Playing It Safe: Susceptibility to Normative Influence and Protective - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228854596

Playing It Safe: Susceptibility to Normative Influence and Protective Self‐ Presentation

Article in Journal of Consumer Research · December 2004

DOI: 10.1086/425089

CITATIONS

65

READS

661

1 author: David B. Wooten University of Michigan

18 PUBLICATIONS 612 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David B. Wooten on 20 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Playing it Safe: Susceptibility to Normative Influence and Protective Self-Presentation David B. Wooten University of Michigan Business School Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234 Phone: (734) 764-1390 Fax: (734) 764-2557 Email: dbwooten@umich.edu Americus Reed II The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6371 Phone: (215) 898-0651 Fax: (215) 898-2534 Email: amreed@wharton.upenn.edu

2

Playing it Safe: Susceptibility to Normative Influence and Protective Self-Presentation Three studies examine the relationship between susceptibility to normative influence (SNI) and self-presentation style. Study 1 suggests that higher SNI is associated with greater responsiveness to protective messages, but only for messages pertaining to conspicuous benefits. Study 2 replicates the finding that consumers who are highly susceptible to normative influence are more concerned about self-protection than are their low SNI counterparts. Study 3 suggests that SNI is inversely related to tendencies to unrealistically deny negative characteristics about the self, unrelated to tendencies to unrealistically attribute positive traits to the self, and inversely related to participants’ tendencies to portray themselves more favorably than others. Overall, these findings suggest that SNI reflects a protective style of self-presentation characterized by avoidance of assailable self-presentations that are likely to garner social disapproval.

3

Concerns about the social implications of consumption often affect consumer

• behavior. People self-symbolize with products (Solomon 1983), covet prestige brands

(Levy 1959), and accept consumption influence from others (Stafford 1966), especially for conspicuous products (Bearden and Etzel 1982). Savvy marketers exploit consumers’ desires to self-symbolize by using image appeals to promote their products (Snyder and DeBono 1985). Advertising messages convey idealized images that heighten consumers’ aspirations by emphasizing the social costs of falling short of these ideals (Richins 1991). Two classic advertising campaigns for liquid detergents typify the use of social consequences to persuade consumers. In one campaign, the manufacturer of a brand of dish detergent promoted its product by portraying spotless dishes as “nice reflections” on

• homemakers. In the other campaign, the producer of a laundry detergent touted the

product’s ability to protect consumers from embarrassing rings of dirt around their

• collars. Both campaigns suggest that the self is implicated when consumers make

product choices. In addition, both campaigns position mundane, inconspicuous commodities as tools that enable consumers to achieve self-presentational goals. However, the two campaigns characterize qualitatively different ways by which social actors attempt to manage interpersonal impressions. Arkin (1981) differentiated between acquisitive and protective self-presentation styles as efforts to garner approval or avoid disapproval, respectively. The former approach involves efforts to receive positive attributions from others (Roth, Snyder, and Pace 1986) or be viewed in terms of desired self-images (e.g., Carver, Lawrence, and Scheier 1999) in service of esteem or approval goals. The latter involves efforts to avoid

4

negative characterizations (Roth et al. 1986), undesired self-images (Ogilvie 1987), or stigmatized identities (Goffman 1963) that result in losses in esteem or approval. Individuals differ in their use of the two approaches and various personality inventories capture these differences, most notably measures that tap self-confidence or approval seeking tendencies (Arkin 1981). Consumers’ susceptibility to normative influence (SNI), defined as the need to identify with others or enhance one’s image with products and brands or the willingness to conform to others’ expectations regarding purchase decisions (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989), may fit a class of personality inventories referenced by Arkin (1981) as predictive of self-presentation style. Previous findings suggest that SNI reflects concerns about salient standards, especially in public settings. Those who are more susceptible to normative influence can be more easily persuaded to join others in support of a boycott (Sen, Gurhan-Canli, and Morwitz 2001). They also value conspicuous product attributes more than do their low SNI counterparts (Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001). Despite evidence of its predictive validity, consumer researchers have underutilized this important construct (Batra et al. 2001). We address this gap with three studies that examine SNI as a predictor of self- presentation style. This investigation is less concerned with social influence processes, per se, than with the effects of influenceability on self-presentation style. The potential contribution of this investigation is threefold. First, this research can potentially contribute to the impression management literature, especially efforts to identify individual difference variables that predict differences in self-presentation style (e.g.,

