Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 483–494 | Cite as

Effectiveness of Consensus Information in Advertising: The Moderating Roles of Situational Factors and Individual Differences

  • Chingching Chang



This study aims to investigate the influence of both individual consumer differences and the purchase decision context on the effectiveness of consensus information in advertising.


Three experiments explore the effectiveness of consensus information. In Experiment 1, gender serves as a moderator. Experiment 2 contains an examination of the susceptibility to interpersonal influence (SII) and purchase decision context as two potential moderators. Finally, Experiment 3 instead explores the need for cognitive closure (NFC) but again includes the purchase decision context as the two possible moderators.


In Experiment 1, female participants, but not male participants, generate higher purchase intentions for ads with consensus cues as opposed to those without them. With Experiment 2, this study demonstrates that the effectiveness of consensus cues increases for a group (vs. personal) purchase decision, but only for people with high susceptibility to individual influence. In Experiment 3, the effectiveness of consensus cues is relatively greater for a group (vs. personal) purchase decisions, but only for consumers with a high NFC.


Understanding what moderates the effectiveness of consensus information in advertising has the potential to help practitioners apply consensus information more effectively to improve their advertising returns.


This study provides initial evidence about the impact of consensus information in advertising on purchase intentions, which is contingent on the situational context and individual differences.


Advertising Consensus Informational social influence Need for closure Susceptibility to interpersonal influence 


  1. Aaker, J. L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Areni, C. S., Ferrell, M. E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2000). The persuasive impact of reported group opinions on individuals low vs. high in need for cognition: Rationalization vs. biased elaboration. Psychology & Marketing, 17(10), 855–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedicktus, R. L., Brady, M. K., Darke, P. R., & Voorhees, C. M. (2010). Conveying trustworthiness to online consumers: Reactions to consensus, physical store presence, brand familiarity, and generalized suspicion. Journal of Retailing, 86, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, B., & Smithies, R. H. (1991). Taste claims and their substantiation. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(3), 19–36.Google Scholar
  7. Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion: The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. Human Communication Research, 10(2), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, C. (2007). Diagnostic advertising content and individual differences: Testing a resource-matching perspective with a Taiwanese sample. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. B., & Golden, E. (1972). Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronley, M., Posavac, S. S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F. R., & Kellaris, J. (2005). A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risks and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H. (1969). Sex differences in the relationship between self-esteem and susceptibility to social influence. Journal of Personality, 37, 581–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H. (1978). Social differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houghton, D. C., & Grewal, R. (2000). Please, let’s get an answer—Any answer: Need for consumer cognitive closure. Psychology and Marketing, 17(11), 911–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kardes, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Cronley, M. L., & Houghton, D. C. (2002). Consideration set overevaluation: When impossibly favorable ratings of a set of brands are observed. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khare, A., Labrecque, L. I., & Asare, A. K. (2011). The assimilative and contrastive effects of word-of-mouth volume: An experimental examination of online consumer ratings. Journal of Retailing, 87, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein, C. T. F., & Webster, D. M. (2000). Individual differences in argument scrutiny as motivated by need for cognitive closure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 119–129.Google Scholar
  24. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990a). Lay epistemics theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990b). Motivation for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 333–368). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(5), 834–842.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lalwani, A. K. (2002). Interpersonal orientation of spouses and household purchase decisions: The case of restaurants. The Service Industries Journal, 22(1), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lalwani, A. K. (2009). The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on cultural differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marcous, J., Filiatrault, P., & Cheron, E. (1997). The attitudes underlying preferences of young urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in western countries. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender and thought (pp. 100–127). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsh, C. (1984). Back on the bandwagon: The effect of opinion polls on public opinion. Journal of Political Science, 15, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  42. Mehta, S. C., Lalwani, A. K., & Ping, L. (2001). Reference group influence and perceived risk in services among working women in Singapore: A replication and extension. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morwitz, V. G., & Pluzinski, C. (1996). Do polls reflect opinions or do opinions reflect polls? The impact of political polling on voters’ expectations, preferences, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 83, 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1992). Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence and attributional sensitivity. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Price, L. L., & Feick, L. F. (1984). The role of interpersonal sources in external search: An informational perspective. In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 250–255). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  48. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risks reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35, 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silvera, D. H., Lavack, A. M., & Kropp, F. (2008). Impulse buying: The role of affect, social influence, and subjective wellbeing. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Speck, P. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues Research and Advertising, 13, 1–44.Google Scholar
  51. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vermeir, I., Kenhove, P. V., & Hendrick, H. (2002). The influence of need for closure on consumer’s choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J. C., & Charkraborty, G. (2000). Alternative modes of self-construal: Dimensions of connectedness–separateness and advertising appeals to the cultural and gender-specific self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness–connectedness self-schema: Scale development and application to message construction. Psychology and Marketing, 14(2), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. West, P. M., & Broniarczyk, S. (1998). Integrating multiple opinion: The role of aspiration level on consumer response to critic consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 15–32.Google Scholar
  58. Zhang, S., Kardes, F. R., & Cronley, M. L. (2002). Comparative advertising: Effects of structural alignability on target brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations