IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v115y2011i1p121-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference, projection, and packing: Support theory models of judgments of others' preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Brenner, Lyle
  • Bilgin, Baler

Abstract

People frequently need to predict the preferences of others. Such intuitive predictions often show social projection, in which one's own preference for an option increases its perceived popularity among others. We use support theory to model social projection in the prediction of preferences, and in particular interactions between social projection and description-dependence. Preferred options are predicted to have consistently high salience, and therefore should be less susceptible to description variations, such as unpacking, which normally affect option salience. This preference salience premise implies an interaction between social projection and option description, with reduced unpacking effects for hypotheses including preferred options, or equivalently, with reduced social projection when less-liked alternatives are unpacked. Support theory models accommodating different preference-dependent unpacking effects are tested. These models distinguish two substantial contributors to social projection effects: (a) greater evidence recruited for preferred options and (b) greater discounting of packed less-preferred options.

Suggested Citation

  • Brenner, Lyle & Bilgin, Baler, 2011. "Preference, projection, and packing: Support theory models of judgments of others' preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 121-132, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:115:y:2011:i:1:p:121-132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(10)00112-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Childers, Terry L & Rao, Akshay R, 1992. "The Influence of Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(2), pages 198-211, September.
    2. Hoch, Stephen J, 1988. "Who Do We Know: Predicting the Interests and Opinions of the American Consumer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 315-324, December.
    3. Andrew D. Gershoff & Ashesh Mukherjee & Anirban Mukhopadhyay, 2008. "What's Not to Like? Preference Asymmetry in the False Consensus Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 119-125, November.
    4. David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.
    5. Dawes, Robyn M. & Mulford, Matthew, 1996. "The False Consensus Effect and Overconfidence: Flaws in Judgment or Flaws in How We Study Judgment?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 201-211, March.
    6. Koehler, Derek J., 1996. "A Strength Model of Probability Judgments for Tournaments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 16-21, April.
    7. West, Patricia M, 1996. "Predicting Preferences: An Examination of Agent Learning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(1), pages 68-80, June.
    8. Bearden, William O & Etzel, Michael J, 1982. "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(2), pages 183-194, September.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    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. Vishal Narayan & Vithala R. Rao & Carolyne Saunders, 2011. "How Peer Influence Affects Attribute Preferences: A Bayesian Updating Mechanism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 368-384, 03-04.
    2. Kim, Juran & Kang, Seungmook & Lee, Ki Hoon, 2021. "Evolution of digital marketing communication: Bibliometric analysis and network visualization from key articles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 552-563.
    3. Fong, Cher-Min & Chang, Hsing-Hua Stella & Lin, Mong-Ching & Chen, I-Hung, 2022. "Reexamining emerging market animosity toward western developed countries: A social dilemma in physical retailing consumption under normative influence," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    4. Lasarov, Wassili & Mai, Robert & Hoffmann, Stefan, 2022. "The backfire effect of sustainable social cues. New evidence on social moral licensing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Pescher, Christian & Spann, Martin, 2014. "Relevance of actors in bridging positions for product-related information diffusion," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1630-1637.
    6. Egan, Daniel & Merkle, Christoph & Weber, Martin, 2014. "Second-order beliefs and the individual investor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 652-666.
    7. Gentina, Elodie & Butori, Raphaëlle & Heath, Timothy B., 2014. "Unique but integrated: The role of individuation and assimilation processes in teen opinion leadership," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 83-91.
    8. Weiss-Cohen, Leonardo & Ayton, Peter & Clacher, Iain & Thoma, Volker, 2022. "Pension scheme trustees as surrogate decision makers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    9. Daniel Villanova, 2019. "The extended self, product valuation, and the endowment effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(3), pages 357-371, December.
    10. Wilfred Amaldoss & Sanjay Jain, 2008. "—Trading Up: A Strategic Analysis of Reference Group Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 932-942, 09-10.
    11. Barry Z. Cynamon & Steven M. Fazzari, 2016. "Inequality, the Great Recession and slow recovery," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 373-399.
    12. Juliet Schor, 1998. "A Structural Critique of Consumption: Inequality, Globalization and the Aspirational Gap," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-1998-17, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    13. Endo, Seiji & Yang, Jun & Park, JungKun, 2012. "The investigation on dimensions of e-satisfaction for online shoes retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 398-405.
    14. Sammon, Rachel & Kwon, Kyoung-Nan, 2015. "Host׳s interpersonal influence on guests in a home sales party," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 32-38.
    15. Veloutsou, Cleopatra & Moutinho, Luiz, 2009. "Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 314-322, March.
    16. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada, 2005. "Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 997-1019, June.
    17. Hogg, Margaret K. & Banister, Emma N. & Stephenson, Christopher A., 2009. "Mapping symbolic (anti-) consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 148-159, February.
    18. Jing Wang & Anocha Aribarg & Yves F. Atchadé, 2013. "Modeling Choice Interdependence in a Social Network," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 977-997, November.
    19. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2002. "Income and Well-being," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-019/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Yongbo Sun & Jiajia Zhang, 2019. "Acquiescence or Resistance: Group Norms and Self-Interest Motivation in Unethical Consumer Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, April.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:115:y:2011:i:1:p:121-132. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.