5

Wolfe, Lennox, and Cutler 1986). Second, by examining a previously unexplored consequence of SNI, this research expands the body of evidence necessary to validate an important but under researched construct (Batra et al. 2001). “Construct validation ideally requires a pattern of consistent findings involving different researchers using different theoretical structures across a number of different studies,” (Carmines and Zeller 1979, p. 24). Third, this research attempts to extend previous findings that link normative influence to social visibility (e.g., Bearden and Etzel 1982) by investigating SNI in the context of privately consumed products with publicly observable consequences. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO NORMATIVE INFLUENCE AND THE PROSPECT OF SURVEILLANCE Bearden et al. (1989) extended McGuire’s (1968) research on individual differences in influenceability by developing a scale to capture the multi-dimensionality reflected in studies of interpersonal influences on consumption (e.g., Park and Lessig 1977). The 12-item scale measures normative and informational influence, the two dimensions of social influence originally proposed by Deutsch and Gerard (1955). Because we are interested in understanding antecedents of self-presentation style, our research focuses only on the normative dimension, through the SNI construct. Scholars have argued that normative pressures coincide with the presence or prospect of a real or imagined audience. For instance, Cohen and Golden (1972) argued that others must be present to maintain surveillance and impose sanctions in order for a normative influence to occur. Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975) suggested that consumers

6

should be most responsive to normative cues when consumption is visible to others who mediate valued rewards. Bourne (1957, p. 218) argued that “the conspicuousness of a product is perhaps the most general attribute bearing on its susceptibility to reference group influence.” Bourne identified social visibility as an important dimension of conspicuousness objects and argued that brand choice is likely to be salient and therefore susceptible to group influence when products are socially visible. Bearden and Etzel (1982) linked types of influence to dimensions of conspicuousness and found that consumers seek normative cues for decisions about publicly consumed products. Batra et al. (2001) provided additional evidence of a relationship between social visibility and normative influence. They used a measure that was “demonstrably similar” to Bearden et al.’s (1989) scale and found the importance of conspicuous attributes to increase with SNI. High SNI subjects valued socially visible attributes like “attractiveness” (as opposed to less noticeable attributes like “durability”) more than did their low SNI counterparts. SNI is also related to concerns about others’

• pinions, compliance with others’ expectations, and tendencies to emulate others

(Bearden et al. 1989). The importance of public appearances and others’ thoughts and deeds suggests that SNI reflects concerns about managing interpersonal impressions and meeting socially accepted standards. Moreover, the tendency to go along with others suggests a protective self-presentation style (Wolfe et al. 1986). INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-PRESENTATION STYLES Arkin (1981) noted that early examinations of impression management focused almost exclusively on approval-seeking tendencies. Individuals were thought to manage

7

impressions when they desired approval and perceived a high probability of conveying desired impressions. Although there may be multiple means to achieve this end, actors were thought to orient their behaviors toward encouraging others to attribute positive characteristics (Roth, Harris, and Snyder 1988) and desired self-images to them (Carver et al. 1999). This acquisitive style of self-presentation (Arkin 1981), also called self- enhancement (e.g., Wood et al. 1994), is often associated with efforts to stand out from the crowd. Wolfe et al. (1986) equate acquisitive self-presentation with “getting ahead” and its counterpart, protective self-presentation, with “getting along.” Protective self-presentation arises from desires to avoid losing approval or garnering disapproval. Disapproval is likely when actors make unsuccessful attempts to convey desired impressions or they successfully convey impressions that are negatively evaluated by their audiences (Arkin 1981). Actors who desire approval, but doubt their abilities to discern and enact desired impressions behave cautiously to avoid conveying unfavorable impressions that may result in disapproval. They can repudiate undesired impressions (Roth et al. 1986) or make defensible or innocuous impressions that are unlikely to be challenged, disapproved, or even noticed by others (Arkin 1981). For instance, investment managers protect their reputations by following popular wisdom and choosing conventional failures over unconventional successes (Keynes 1936). Indeed, previous research supports the protective nature of conformity. People individuate themselves to achieve gains and conform to avoid losses (Santee and Maslach 1982). Actors who lack confidence in their impression monitoring and construction capabilities often resort to protective self-presentation (Arkin 1981). Various measures

8

that tap negative, self-critical ideation and reflect subjective feelings of interpersonal incompetence and negative performance expectancies coincide with self-protective tendencies (Arkin 1981). Examples include social anxiety (Schlenker and Leary 1982), shyness (e.g., Arkin, Lake, and Baumgardner 1986), and low self-esteem (Brown, Collins, and Schmidt 1988; Wood et al. 1994). Measures specifically relevant to concerns for approval, especially those with items reflecting doubts about interpersonal competence, have also been shown to tap protective interests (Arkin 1981). For instance, Wolfe et al. (1986) argued that the Concern for Appropriateness Scale (CFA) developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984) reflects motives underlying self-protection. The two dimensions of CFA reflect sensitivity to social surroundings and efforts to avoid disapproval – two of the main aspects of protective self-presentation. Like CFA, SNI appears to represent a class of inventories that taps protective

