IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v51y2024i2p276-297..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Top Rated or Best Seller? Cultural Differences in Responses to Attitudinal versus Behavioral Consensus Cues

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron J Barnes
  • Sharon Shavitt

Abstract

Marketers commonly use consensus cues about others’ behavioral choices (“best seller”) or their attitudes (“top rated”) when labeling products. This article suggests that the effectiveness of these types of cues may differ across cultures in ways that carry implications for marketing practice. Prior research shows that in contexts that give rise to an interdependent cultural self-construal, choices are often responsive to social expectations rather than personal preferences. We propose that, because interdependents expect such behavioral conformity, cues that convey consensus about others’ choices may be less diagnostic and, thus, less persuasive than cues that convey consensus about others’ attitudes. Five studies examining cultural self-construal in multiple ways, along with two cross-national industry datasets, offer evidence consistent with this reasoning, suggesting that, among interdependents, behavioral consensus cues can actually be less effective than attitudinal ones, reducing persuasion and willingness to pay. However, among independents, because attitudes are assumed to influence behavioral choices, whether the consensus cue is attitudinal or behavioral makes little difference.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron J Barnes & Sharon Shavitt, 2024. "Top Rated or Best Seller? Cultural Differences in Responses to Attitudinal versus Behavioral Consensus Cues," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 51(2), pages 276-297.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:51:y:2024:i:2:p:276-297.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucad074
    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.

    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:51:y:2024:i:2:p:276-297.. 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.