action vs. preference) 2 (relationship between items: complementary vs. contradictory) between-subjects design. Participants read, “In the world of product design, a variety of elements, such as colors, shapes, patterns and textures, are creatively used to give each product its own style.” In the complementary condition, participants read, “Sometimes, different styles are designed to complement each other. That is, while each item looks good by itself, when put together, they enhance each other and make a harmonious set which is visually pleasant. Therefore, shopping experts advise that consumers should get products with complementary styles together.” In the contradictory condition, participants further read, “Sometimes, different styles are designed to contradict or clash with each other. That is, although each item looks good by itself, when put together, they undermine each other and make an unharmonious set which is visually unpleasant. Therefore, shopping experts advise that consumers should not get products with contradictory styles together.” The surveys presented a picture of two products (green and blue luggage tags, see Appendix A), which, depending on condition, were said to have complementary or contradictory colors. The survey then had participants list the main reasons these two colors were complementing/contradicting. Participants further reported some demographic details, including their relationship with their partner (e.g., friend, significant other). For the next and last part of the study, participants learned they would both provide their answers on a single survey, without communicating to each other. The survey displayed a picture of the blue and green luggage tags, followed by a single question that was formatted to follow the preference or action condition: “Which luggage tag do you like better? Please mark your preference below” (preference condition), or, “Which luggage do you want to get for yourself? Please mark your choice below. You will receive the option of your choice” (action condition). We randomly assigned one participant within each dyad to be the first mover— he or she answered the question first and handed the survey to the second mover, who then answered the question with information on the first mover’s response. Upon indicating their choice, participants received their selected luggage tags and were thanked and debriefed. Results and Discussion We coded second movers’ responses (same as the first mover 1; different from the first mover 0) as our conformity index. A logistic regression with conformity as the dependent variable on choice framing (action vs. preference), relationship between items (complementary vs. contradictory), and their interaction term yielded the predicted interaction (b 1.68, SE .69), Wald(1) 6.03, p .014 (see Figure 2). In support of the hypothesis, for complementary options, participants conformed more often to their partner’s stated preferences (74%; 28/38) than actions (39%; 15/ 38), 2 (1) 9.05, p .003, whereas for contradictory options, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 198 TU AND FISHBACH
CONFORMING TO PREFERENCES MORE THAN ACTIONS 199 3(which also used an online sample)beca 60 people per ondition.after colla 101 females:Ma 33)ultimately n study in exchange for S0.50 hn-rma loved a 2 (informa rence vs friend vs. stranger S)X 2 Contradictory conformed similarly to their partner's stated prefer SE 1 10)Wald(1)8 16=004 with greater hoice between either mugs or bowls. ndix A)and read the follow iems(b=3.09.SE=1.0.wald1)=7.90.p=005.with for mug: s with bowis and th The higher conformity in the complementary condition could ition ing n su ck of both t choice B were no more (and directionally less)likely to co like partn and I'll get it t and puts one mug A in his/her sh 46 does not nce.its direction is in idea that our ons of the two condition sistent with the that people ences than actions,but only options appear Results Study 5:Moderation by Self-Other Overlap We reverse-s onal clos ess.Inter 1100 (friend vs. ffect on conformity.Ind we have so far observed the eff oulation. formation ty ess vielded the predicted tw Suudy 3).where other over p and mental sharing would conform more to friends' ces than actions.but M=307.SD ,60 hen considenng Method Participants.We predetermined a sample size of 30 MTurk workers per condition.This sample size was smaller than in Study the question order (three-way interaction.F(1.120)=.004.p=
participants conformed similarly to their partner’s stated preferences (41%; 15/37) and actions (46%; 17/37), 2 (1) .22, p .29. We also observed a main effect of choice framing, (b 3.14, SE 1.10), Wald(1) 8.16, p .004, with greater conformity when responding to a preference (57%; 43/75) than action (43%; 32/75) question, and a main effect of the relationship between items (b 3.09, SE 1.10), Wald(1) 7.90, p .005, with greater conformity when the options were complementary (57%; 43/76) than contradictory (43%; 32/74). The higher conformity in the complementary condition could suggest that people conform more to positive information (as in the complementary description) than negative information (as in the contradictory description). However such interpretation will be inconsistent with the results in the action condition, in which