• interests. Characteristics associated with SNI such as need for affiliation, concerns about

self-image, and willingness to conform to others’ expectations have been either shown or hypothesized to coincide with protective self-presentation. Indeed, specific items of the SNI scale reflect a reluctance to act without consulting others, thereby capturing protective responses. In addition, Bearden et al. (1989) found SNI to be correlated with self-esteem and the protective social comparison dimension of CFA, two measures that tap protective interests. Based on this discussion, we expect protective self-presentation to be a function of SNI. In particular, we expect high SNI subjects to respond more favorably to protective messages than their low SNI counterparts, but only when consumption outcomes are conspicuous. If consumption outcomes are not subject to

9

surveillance by others, then self-presentational concerns should not be prevalent and SNI should not necessarily predict responsiveness to protective messages. STUDY 1 We tested this hypothesis in the context of an advertising claims experiment with a 2 (SNI: high vs. low) X 2 (benefit conspicuousness: high vs. low) design. SNI was measured using Bearden et al.’s (1989) 8-item scale and dichotomized by a median split. Benefit conspicuousness was a within-subjects factor with high and low levels determined by a pretest requiring 45 subjects to rate benefit pairs for six product types. Subjects used a 5-point bipolar scale to indicate the extent to which other people would notice one benefit more than the other. Based on the results, we chose the mouthwash category and benefits. Table 1 summarizes the pretest alternatives and results.

• Insert Table 1 about here
• Method

Forty undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory marketing course were recruited to partake in the actual experiment. Participants were scheduled in groups of 10 to engage in an hour-long session involving four ostensibly unrelated research projects. The first task was a “Personality Questionnaire” containing the eight-item SNI Scale (α = .90) and other individual difference measures. We dichotomized SNI for the actual experiment (Mlow = 15.80, Mhigh = 31.25; t38 = 9.37, p < .01). The second and third tasks were unrelated studies of spatial perceptions and background music, respectively. The

10

final task was the “Advertising Claims Experiment” requiring subjects to indicate their relative preferences for two pairs of ad claims. During the experiment, subjects viewed two slides for 90 seconds each. The two slides emphasized different benefits reflecting different levels of conspicuousness. Each slide presented a pair of identical product shots, with a different claim above each one. The two claims on each slide reflected different ways of framing a similar benefit. One claim used acquisitive framing to position the product as enabling the user to achieve a positive outcome. The other claim used protective framing to suggest that product use would prevent a negative outcome. The acquisitive and protective claims for the conspicuous benefit were “freshens your breath” and “prevents bad breath,” respectively. The acquisitive and protective claims for the inconspicuous benefit were “promotes healthy gums” and “prevents gingivitis,” respectively. Presentation order for claims and benefits varied across the four groups of subjects. After viewing each pair of claims, subjects indicated their relative preferences by answering four questions on a five-point scale ranging from (-2: A much more than B) to (+2: B much more than A). Subjects compared claims in terms of their appeal, importance, persuasiveness, and likelihood of success in the marketplace. Responses to these items were combined to form a four-item index, which was internally consistent for the high (α = .94) and low (α = .93) conspicuousness benefits. Results and Discussion We used the full MANOVA model to test for the hypothesized effect of SNI and benefit conspicuousness on reactions to protective messages. The analysis included two

11

• rder variables to control for presentation order of claims and benefits. No significant

effects were associated with either order variable. Our analysis revealed a significant interaction between SNI and conspicuousness (F(1, 32) = 13.33, p < .01, ω2=.24). The data presented in Table 2 show a crossover interaction between SNI and benefit conspicuousness. We predicted that subjects’ who were highly susceptible to normative influence would respond more favorably to protective claims than their low SNI counterparts, but only when the advertised benefit was conspicuous. A separate planned contrast of the repeated measures supports this

• expectation. When the advertised benefit was conspicuous, high SNI subjects responded

more favorably to protective claim than did low SNI subjects (F(1, 32) = 4.15, p < .05, ω2=.08). The same pattern did not hold for the inconspicuous benefit. In fact, high SNI subjects were less likely than low SNI subjects to prefer the protective claim (F(1, 32) = 7.72, p < .01, ω2=.14). Although this unexpected result is not easily explainable, it does not necessarily contradict our theory. Effects of SNI on responses to messages about inconspicuous benefits are not easily attributable to concerns about self-presentation.

