IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v42y2015i3p458-471..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Faraji-Rad
  • Bendik M. Samuelsen
  • Luk Warlop

Abstract

Prior literature has proposed two process explanations for the positive effect of source similarity (i.e., similarity between adviser and advice taker) on persuasion. One explanation is that similar others are perceived to have preferences that are correlated with one’s own, and this makes their advice more diagnostic. The other is that similar others are liked more so people follow their advice to maintain connectedness with them. We propose a more general explanation that incorporates the advice taker’s processing goals. To process any advice, advice takers activate a mentalizing goal, which is to understand the adviser’s mental states. Similarity creates a perception of such an understanding and induces a feeling of certainty (i.e., a feeling of knowing) that validates the advice as a decision input and increases persuasion. A mentalizing explanation accounts for the effect even when similarity cannot lead to perceptions of correlated preferences or to interpersonal liking. Four studies show that the effect attenuates if advice takers are less likely to mentalize, are already primed to feel certain, or misattribute their feeling of certainty to a source other than the advice. Furthermore, the feeling of certainty emanating from similarity even influences decisions unrelated to the advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Faraji-Rad & Bendik M. Samuelsen & Luk Warlop, 2015. "On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(3), pages 458-471.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:42:y:2015:i:3:p:458-471.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucv032
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jillian Alderman & S. Jane Jollineau, 2020. "Can Audit Committee Expertise Increase External Auditors' Litigation Risk? The Moderating Effect of Audit Committee Independence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 717-740, June.
    2. Gao, Yixing (Lisa) & Mattila, Anna S., 2017. "The impact of stereotyping on consumers' food choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 80-85.
    3. repec:oup:jecgeo:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:426-446. is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Boris Bartikowski & Fernando Fastoso & Heribert Gierl, 2021. "How Nationalistic Appeals Affect Foreign Luxury Brand Reputation: A Study of Ambivalent Effects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(2), pages 261-277, March.
    5. Essig, Richard A., 2024. "The preference for users to experts in the domain of online product ratings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Wien, Anders Hauge & Peluso, Alessandro M., 2021. "Influence of human versus AI recommenders: The roles of product type and cognitive processes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-27.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:42:y:2015:i:3:p:458-471.. 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.