IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v50y2023i2p363-381..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rejections Are More Contagious than Choices: How Another’s Decisions Shape Our Own

Author

Listed:
  • Lana Xianglan Nan
  • Sang Kyu Park
  • Yang Yang
  • Amna Kirmani
  • June Cotte
  • Brent McFerran

Abstract

Every day, we learn about others’ decisions from various sources. We perceive some of these decisions as choices and others as rejections. Does the mere perception of another’s decision as a choice versus as a rejection influence our own behavior? Are we more likely to conform to another’s decision if we view it in one way or the other? The current research investigates the social influence of decision frames. Eight studies, including a field study conducted during a livestreaming event hosted by an influencer with over 1.5 million followers, find that people are more likely to conform to another’s decision if it is perceived as a rejection than if it is perceived as a choice. This effect happens because consumers are more likely to attribute another’s decision to product quality as opposed to personal preference, when consumers perceive another’s decision as a rejection than as a choice. The inference about quality versus personal preference in turn increases conformity. This research bridges the existing literatures on decision framing, social influence, and perceptions of quality and personal preference, and it offers important implications for marketers and influencers.

Suggested Citation

  • Lana Xianglan Nan & Sang Kyu Park & Yang Yang & Amna Kirmani & June Cotte & Brent McFerran, 2023. "Rejections Are More Contagious than Choices: How Another’s Decisions Shape Our Own," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(2), pages 363-381.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucad007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bella Rozenkrants & S Christian Wheeler & Baba Shiv & Gita JoharEditor & Derek RuckerAssociate Editor, 2017. "Self-Expression Cues in Product Rating Distributions: When People Prefer Polarizing Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 759-777.
    2. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    3. Mizerski, Richard W, 1982. "An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(3), pages 301-310, December.
    4. Rajesh Bagchi & Derick F. Davis, 2012. "$29 for 70 Items or 70 Items for $29? How Presentation Order Affects Package Perceptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 62-73.
    5. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    6. Keith Wilcox & Beth Vallen & Lauren Block & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2009. "Vicarious Goal Fulfillment: When the Mere Presence of a Healthy Option Leads to an Ironically Indulgent Decision," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 380-393.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:oup:jecgeo:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Dixon, Darcie & Mikolon, Sven, 2021. "Cents of self: How and when self-signals influence consumer value derived from choices of green products," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 365-386.
    3. Tiefenbeck, Verena & Staake, Thorsten & Roth, Kurt & Sachs, Olga, 2013. "For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 160-171.
    4. Huang, Yunhui & Zhang, Y. Charles, 2016. "The Out-of-Stock (OOS) Effect on Choice Shares of Available Options," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 13-24.
    5. Kettle, Keri L. & Mantonakis, Antonia, 2024. "Look for the signature: Using personal signatures as extrinsic cues promotes identity-congruent behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    7. Garaus, Marion & Wagner, Udo, 2016. "Retail shopper confusion: Conceptualization, scale development, and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3459-3467.
    8. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Asuamah Yeboah, Samuel, 2023. "Sustaining Change: Unravelling the Socio-cultural Threads of Sustainable Consumption," MPRA Paper 117981, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jun 2023.
    10. Nathaniel Geiger, 2022. "Perceptions of Self-Motives and Environmental Activists’ Motives for Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-12, August.
    11. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    12. Chadwick J. Miller & Daniel C. Brannon & Jim Salas & Martha Troncoza, 2021. "Advertising, incentives, and the upsell: how advertising differentially moderates customer- vs. retailer-directed price incentives’ impact on consumers’ preferences for premium products," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1043-1064, November.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Ajla Cosic & Hana Cosic & Sebastian Ille, 2018. "Can nudges affect students' green behaviour? A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 107-111, March.
    15. Sarah Verdonk & Keri Chiveralls & Drew Dawson, 2017. "Getting Wasted at WOMADelaide: The Effect of Signage on Waste Disposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Wang, Le & Luo, Xin (Robert) & Li, Han, 2022. "Envy or conformity? An empirical investigation of peer influence on the purchase of non-functional items in mobile free-to-play games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 308-324.
    17. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Le Thi Dieu Hien & Khuu Ngoc Huyen & Thi Hong Loc Hoang, 2023. "Factors Affecting Energy-Saving Intentions among Youth in Vietnam," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(6), pages 603-609, November.
    19. Ingo Balderjahn & Dennis Appenfeller, 2023. "A Social Marketing Approach to Voluntary Simplicity: Communicating to Consume Less," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Xuan Yang & Xiao Li & Daning Hu & Harry Jiannan Wang, 2021. "Differential impacts of social influence on initial and sustained participation in open source software projects," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1133-1147, September.
    21. Zhang, Jason Q. & Craciun, Georgiana & Shin, Dongwoo, 2010. "When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1336-1341, December.
    22. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.