• Insert Table 2 about here
• Findings from this experiment support our contention that consumers who are

highly susceptible to normative influence are especially concerned about avoiding negative outcomes that are visible to others. Our finding that some consumers seek to avoid public failures is consistent with previous theorizing that avoiding embarrassment

12

is a powerful social motive (e.g., Goffman 1956; Modigliani 1971) that affects consumer behavior (e.g., Dahl, Manchanda, and Argo 2001; Wilson and West 1981). We can only draw tentative conclusions from this experiment because of limitations associated with our experimental design. Recall that we administered a personality questionnaire before we administered two unrelated experiments and an

• stensibly unrelated advertising claims experiment. Despite our efforts to mask our

intent and reduce the threat of subjects discerning our research hypotheses, there may be the potential for demand bias associated with a within-subjects factor as the key treatment condition (as was the case with the benefit conspicuousness factor in this study). Our dependent variable was a bipolar index of favorability that forced subjects to choose between protective and acquisitive messages. However, the two styles are independent (Arkin et al. 1986). High SNI consumers may actually be more concerned about avoiding disapproval and gaining approval than are their low SNI counterparts. However,

• ur dependent measure precluded this pattern of results. We, therefore, conduct a second

study to address the limitations and extend the findings of Study 1. STUDY 2 Our objectives for Study 2 are threefold. One objective is to replicate the results

• f Study 1 with an experiment designed to eliminate demand bias as an explanation for
• ur findings. The second objective is to extend the results of Study 2 by investigating

whether or not social influence cues would moderate the effect of SNI on subjects’ evaluations of messages that appeal to different self-presentation styles. The third

13

• bjective is to see if the unexpected finding from Study 1 would replicate when responses

to protective and acquisitive messages are allowed to be independent. SNI involves a willingness to conform to others’ expectations (Bearden et al. 1989). Information about others’ expectations should reduce uncertainty, thereby removing an important barrier to impression efficacy (Schlenker and Leary 1982). If individuals who are motivated to make desired impressions can easily discern them, then they should more readily pursue an acquisitive self-presentation style, assuming they believe they can perform the necessary behaviors (Arkin 1981). Accordingly, we test whether normative influence cues moderate the effect of SNI on self-presentation style. In particular, we test whether high SNI subjects respond more favorably to acquisitive messages about conspicuous benefits than do their low SNI counterparts when they believe these noticeable benefits are valued by their peers. Method An advertising claims experiment with a 2 (SNI: high vs. low) X 2 (benefit conspicuousness: high vs. low) X 2 (message framing: protective vs. acquisitive) X 2 (influence cue: normative vs. informational) X 2 (product category: mouthwash vs. soap) design was conducted to test this hypothesis. SNI, benefit conspicuousness, message framing, and influence cue were between-subjects factors; and product category was a within-subjects factor. Product categories were chosen based on pretest results, except soap was substituted as a gender-neutral alternative with similar benefits as skin gel. Two hundred eighty undergraduate students registered for an hour-long session involving four ostensibly unrelated tasks. The first task was a “Personality

14

Questionnaire” containing the eight-item SNI Scale (α = .90) and other individual difference measures. We dichotomized SNI for the actual experiment (Mlow = 15.80, Mhigh = 31.25; t278 = 24.80, p < .01). The second and third tasks were unrelated studies of consumer choice and attitudes, respectively. The final task was the “Advertising Claims Experiment” requiring subjects to evaluate ad claims for two products. The advertising claims experiment was a self-paced task requiring subjects to evaluate two stimuli containing a product shot, positioning claim, and a sub-caption to justify the chosen claim. The two stimuli depicted different product categories. Participants received a booklet corresponding to one of 16 experimental conditions, each reflecting a different combination of four factors: benefit conspicuousness (high or low), message framing (protective or acquisitive), influence cue (normative or informational), and presentation order. The acquisitive and protective claims for the conspicuous mouthwash benefit were “freshens your breath” and “prevents bad breath,” respectively. The acquisitive and protective claims for the inconspicuous mouthwash benefit were “causes healthier gums” and “prevents gingivitis,” respectively. The acquisitive and protective claims for the conspicuous soap benefit were “cleanses your skin” and “prevents blemishes,” respectively. The acquisitive and protective claims for the inconspicuous soap benefit were “moisturizes your skin” and “prevents dryness,”

• respectively. Influence cues were presented in sub-captions beneath the primary ad
• claim. Participants were told either that the benefit was “Rated as the most important

benefit in a recent survey of college students” (normative cue) or that the product was “Clinically proven” to deliver the advertised benefit (informational cue).1

15

After participants saw each stimulus, they were instructed to use a 7-point scale to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about the product claim. Participants evaluated each product claim based on its appeal, importance, persuasiveness, and likelihood of success in the marketplace. Responses to these items were combined to form the dependent measure (α = .80). Participants also answered an

• pen-ended question asking them to justify their evaluations of each product claim.

