How Power States Influence the Persuasiveness of Top‐Dog versus Underdog Appeals

Abstract

Although both top‐dog and underdog positioning appeals are widely used in marketing and advertising, little is known about which strategy is more effective in persuading consumers. By introducing a sense of power, a social variable that is inherently relevant to the nature of the top‐dog versus underdog classification, we propose that consumers' responses to these two appeals are influenced by their psychological experience of power. Specifically, low‐power consumers will respond to top‐dog appeals more favorably because associating with top dogs facilitates power restoration. In contrast, high‐power consumers will respond to underdog appeals more favorably because supporting underdogs facilitates power expression. In four experimental studies, we provide consistent support for our main predictions as well as the underlying processes. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate the differential effect of consumers' power states on their attitudes toward top‐dog versus underdog appeals. Providing process evidence, Studies 3 and 4 identify boundary conditions under which the basic effect was eliminated. These findings contribute to the persuasion literature and power research and provide important implications for positioning strategy and advertisement development.

Effect of underdog (vs topdog) brand storytelling on brand identification: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms

“…In the specific business context, this disadvantaged background could be the humble beginnings of the founder (Paharia et al , 2011; Kao, 2019), deficiencies in resources, abilities and opportunities (Kao, 2015), a weak market stand or low market share (Avery et al , 2010) or a combination of all of these (McGinnis and Gentry, 2009). In any of these cases, the underdog brand is viewed as a loser or predicted loser in a struggle because it is disadvantaged and less privileged in relation to a brand (the topdog brand), which is well endowed with resources and enjoys a position of authority that makes it likely to win (Jin and Huang, 2019). Underdog brand storytelling illustrates this competitive disadvantage and the underdogs indomitable will, determination, hopes and dreams of defeating the odds.…”

“…Another future line of research that is worthy of being analyzed is to test whether stable personal characteristics such as nostalgia, hope or materialism (McGinnis et al , 2017), the prosocial orientation of consumers (Han and Kim, 2019) and their high or low sense of power (Jin and Huang, 2019) also condition the effectiveness of one type of plot over the other.…”

“…From a managerial point of view, the distinction between underdog and topdog brands is rooted in the hierarchical structure of the market and the disparity of power among competitors (Jin and Huang, 2019). Industries are full of examples of underdog brands that appeal to their humble origins (e.g.…”

The Challenge of Being a Challenger: Social Dominance Orientation Shapes the Impact of “Challenger vs. Leader” Comparisons

“…If so, then these consumers may respond positively to the re‐ordering of the category hierarchy implied by “challenger vs. leader” comparisons when changes to the status quo are seen as warranted. As one example, research has documented positive responses associated with underdog brand biographies that highlight a brand's perseverance, effort, and determination to succeed and overcome resource constraints and other obstacles in the marketplace (Jin & Huang, 2019; Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011). Such appeals have been shown to be particularly effective among consumers who view themselves as underdogs (Paharia et al., 2011).…”

Shape–Trait Consistency: The Matching Effect of Consumer Power State and Shape Preference

“…Power is defined as “asymmetric control over valued resources in a social relationship” (Galinsky et al, 2008 , 2015 ). Previous research has shown the power state has an important impact on a variety of consumer behaviors (Jin and Huang, 2018 ). However, existing research on the power state in consumer behavior areas mainly focuses on consumer persuasion (Dubois et al, 2016 ; Jin and Huang, 2018 ), compensatory consumption (Dubois et al, 2012 ), and behavior related to money and price (Garbinsky et al, 2014 ), which rarely provide direct guidance information for product design.…”