participants were no more (and directionally less) likely to conform to their partner’s action when the options were described as complementary (39%) rather than contradictory (46%). Although this difference does not reach significance, its direction is inconsistent with the idea that our descriptions of the two conditions created artificial experimental demands. Results from Study 4 are consistent with the notion that people choose differently from others to enrich their own experience, because they mentally share others’ possessions. Indeed, participants conformed more to others’ preferences than actions, but only to the extent that the choice options appeared complementary. Study 5: Moderation by Self–Other Overlap As our final marker of mental sharing, we tested for the wordsspeak-louder effect as a function of interpersonal closeness. Interpersonal closeness is associated with self–other overlap (Aron et al., 1992) and, therefore, should be a necessary condition for our effect on conformity. Indeed, we have so far observed the effect among friends sitting together (Studies 1, 2, and 4), as well as in-group members (people sampled from the same population, Study 3), where we expect self–other overlap and mental sharing. In Study 5, we manipulated closeness and predicted participants would conform more to friends’ preferences than actions, but would be similarly influenced by strangers’ preferences and actions. Method Participants. We predetermined a sample size of 30 MTurk workers per condition. This sample size was smaller than in Study 3 (which also used an online sample) because one of the independent variables was counterbalancing the information order and we did not expect any effect on it. We expected that we would have 60 people per condition, after collapsing the two information orders. We ran this study on 1 day, and 244 MTurk workers (143 males, 101 females; Mage 33) ultimately participated in the study in exchange for $0.50. Procedure. This study employed a 2 (information type: preference vs. action; within-subjects) 2 (interpersonal closeness: friend vs. stranger; between-subjects) 2 (information order: first preference vs. action; between-subjects) mixed design. Unlike previous studies, we manipulated the information type within subjects, thus allowing participants to directly compare their conformity with information on others’ preferences versus actions, and putting our hypothesis to a stringent test. We manipulated all other variables between subjects. Further, we randomly assigned participants to one of two versions of the study, which presented a choice between either mugs or bowls. Participants saw pictures of either two mugs or two bowls (see Appendix A) and read the following choice scenario (presented here for mug; the other version replaced mugs with bowls and the other person chose option B instead of A): “Suppose you are shopping for a mug in a store . . . You have narrowed down your consideration set to two options: A and B.” In the preference-first condition, participants further read, “Suppose a friend of yours is standing next to you. S/he murmurs, ‘I like A better, but I don’t need to get a new mug.’ Which mug will you get for yourself? (There’s enough stock of both types of mugs.)” Once participants indicated their choice (1 definitely A, 7 definitely B), they further read, “Now, suppose the same friend murmurs, ‘I like A better and I’ll get it today, and puts one mug A in his/her shopping basket. Which mug will you get for yourself? (There’s enough stock of both types of mugs.)” Participants indicated their choice again, on the same scale. In the condition in which we used a stranger, we replaced the “friend” with “a random customer.” In the action-first conditions, we reversed the order of responding to another person’s preference versus action. Results We reverse-scored participants’ choice ratings in the mug scenario such that higher numbers indicate stronger conformity (already the case in the bowl scenario). Beginning with the mug scenario, we first confirmed that order of presentation did not interact with information type (preference vs. action) and closeness (friend vs. stranger) in predicting conformity (for the three-way interaction, F(1, 116) .21, p .65). We next collapsed the two information-order conditions. An ANOVA of conformity on information type closeness yielded the predicted two-way interaction, F(1, 118) 6.70, p .011 (see Figure 3). When considering a friend, participants conformed to this person’s preference (M 3.59, SD 2.17) more than consumption (M 3.07, SD 2.20), t(60) 3.12, p .003, Cohen’s d .40. When considering a stranger, participants conformed similarly to this person’s preference (M 3.32, SD 2.17) and consumption (M 3.31, SD 2.18), t(59) .17, p .86. Moving to the bowl scenario, we again did not find an effect for the question order (three-way interaction, F(1, 120) .004, p 74% 39% 41% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Complementary Contradictory yroti mof no Cf o egat necer P Choices Other's Preference Other's Action Figure 2. Conformity to a study partner’s preference versus action when the choice options appear complementary versus contradictory (Study 4). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. CONFORMING TO PREFERENCES MORE THAN ACTIONS 199