Results and Discussion We used planned contrasts to test the hypothesized effects of SNI on evaluations

• f protective and acquisitive messages about conspicuous and inconspicuous benefits.

Table 3 summarizes relevant effects in our planned contrast strategy. Our primary prediction was that the effect of SNI on evaluations of protective messages about conspicuous benefits (Effect 1) would be positive and greater (i.e., more positive) than its effects on evaluations of protective messages about inconspicuous benefits (Effect 2), acquisitive messages about conspicuous benefits (Effect 3), and acquisitive messages about inconspicuous benefits (Effect 4). A secondary analysis tested whether normative influence cues would moderate the effect of SNI on evaluations of acquisitive messages about highly conspicuous benefits. This prediction was not supported.2 Moreover, product category and presentation order did not affect any of the planned contrasts, so we collapsed across all three factors in our analysis.

• Insert Table 3 about here

16

Table 4 reports the means and standard deviations for ad evaluations across experimental conditions (broken out by product replicate). An inspection of the means reported in Table 4 shows that our prediction regarding the effects of SNI on evaluations

• f protective and acquisitive messages about conspicuous and inconspicuous benefits was
• supported. First, as SNI increased evaluations of protective claims about conspicuous

benefits also increased (F(1, 264) = 26.85, p < .01, ω2=.08). Second, this effect was larger than the average effect of SNI across the other three conditions (F(1, 264) = 17.36, p < .01, ω2=.06), which were all statistically insignificant (Fs < 1). This pattern of results holds across product replicates, thereby supporting the hypothesized relationship between SNI and self-protection. For both product replicates, higher SNI led to higher evaluations

• f protective messages about conspicuous benefits.
• Insert Table 4 about here
• We also sought to understand the unexpected finding from Study 1. However, we

did not find a significant negative effect of SNI on responses to protective messages about inconspicuous benefits (Effect 2) nor did we find a significant positive effect of SNI on responses to acquisitive messages about inconspicuous benefits (Effect 4). Based

• n these results, we believe that the unexpected finding from Study 1 was an anomaly

caused by our dependent measure forcing subjects to choose between the two self- presentation styles. According to Arkin et al. (1986), the two styles are independent. In Study 1, evaluations of one type of message were dependent on evaluations of the other, thereby violating the criterion of independence.

17

The results of two experiments suggest that aversion to negative attributions increases with SNI. We interpret this aversion as evidence that highly influenceable consumers strive to avoid deviating in the wrong social direction. However, due to the problematic social influence manipulation used in this study, we have evidence that SNI predicts avoidance of negative attributions but no evidence that it predicts adherence to salient standards. Why are high SNI consumers more averse to negative attributions than their low SNI counterparts? Are we correct in attributing this aversion to their desires to avoid garnering disapproval by standing out on the wrong dimensions or do they avoid being characterized in negative terms regardless of what others are doing? For instance, would high SNI consumers worry about preventing bad breath (a negative attribution) if their peers did not care about personal hygiene or if bad breath was not stigmatized? We address these questions in Study 3 by distinguishing efforts to avoid negative attributions per se from attempts to blend in with the crowd; and determine which approach is more closely associated with SNI. STUDY 3 We conducted a correlational study to understand the self-presentational goals of influenceable consumers. In this study, we administered the SNI Scale and Roth et al.’s (1986) 20-item Self-Presentation Scale (SPS) to 88 undergraduate students. The SPS measures individuals’ tendencies to make unrealistically positive self-presentations by either attributing positive but unlikely traits to themselves (attributive tactics) or denying the presence of negative traits that are most likely to be true (repudiative tactics). High scores on either dimension are viewed as evidence of deceptive self-presentation. After

18

we administered the SPS, we asked respondents to indicate the extent to which each SPS item applies to “most people.” We summed the item-by-item differences between their self-perceptions and their perceptions of others in order to ascertain the extent to which respondents were willing to portray themselves as better than others on the two SPS dimensions. If influenceability primarily reflects desires to avoid negative attributions, then SNI should be positively correlated with the use of repudiative tactics and more highly correlated with the repudiative than the attributive dimension of the SPS. On the other hand, if influenceability primarily reflects desires to fit in with others, then SNI should be negatively correlated with both SPS dimensions, especially after controlling for respondents’ perceptions of others. Finally, it is not clear how the relationship between SNI and self-protection would be supported if SNI is positively correlated with the attributive dimension, uncorrelated with the repudiative dimension, and positively correlated with responses that differentiate respondents from others. Results and Discussion Across three studies, SNI exhibited high reliability (α = .90, M = 24.22, SD = 8.78). However, reliabilities for the SPS measures ranged from .54 to .69 and fell below the threshold for satisfactory reliability (α > .70) recommended by Nunnally (1978).3 To address the problem of attenuated relationships involving unreliable measures, we calculated disattenuated correlations between SNI and each measure. The attenuated and disattenuated correlations reported in Table 5 suggest similar conclusions about direction

