To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice

Wan, Echo Wen; Xu, Jing; Ding, Ying

doi:10.1086/674197

Cited by 150 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

169

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings add to the research on how mere presence of other customers influences the focal customer's judgments and decision-making process (e.g., Ariely and Levav, 2000;McFerran et al, 2010;Ratner and Kahn, 2002). Findings of our study also provide additional evidence to support the claim that environmental and contextual factors can induce an individual's situational need to belong and need to be unique (e.g., Loveland et al, 2010;Maimaran and Wheeler, 2008;Wan et al, 2014;Zhu and Argo, 2013).…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Therefore, when feeling overly similar to others, people tend to behave in ways that make them feel differentiated (Byrne and Griffitt, 1969;Fromkin, 1968;Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). More central to the current study, previous research shows that consumers can signal their uniqueness to others through consumption choices, specifically, by preferring distinctive products or products that a minority of people prefer (Ames and Iyengar, 2005;Berger and Heath, 2007;Chan et al, 2012;Lynn and Harris, 1997;Mead et al, 2011;Tian et al, 2001;Wan et al, 2014;Xu et al, 2012). It has been observed that people exhibit divergent behaviors in order to increase social distance and establish uniqueness (Berger and Heath, 2007;Chan et al, 2012;Xu et al, 2012).…”

Section: Need To Belong and Need To Be Uniquementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Need to belong was measured by asking the participants the extent to which they agree or disagree with 10 statements (Leary et al, 2013;Loveland et al, 2010), for example, "I want other people to accept me," "I have a strong 'need to belong'," and "It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in other people's plans" (Cronbach's ˛ = .90). Need to be unique was captured using a three-item scale (Lynn and Harris, 1997;Wan et al, 2014), including "Being distinctive is important to me," "I intentionally do things to make myself different from those around me," and "I have a need for uniqueness" (Cronbach's ˛ = .91). These two scales were used in prior research to measure situational need to belong (see Loveland et al, 2010) and situational need to be unique (see Wan et al, 2014) following an experimental manipulation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Need to be unique was captured using a three-item scale (Lynn and Harris, 1997;Wan et al, 2014), including "Being distinctive is important to me," "I intentionally do things to make myself different from those around me," and "I have a need for uniqueness" (Cronbach's ˛ = .91). These two scales were used in prior research to measure situational need to belong (see Loveland et al, 2010) and situational need to be unique (see Wan et al, 2014) following an experimental manipulation. We adopted the two scales entirely without adding or deleting items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ethnic dining: Need to belong, need to be unique, and menu offering

Liu

Mattila

2015

International Journal of Hospitality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Need To Belong and Need To Be Uniquementioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ethnic dining: Need to belong, need to be unique, and menu offering

Liu

Mattila

2015

International Journal of Hospitality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Excluded consumers have been found to seek uniqueness (Wan, Xu, and Ding 2014;Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001), take more risks (Duclos, Wan, and Jiang 2013), and exhibit more switching behavior (Su et al 2017), all in the service of restoring their self-view. All of these effects could explain switching from the status quo (e.g., the United Kingdom as a member of the European Union) to an unknown future (Brexit).…”

Section: Why Do People Sometimes Vote Against Their Self-interest?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Dahl¹,

Fischer²,

Johar³

et al. 2017

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains the emergence of nativist and populist movements across the globe? From the election of Donald Trump to the vote for Brexit, pundits wonder how and why these unforeseen outcomes came to pass. Why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Why do people sometimes vote against their self-interest? And why do people fall prey to fake news and believe seemingly outrageous claims? In this, our last editorial, we claim that some answers to these questions can be found in the pages of this journal-in articles published in JCR 1. While JCR welcomes and publishes many different types of papers, it has traditionally focused on theory building, and our goal in this article is to show how rich and robust theoretical work-uncovering the "why" behind effects-can help us explain and understand events. In our view, such understanding remains a key goal of science, even though immediate practical application of many JCR papers may not seem obvious.We will address the first two questions relying on the literatures on optimism, motivated reasoning and forgetting, survey and prediction pool biases, the affective bases for decisions, and the potential for social performance and media influence. Then we turn to a critical question that looms large and could provoke undesired consequences: how do people determine whether a claim is true? WHY WERE PEOPLE SO SURPRISED ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF THESE ELECTIONS?In the days leading up to the 2016 Brexit and US presidential elections, many people actively tracked and attended to political polls and models. On November 8, 2016-Election Day in the United States-"The Upshot" column writers in the New York Times predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning the presidency. On June 23, 2016, the day of the UK Brexit referendum, betting markets predicted an 88% chance that "remain" would win. After the outcomes of those elections were revealed, many expressed shock and wondered why the opinion polls were so wrong. While most polls did indicate a greater probability of Clinton beating Trump and "remain" beating "exit," polls also measure variation, and these polls indicated enough variation that the alternative outcomes should not have been so surprising. For example, on Election Day in the United States, the legendary Nate Silver's poll-analysis blog FiveThirtyEight predicted a 71% chance for the Democrats to win the presidency. Thus, Silver also predicted a non-negligible, nearly 30% chance that Trump would win. In the United Kingdom, during the month leading up to the Brexit vote, nearly the same number of surveys gave "exit" the edge as gave "remain" the edge (17 of 35 surveys conducted in June 2016 indicated "exit" had the edge), suggesting either outcome had a realistic possibility of occurring.So why were people so surprised about these outcomes? Research published in this journal (and elsewhere) has shown that people are unrealistically optimistic about themselves (Tanner and Carlson 2009) and that they engage in motivated reasoning (Jain and Maheswaran 2000). I...

show abstract

Money Versus Time: The Effects of Social Media Exclusion on Mental Construal and Donation Behaviors

Li,

Zhang,

2024

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of social media platforms has ushered in a new era in which online media interactions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have largely supplanted traditional means of interpersonal interaction. This has resulted in problems such as cyberbullying and social exclusion. Previous research has indicated that people who feel socially excluded react more positively to altruistic behaviors, which could effectively restore connection and happiness from the exclusion. This study investigates two distinct types of social media exclusion (being rejected vs. being ignored) to determine their subsequent donation preferences (money vs. time). In three substudies, this study explores donation behaviors and demonstrates that people who feel socially rejected (ignored) react more positively to the donation of money (time). Study 1 reveals that being rejected (ignored) by social media leads people to form low (high)‐level mental construals, resulting in preferences for the donation of money (time). Study 2 examines how matching the exclusion type with the abstractness of appeals (abstract vs. concrete) affects donation preference. Similarly, Study 3 demonstrates the matching effects of exclusion type and the temporal distance of appeals (current vs. future) on subsequent charitable behaviors. Charitable fundraisers are advised to align their charitable appeals with people's construal levels to help these excluded media users not only reconnect their belonging with the community but also recover their happiness after the exclusion experiences.

show abstract

To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice

Cited by 150 publications

References 42 publications

Ethnic dining: Need to belong, need to be unique, and menu offering

Ethnic dining: Need to belong, need to be unique, and menu offering

Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens

Money Versus Time: The Effects of Social Media Exclusion on Mental Construal and Donation Behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About