IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v52y2025i1p135-156..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B. Are They Wrong?

Author

Listed:
  • Graham Overton
  • Ioannis Evangelidis
  • Joachim Vosgerau

Abstract

We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc.) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings, leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.

Suggested Citation

  • Graham Overton & Ioannis Evangelidis & Joachim Vosgerau, 2025. "People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B. Are They Wrong?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 52(1), pages 135-156.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:135-156.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucae055
    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.

    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:52:y:2025:i:1:p:135-156.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.