19

and statistical significance. However, the following discussion involves only disattenuated correlations, which more accurately reflect the magnitude of relationships. The correlations reported in Table 5 provide evidence of self-protection, but fail to support the notion that influenceable consumers avoid negative attributions, per se. SNI is negatively correlated with the use of repudiative tactics (r = -.52, p < .01). These findings suggest that consumers who are easily influenced by others are unlikely to deny negative characteristics that are probably true. In fact the observed correlations suggest that influenceable consumers are more likely to describe themselves in unrealistically positive terms than to deny negative characteristics that probably apply to them. The pattern of correlations is more consistent with the notion that influenceable consumers protect themselves by attempting to blend in with the crowd. Not only is SNI negatively correlated with the use of repudiative tactics, it is also inversely related to tendencies to both deny the presence of unfavorable traits that apply to most people (r = -.53, p < .01) and to describe one’s self with favorable characteristics that do not apply to others (r = - .35, p < .05). In short, compared to their less influenceable counterparts, highly influenceable consumers appear more reluctant to differentiate themselves from others.

• Insert Table 5 about here
• In summary, the results of Study 3 suggest that influenceable consumers do not go
• ut of their way to avoid negative attributions, per se, but they may try to avoid the

negative inferences associated with deviating from salient norms. The observed pattern

• f correlations is consistent with the notion that influenceability is associated with

20

protective self-presentation, especially efforts to blend in by making innocuous self- presentations that are unlikely to be questioned or discounted. Indeed, scholars from various disciplines recognize the protective nature of conformity (e.g., Keynes 1936; Santee and Maslach 1982). GENERAL DISCUSSION This article examined the relationship between influenceability and self- presentation style. Findings from three studies suggest that SNI reflects a protective style

• f self-presentation characterized by efforts to avoid self-presentations that are likely to

be criticized, challenged, or discounted by others. Studies 1 and 2 show that preferences for products that facilitate self-protection (i.e., prevent negative outcomes that are noticeable to others) increase with SNI. Study 3 shows that SNI is inversely related to tendencies to make exaggerated self-presentations, especially those that result in greater differentiation from others. Findings from this study suggest that influenceable consumers are not driven as much by desires to avoid negative attributions per se than by desires to avoid the negative inferences associated with standing out on the wrong

• dimensions. Interestingly, we found no evidence that SNI is related to acquisitive self-

presentation or attributive tactics of self-enhancement. In our studies, SNI appears to be associated with concerns about falling out of favor, but unrelated to desires to gain favor with others. Our findings contribute to psychological research on self-presentation style (e.g., Arkin 1981) in two ways. First by linking SNI to protective self-presentation, our research complements other efforts to identify individual difference variables that predict

21

self-presentation style (e.g., Arkin et al. 1986; Wood et al. 1994). With the exception of Wolfe et al. (1986), few researchers have looked beyond shyness and self-esteem at other individual difference predictors of self-presentation style, in general and protective self- presentation, in particular. Second, our research considers how Roth et al.’s (1986) distinction between attributive and repudiative self-presentation tactics relates to Arkin’s (1981) distinction between acquisitive and protective self-presentation styles. Roth and colleagues (1988) acknowledge a potential correspondence between the two self- presentation tactics and the two self-presentation styles. However, the relationship may not be as straightforward as it appears (Roth et al. 1986). We argue that the propensity to use either tactic is inconsistent with protective self-presentation because each involves unrealistic self-portrayals that are noticeable and contestable. Efforts to repudiate negative attributions are instances of protective self-presentation only when such efforts enable presenters to avoid standing out on the wrong dimensions. Our research also contributes to consumer research on susceptibility to normative influence (e.g., Bearden et al. 1989). We examined the effects of SNI on self- presentation style and uncovered a link between SNI and self-protection. Additional research is needed to further our understanding of influenceable consumers. Our research also contributes to consumer research by demonstrating that SNI can affect consumers’ reactions to products consumed in private settings. Previous studies (e.g., Batra et al. 2001; Bearden and Etzel 1982) have found the effects of SNI to obtain only for products consumed in public settings. However since the prospect of surveillance exists whenever consumption outcomes are easily noticeable, effects of SNI should also obtain for

22

privately consumed products as long as they offer benefits that extend to public settings. Finally, our investigation contributes to consumer research by expanding knowledge about an important measure of influenceability, thereby facilitating further validation of a useful construct. Convergence across studies and researchers is necessary not only to enable construct validation (Carmines and Zeller 1979), but also to enhance the discipline (Hunter 2001; Wells 2001). Our research furthers these goals by moving an important construct closer to fulfilling the criteria of consistency across studies, researchers, and theoretical perspectives.

23

REFERENCES Arkin, Robert M. (1981), “Self-Presentation Styles,” in Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, ed. James T. Tedeschi, New York: Academic Press, 311-333. Arkin, Robert M, Elizabeth A. Lake, and Ann H. Baumgardner (1986), “Shyness and Self-Presentation,” in Shyness: Perspectives on Research and Treatment, eds. Warren H. Jones. Jonathan M. Cheek, and Stephen R. Briggs, New York: Plenum Press, 189-204. Batra, Rajeev, Pamela M. Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Values, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), 115-128. Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194. Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473-481. Bourne, Francis S. (1957), “Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations,” in Some Applications of Behavioral Research, eds. Rensis Likert and Samuel P. Hayes, Jr., Basil, Switzerland: UNESCO, 207-257. Brown, Jonathon D., Rebecca L. Collins, and Greg W. Schmidt (1988), “Self-Esteem and

24

Direct Versus Indirect Forms of Self-Enhancement,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (3), 445-453. Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), “Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 206-215. Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Carver, Carl S., John W. Lawrence, and Michael F. Scheier (1999), “Self-Discrepancies and Affect: Incorporating the Role of Feared Selves,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (July), 783-792. Cohen, Joel B. and Ellen Golden (1972), “Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (1), 54-59. Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo (2001), “Embarrassment in Consumer Purchase: The Roles of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (December), 473-481. Deutsch, Morton and Harold B. Gerard (1955), “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences Upon Individual Judgment,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (November), 624-636. Goffman, Erving (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Goffman, Erving (1956), “Embarrassment and Social Organization,” American Journal

• f Sociology, 62 (3), 264-271.

25

Hunter, John E. (2001), “The Desperate Need for Replications,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 149-158. Keynes, John M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Macmillan. Lennox, Richard D. and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), “Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1349-1364. Levy, Sidney J. (1959), “Symbols for Sale,” Harvard Business Review, 37 (July-August), 117-124. McGuire, William J. (1968), “Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence,” in Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, eds. Edgar F. Borgatta and William W. Lambert, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1130-1187. Modigliani, Andre (1971), “Embarrassment, Facework, and Eye Contact: Testing a Theory of Embarrassment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17 (January), 15-24. Nunnally, Jum C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ogilvie, Daniel M. (1987), “The Undesired Self: A Neglected Variable in Personality Research,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (2), 379-385. Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1977), “Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (September), 102-110. Richins, Marsha L. (1991), “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71-83.

26

Roth, David L., Robert N. Harris, and Charles R. Snyder (1988), “An Individual Differences Measure of Attributive and Repudiative Tactics of Favorable Self- Presentation,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6 (2), 159-170. Roth, David L., Charles R. Snyder, and Lynn M. Pace (1986), “Dimensions of Favorable Self-Presentation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (4), 867- 874. Santee, Richard T. and Christina Maslach (1982), “To Agree or Not to Agree: Personal Dissent Amid Social Pressure to Conform,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (4), 690-700. Schlenker, Barry R. and Mark R. Leary (1982), “Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: Conceptualization and Model,” Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641-669. Sen, Sanker, Zeynep Gurhan-Canli, and Vicki Morwitz (2001), “Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (December), 399-417. Snyder, Mark and Kenneth G. DeBono (1985), “Appeals to Image and Claims about Quality: Understanding the Psychology of Advertising,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (3), 586-597. Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319- 329. Stafford, James E. (1966), “Effects of Group Influence on Consumer Brand Preferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February), 68-75.

27

Wells, William D. (2001), “The Perils of N = 1,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (December), 494-498. Wilson, Aubrey and Christopher West (1981), “The Marketing of Unmentionables,” Harvard Business Review, 59 (January-February), 91-102. Wolfe, Raymond N., Richard D. Lennox, and Brian L. Cutler (1986), “Getting Along and Getting Ahead: Empirical Support for a Theory of Protective and Acquisitive Self-Presentation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 356- 361. Wood, Joanne V., Maria Giordano-Beech, Kathryn L. Taylor, John L. Michela, and Valerie Gaus (1994), “Strategies of Social Comparison Among People with Low Self-Esteem: Self-Protection and Self-Enhancement,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 713-731.

28

TABLE 1 PRETEST TO IDENTIFY CONSPICUOUS PRODUCT BENEFITS Benefit Conspicuousness Product Score Category High Low (SE) Mouthwash Prevents Bad Breath Prevents Gingivitis 1.42a (0.12) Skin Gel Removes Blemishes Prevents Dryness 0.98a (0.18) Detergent Brightens Colors Softens Fabrics 0.93a (0.14) Disinfectant Eliminates Odors Kills Germs 0.49b (0.21) Toothpaste Prevents Cavities Controls Tartar 0.36c (0.19) Medicine Relieves Runny Noses Relieves Nasal Congestion 0.33b (0.16)

• Note. – Scores close to zero reflect no difference in conspicuousness whereas scores

close to 2 indicate large differences.

aSignificant at .01 bSignificant at .05 cSignificant at .10

29

TABLE 2 STUDY 1: SNI, BENEFIT CONSPICUOUSNESS, AND BENEFIT FRAMING Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI) High Low Benefit Conspicuousness Mean SD Mean SD High 0.55 (4.96)

• 2.15

(3.69) Low

• 2.25

(3.73) 1.45 (3.69)

• Note. – Data in the table are based on a median split on SNI. Positive scores on the

dependent measure reflect preference for protective framing and negative scores reflect preference for acquisitive framing.

30

TABLE 3 ILLUSTRATION OF PLANNED CONTRAST DATA ANALYTIC STRATEGY FOR STUDY2 Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI) High Low Protective Frame High Conspicuousness Cell 1 Effect 1 Cell 2

∨

Low Conspicuousness Cell 3 Effect 2 Cell 4 Acquisitive High Conspicuousness Cell 5 Effect 3 Cell 6 Low Conspicuousness Cell 7 Effect 4 Cell 8

• Note. – Each “Effect” is determined by deducting the value of the cell on the right from

the value of the corresponding cell on the left. Effect 1 is hypothesized to be greater than zero and larger than Effects 2-4.

31

TABLE 4 STUDY 2: TABLE OF MEANS (SD) ACROSS EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Stimulus Replicate Mouthwash Soap High SNI Low SNI High SNI Low SNI Protective Frame High Conspicuousness 19.23 (3.52) 14.94 (4.16) 19.86 (3.47) 15.11 (4.06) Low Conspicuousness 16.60 (4.93) 17.11 (4.21) 17.44 (4.34) 17.04 (4.45) Acquisitive Frame High Conspicuousness 16.76 (4.23) 16.15 (4.17) 15.45 (4.72) 13.97 (4.88) Low Conspicuousness 16.50 (3.81) 15.97 (5.01) 16.16 (4.44) 17.18 (4.67)

• Note. – Data in the table are based on a median split on SNI.

32

TABLE 5 STUDY 3: CORRELATIONS OF SPS SCORES WITH SNI Correlation with SNI SPS Measure Mean (SD) Alpha Attenuated Disattenuated Attributive Dimension Unadjusted Score 47.77 (6.68) 0.65

• 0.05
• 0.07

Other-adjusted 11.26 (7.67) 0.54

• 0.25b
• 0.35b

Repudiative Dimension Unadjusted Score 36.94 (8.35) 0.69

• 0.41a
• 0.52a

Other-adjusted 6.66 (6.85) 0.55

• 0.38a
• 0.53a
• Note. – Other-adjusted SPS scores reflect the difference between respondents’ self-

ratings and their perceptions of others. Scores on both dimensions were coded so that higher scores reflect greater differences from others.

aSignificant at .01 bSignificant at .05

33

ENDNOTES

1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this extension and manipulation. 2 The social influence cue slightly moderated the effect of SNI in the acquisitive frame,

but only when the advertised benefit was inconspicuous (F(1, 264) = 4.18, p < .05, ω2=.01). Effect 4 was negative when an informational cue was given and zero when a normative cue was given. In general, subjects responded less favorably to the normative cue than to the informational cue (F(1, 248) = 13.58, p < .01, ω2=.04). Many subjects indicated that the normative cue was inappropriate for products with medicinal benefits. However, high SNI subjects were less averse to the normative cue than were their low SNI counterparts (F(1, 248) = 5.99, p < .05, ω2=.02).

3 Observed reliabilities for the unadjusted SPS dimensions are comparable to the

reliabilities reported in Roth et al. (1986) for the attributive (α = .60) and repudiative (α = .67) dimensions of the 20-item SPS scale. Roth et al. used a true-false response format instead of the 7-point agree-disagree format used in our study.

View publication stats View publication stats